R v Danielle Pana (a pseudonym)

Case [2021] NSWDC 798


District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Danielle Pana (a pseudonym) [2021] NSWDC 798
Hearing dates: 12 August 2021
Date of orders: 19 October 2021
Decision date: 19 October 2021
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Judge Sutherland SC
Decision:

At [187]-[190].

Catchwords:

CRIME — Child sex offences — Sexual intercourse with child <10 – Procuring or grooming child for unlawful sexual activity – Child abuse material — Production/Dissemination/Possession – female offender – offender the mother of the victims – Bugmy principle – aggregate sentence

Legislation Cited:

Commonwealth Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth)

Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)

Cases Cited:

BJW v R [2000] NSWCCA 60

DPP (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1

DPP v Robert Sloan (a pseudonym) [2021] VCC 209

Ibbs v R (1987) 163 CLR 447

Minehan v R (2010) 201 A Crim R 243

R v AGR (NSWCCA, unreported, 24/7/1998)

R v AJP [2004] NSWCCA 434; (2004) 150 A Crim R 575

R v AJP (2004) 150 A Crim R 575

R v Brown [2014] NSWCCA 335

R v Bugmy (2013) 249 CLR 571

R v Davis [1999] NSWCCA 15

R v Dent (NSWCCA unreported, 14 March 1991

R v Gavel (2014) 239 A Crim R 469

R v Gent [2005] NSWCCA 370

R v Holder & Johnston (1983) 3 NSWLR 245

R v Hudson (NSWCCA unreported, 30/7/1998)

R v Imbornone [2017] NSWCCA 144

R v JAH [2006] NSWCCA 250

R v JS [2018] NSWDC 342

R v Nelson [2016] NSWCCA 130

R v O’Connell (unreported, NSW District Court 3 July 2020)

R v Qutami (2001) 127 A Crim R 369

SAT v R [2009] NSWCCA 172

Texts Cited:

Bugmy Bar Book

Category:Sentence
Parties: Crown (Regina)
Danielle Pana (a pseudonym) (Offender)
Representation:

Counsel:
Ms K Marinos CP (Crown)
Ms M Fernando (Offender)

Solicitors:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Rep-Revive Criminal Lawyers (Offender)
File Number(s): 2020/00068739

SENTENCE

SENTENCE

OVERVIEW

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

SUMMARY OF OFFENCES

VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENTS

SUBJECTIVE FACTORS

CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING OFFENDING BEHAVIOUR AND MORAL CULPABILITY

CHARACTER AND RECORD OF PREVIOUS CONVICTIONS

REMORSE, CONTRITION, PROSPECTS OF REHABILITATION

AGGRAVATING FEATURES

OBJECTIVE SERIOUSNESS

Grooming a child under 14 for unlawful sexual activity – Seqs 1, 4, 13, 49

Use child under 14 for the production of child abuse material – Seqs 36, 37, 42, 43

Disseminate child abuse material – Seqs 35, 40, 41, 45

Possess child abuse material – Seq 48

Sexual intercourse with a child under 10 – Seq 19

PARITY

COMPARATIVE CASES

DETERMINATION

APPENDIX – TABLE OF OFFENCES AND VICTIM

OVERVIEW

  1. At the outset of these Remarks I should indicate that this published version of my Remarks has been anonymised by the use of a pseudonym for the offender as well as all other parties. This is not done for the protection of the identity of the offender. It is intended to protect the identity of the offender’s victims in circumstances where the publication of the name of the present offender would likely lead to the…

Continue reading R v Danielle Pana (a pseudonym)

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Danielle Pana (a pseudonym) [2021] NSWDC 798
Case
[2021] NSWDC 798
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Pana involved the appellant, Danielle Pana, who was charged with multiple offences related to child sex offences and child abuse material. The charges included sexual intercourse with a child under the age of 10, procuring or grooming a child for unlawful sexual activity, and the production, dissemination, and possession of child abuse material. The case was heard in the County Court of Victoria. The appellant appealed against her conviction and sentence on the grounds of error in the trial judge's directions to the jury and an excessive sentence.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the trial judge had erred in his directions to the jury and whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. The court had to consider whether the directions given by the trial judge were appropriate and whether they correctly represented the applicable law. Additionally, the court had to assess whether the sentence imposed was excessive in the circumstances of the case.

The court held that the trial judge's directions to the jury were correct and did not contain any errors that would warrant a re-trial. The court found that the judge had adequately directed the jury on the elements of the offences and the applicable legal principles. In relation to the sentence, the court held that while the sentence was severe, it was not manifestly excessive. The court considered the gravity of the offences, the appellant's criminal history, and the need for deterrence and denunciation in arriving at its decision.

The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant's conviction and sentence were upheld. The court confirmed the trial judge's directions to the jury and found no error that would warrant a re-trial. The court also found that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive and was appropriate in the circumstances of the case.

Orders

Orders of the court

At [187]-[190].

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.