R v David John Stevens

Case [2014] NSWDC 167


District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v David John STEVENS [2014] NSWDC 167
Decision date: 01 August 2014
Before: Yehia SC DCJ
Decision:

An aggregate sentence of 10 years is imposed with a non parole period of four years six months.

Catchwords: Sexual assault, rape, gang rape, aiding and abetting rape
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1990
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Parole of Prisoners Act 1966
Cases Cited: AJB v Regina [2007] NSWCCA 51 (5 March 2007)
Catalan 1975 NSWCCA 226
Flaherty & Ors (1968) 89 NSW (as said) 141
Hili v R [2010] 520 CLR 537
Magnuson v R [2013] NSWCCA 50 (1 March 2013)
R v Flaherty & Ors (1968) 3 NSWLR
R v MJR [2010] NSWSC 653 (18 June 2010)
R v Todd [1982] 2 NSWLR 517
Category:Sentence
Parties: Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
David John Stevens
Representation: Mr Robinson for the Crown
Mr Greenhill for the Offender
File Number(s):2013/91176

SENTENCE

  1. HER HONOUR: The offender Mr Stevens pleaded not guilty to nine counts relating to sexual misconduct against the complainant.

  1. On 15 May 2014 the trial commenced in relation to the nine counts on the indictment.

  1. On 27 May 2014 the jury returned verdicts of guilty with respect to counts 1 to 8 inclusive and not guilty on count 9. It is appropriate to note at this early stage that counts 1 to 8 relate to events that all took place on one night between 1 September 1978 and 31 December 1978.

  1. Count 9 related to a separate occasion between 1 February 1980 and 31 August 1980.

  1. Mr Stevens maintained a denial that the events ever took place that night or indeed on any night. The jury's verdict on counts 1 to 8 is however consistent with the rejection of that denial and the acceptance of the complainant's evidence on those counts.

  1. For the purpose of sentencing I make the following findings.

  1. Mr Stevens attended a house-warming party in the south west of Sydney at the home of Julie Caldwell. He was about 19 years old. The victim was also at that party. She was 17 years old.

  1. The offender and victim lived on the same street in Campbelltown, New South Wales, the offender having moved there with his mother and sister in early December 1978.

  1. The offender had been driven to the party by his friend Rudolf Reichel in Mr Reichel's yellow Holden Sandman panel van. The offender and the victim were part of a group who walked outside Julie Caldwell's house at about the same time. Part of this group included Rudolf Reichel, Glen Partridge, Mark Johnson, Edward Lewockie, Susan Thomas and Vickie Chalker.

  1. Julie Caldwell had also walked out of her house and down the driveway. Mr Reichel's Sandman was parked outside. Just after leaving Julie Caldwell's house the offender picked up the victim against her will and placed her into the back of the Sandman. The offender did this for the purpose of having sexual intercourse with her.…

Continue reading R v David John Stevens

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v David John Stevens [2014] NSWDC 167
Case
[2014] NSWDC 167
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Queen versus David John Stevens, the defendant was convicted of sexual assault, rape, gang rape, and aiding and abetting rape. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of South Australia. The defendant was found guilty of multiple counts of sexual assault and rape against a woman, along with aiding and abetting the crimes committed by others.

The primary legal issues in this case concerned the interpretation of the relevant statutory provisions, particularly those relating to sexual assault and rape, and the mens rea required for aiding and abetting such crimes. The court had to determine whether the evidence was sufficient to establish that the defendant had the requisite intent to assist in the commission of the crimes. Additionally, the court needed to weigh the severity of the crimes and determine an appropriate sentence.

The court held that the evidence was sufficient to establish the defendant's involvement in the sexual assault and rape, as well as his role in aiding and abetting the crimes. The court found that the defendant had the necessary intent to assist in the commission of the crimes and that the crimes were of such a serious nature that they warranted a substantial sentence. The court imposed an aggregate sentence of 10 years with a non-parole period of four years and six months. The decision was made considering the gravity of the crimes, the defendant's role, and the need for deterrence and retribution.

Orders

Orders of the court

An aggregate sentence of 10 years is imposed with a non parole period of four years six months.

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.