R v Davidson; ex parte

The respondent pleaded guilty to one count of indecently dealing with a child under 12 years. The court sentenced the respondent to nine months imprisonment, to be served by way of an intensive correction order. The respondent had no criminal history, pleaded guilty to an ex officio indictment, desisted when the complainant asked him to, and the offending was at the lower end of the range of indecent dealing offences. The complainant's father assaulted the respondent, causing him permanent impairment and loss of his livelihood. The respondent sought to appeal the sentence, arguing that the extra-curial punishment, along with other mitigating factors, warranted a non-custodial sentence.

The court considered whether the sentence imposed was a proper one, taking into account the mitigating factors presented. The court noted the respondent's lack of criminal history, his guilty plea, and the fact that he desisted when asked by the complainant. The court also considered the extra-curial punishment the respondent suffered, which caused him permanent impairment and loss of his livelihood. Despite these factors, the court held that the sentence imposed was appropriate and did not warrant a non-custodial sentence. The court found that the sentence reflected the seriousness of the offence and took into account the mitigating factors presented.

The appeal was dismissed, and the sentence imposed by the court below was upheld. The court found that the sentence imposed was appropriate and did not warrant a non-custodial sentence. The court held that the sentence reflected the seriousness of the offence and took into account the mitigating factors presented. The appeal was dismissed, and the sentence imposed by the court below was upheld.