R v Dawson - [2000] NSWCCA 399

CITATION: R v DAWSON [2000] NSWCCA 399

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60625/99

HEARING DATE(S): 9 October 2000

JUDGMENT DATE:
18 December 2000

PARTIES :

Regina
Khan John Dawson

JUDGMENT OF: Hulme J at 1; Barr J at 64

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 97/11/1068
97/11/1086
98/11/0173

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Freeman DCJ

COUNSEL : Crown: RD Cogswell SC
Appellant: P Byrne SC

SOLICITORS: Crown: SE O'Connor
Appellant: Alan B King

DECISION: Leave to appeal against sentence allowed; Appeal dismissed

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL
No 60625 of 1999

HULME J
BARR J

Monday, 18 December 2000

REGINA -v- Khan DAWSON
JUDGMENT
1 HULME J: On 1 October 1999 the Applicant was sentenced by Judge Freeman in respect of a number of offences. In abbreviated form, they are set out in the following table. Also set out are the sections of the Crimes Act relevant and the maximum penalties prescribed for each offence under that section, and the penalties in fact imposed, together with an indication, where appropriate, of sentences made concurrent.

No Offence Section and max penalty Sentence imposed

1 Between 15 August 1990 and 3 April 1992 having sexual intercourse with LO, then a child aged between 10 and 16, to wit, 14 or 15. s66C - 8 yrs 2 years conc. With 2

2 Between 15 August 1990 and 3 April 1992 having sexual intercourse with LO, then a child aged between 10 and 16, to wit, 14 or 15. s66C - 8 yrs 2 years conc. With 1

3-6 On 26 December 1992 having sexual intercourse without consent with SW, knowing she was not consenting. s61I - 13 yrs Taken into account in offence 12

7 Between 15 August 1990 and 3 April 1992 indecently assaulting LO in circumstances of aggravation namely that she was under 16 years, to wit 14 or 15 years. s61M(b) - 7 yrs Ditto

8 Between 3 January and 1 February 1996 indecently assaulting SM in circumstances of aggravation namely that she was under 16 years, to wit, 14 years old. s61M(b) - 7 yrs Ditto

9 Between 3 March 1996 and 1 June 1996 indecently assaulting SE in circumstances of aggravation namely that she was under 16 years, to wit, 15 years. s61M9b) - 7 yrs Ditto

10 Between 28 February and 1 December 1995 indecently assaulting TD. s61L - 5 yrs 1.5 yrs conc. With 11

11 Between 28 February 1995 and 1 March 1996 indecently assaulting TD. s61L - 5 yrs 1.5 yrs conc. With 10

12 On or about 27 or 28 March 1996 unlawfully administering to TD a stupefying drug viz benzodiazepine with intent to commit an indictable offence namely an indecent assault. s38 - 25 yrs 4 yrs minimum 3 yrs additional

13 Between 1 and 31 January 1997 indecently assaulting RP in circumstances of aggravation, viz. that she was under 16 years, to wit, 14 or 15. s61M - 7 yrs 1 year

14-22 Between December 1996 and March…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v Dawson

Details

AGLC: R v Dawson [2000] NSWCCA 399
Case: [2000] NSWCCA 399
Decision Date: 18 December 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Dawson, the appellant was convicted and sentenced in the District Court for multiple serious sexual offences against children, including sexual intercourse and indecent assault. The Court of Criminal Appeal was asked to review the sentence imposed by the District Court. The appellant argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive and that the sentencing judge failed to properly consider the principle of totality and other factors. The appeal court considered the appellant's arguments and compared the sentence imposed with other similar cases.

The appeal court found that the appellant's sentence was not manifestly excessive and was within the legitimate exercise of the sentencing judge's discretion. The court acknowledged that the appellant's offending was serious and had a significant impact on the victims. The court also noted that the statutory penalties for the offences committed by the appellant were severe, and the sentences imposed reflected the gravity of the offending. Furthermore, the appeal court found that the sentencing judge had properly considered the principle of totality and other relevant factors in imposing the sentence.

In conclusion, the Court of Criminal Appeal dismissed the appeal against the sentence and allowed the appeal against the sentence only to be heard, as the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive and was within the legitimate exercise of the sentencing judge's discretion.

Orders