R v Dent - [2005] VSCA 42

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

No. 82 of 2004

THE QUEEN
	v.
SHELLEY ANNE DENT

---

JUDGES:	VINCENT and NETTLE, JJ.A. and CUMMINS, A.J.A.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	3 March 2005
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	3 March 2005
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2005] VSCA 42

---

Criminal law – Sentencing – Sexual offences against a child under 16 years – Reckless conduct endangering life – Common assault – Whether sentence of five years with a non-parole period of two years manifestly excessive – Relevance of appellant’s mental condition to penalty imposed. Sentencing Act 1991 s.80.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr C.B. Boyce	Mr. S. Carisbrooke, Acting Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Appellant	Mr P.G. Priest with Mr M.J. Croucher	Victoria Legal Aid

VINCENT, J.A.:

I will invite Nettle, J.A. to deliver the first judgment in this matter.

NETTLE, J.A.:

This is an appeal against a total effective sentence of five years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of two years imposed on the appellant in respect one representative count of recklessly engaging in conduct which placed a child in danger of death (count 1), two counts of sexual penetration of a child under the age of 16 (counts 2 and 3) and two counts of assault on a child (counts 4 and 5), to all of which the appellant pleaded guilty. A judge of this Court granted leave to appeal on 20 August 2004 pursuant to s.582 of the Crimes Act 1958.

At the time of the offences, in or about January 2003, the appellant was almost 19 years of age and staying with a former school friend, ME. ME was a few years older than the appellant and had three young children: JEM, who was then four years of age, and twins, CSM and MASM, who were then two years of age.

The appellant had previously stayed with ME for a few weeks in December 2002, after experiencing some domestic difficulties, and while she was there she had assisted in the day to day care of the children, including bathing them before dressing. On one occasion during that stay the appellant had entered the bathroom while another female friend of ME was in the process of bathing the children. The appellant then took over the task of bathing MASM and CSM while the other woman dressed the third child. After a while the other woman noticed that the appellant was stroking CSM's penis and, in order to stop it, said: “I think that’s enough washing now.” The appellant appeared surprised that the other woman was present but stopped as requested. The other woman later told ME of what she had seen and that she did not think that the appellant should be looking after the children, but ME seems to have done nothing about it.

On 4 January 2003, ME told the appellant that she was to attend a function that evening at another town and that she was having difficulty finding a babysitter.…

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 Dent

Details

AGLC: R v Dent [2005] VSCA 42
Case: [2005] VSCA 42
Decision Date: 3 March 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Dent involved the appellant, who was convicted of several offences against a child under the age of 16, including sexual offences and common assault. The appellant's appeal was against his sentence, which was five years imprisonment with a non-parole period of two years, arguing that the sentence was manifestly excessive and did not adequately account for his mental health condition.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the appellant's sentence was manifestly excessive, taking into account his mental condition. The court was required to consider whether the sentence imposed was disproportionately severe in light of the appellant's mental health issues and whether the sentence could be considered just and appropriate under the circumstances. Additionally, the court had to examine the relevance of the appellant's mental condition in the sentencing process and whether it warranted a reduction in the penalty imposed.

The court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. It held that the sentencing judge had appropriately considered the appellant's mental condition, but it did not warrant a significant reduction in the penalty. The court emphasised that the severity of the offences and the need to protect the community and deter similar conduct were paramount considerations. The court also noted that the appellant's mental health issues did not absolve him of responsibility for his actions or mitigate the seriousness of the offences. The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.

The court made no further orders beyond dismissing the appeal and affirming the original sentence.

Orders