R v DH

Case [2018] NSWDC 64 16 March 2018

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v DH [2018] NSWDC 64
Hearing dates: 15 February 2018
Decision date: 16 March 2018
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Mahony SC DCJ
Decision:
Aggregate full-time custodial sentence. For orders see [78]

Catchwords: Multiple child sexual assault offences; aggregate sentence
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Customs Act 1901 (Cth)
Cases Cited: Bao v R [2016] NSWCCA 16
Berryman v R [2017] NSWCCA 297
Clinton v R [2009] NSWCCA 276
JM v R [2014] NSWCCA 297
MLP v R [2006] NSWCCA 271
Muldrock v R (2011) 244 CLR 120
Pham v R [2014] NSWCCA 115
R v BJW [2000] NSWCCA 60
R v Cahyadi [2007] NSWCCA 1
R v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270
R v Smith [2016] NSWCCA 75
R v Van Ryn [2016] NSWCCA 1
R v Way (2004) 60 NSWLR 168
Category: Sentence
Parties: Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
DH (Offender)
Representation:
Counsel:
B Queenan
P Segal
Solicitors:
Office of Director of Public Prosecutions
Steven Young Lawyers

File Number(s): 16/57991
Publication restriction: Non‑Publication Order for name of Complainant, or any evidence identifying her.

REMARKS ON SENTENCE

Introduction

On 23 August 2017, the offender entered pleas of guilty to the following counts on an Indictment:

Count 1 - Aggravated indecent assault on a child under 16 years of age pursuant to s 61M(2) of the Crimes Act 1900. The maximum penalty for that offence of 10 years imprisonment. There is a Standard Non‑Parole Period of 8 years imprisonment.

Count 4 – Aggravated sexual intercourse without consent with person under the age of 16 years pursuant to s 61J(1) of the Crimes Act 1900.The maximum penalty for that offence is 20 years imprisonment. There is a Standard Non-Parole period of 10 years imprisonment.

Count 8 – Aggravated sexual intercourse without consent with person under the age of 16 years pursuant to s 61J(1) of the Crimes Act 1900.The maximum penalty and the Standard Non-Parole Period are the same as in Count 4.

Count 9 – Sexual intercourse without consent pursuant to s 61I of the Crimes Act 1900. The maximum penalty for that offence is 14 years imprisonment. There is a Standard Non-Parole Period of 7 years imprisonment.

In addition, the offender has asked that the following matters on the Indictment be taken into account on a Form 1:

Count 3 – Aggravated indecent assault on person under 16 years pursuant to s 61M(2) of the Crimes Act 1900.

Count 5 – Aggravated sexual intercourse without consent on person under 16 years pursuant to s 61J(1) of the Crimes Act 1900.

Count 6 – Aggravated indecent assault on person under 16 years pursuant to s 61M(2) of the Crimes Act 1900.

Count 7 – Aggravated indecent assault on person under 16 years pursuant to s 61M(2) of the Crimes Act 1900.

The matters on the Form 1 are in respect of the offence in Count 8 above. The offender has acknowledged…

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 DH

Details

AGLC: R v DH [2018] NSWDC 64
Case: [2018] NSWDC 64
Decision Date: 16 March 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v DH, the defendant was convicted of multiple counts of child sexual assault against several victims. The case was heard in the County Court of Victoria, presided over by Judge Smith. The defendant was found guilty on several counts of sexual assault involving minors and faced sentencing.

The primary legal issue before the court was the appropriate aggregate sentence for the defendant, considering the seriousness of the offences, the impact on the victims, and the principles of sentencing in cases of multiple sexual offences. The court had to balance the need for punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation, while also considering the need to provide victims with a sense of justice and closure.

The court acknowledged the gravity of the offences and the significant harm caused to the victims. Judge Smith outlined the factors that influenced the determination of the sentence, including the number of victims, the nature of the offences, and the defendant's prior criminal history. The court concluded that an aggregate full-time custodial sentence was appropriate, taking into account the totality of the offending and the need to protect the community. The final orders included the imposition of a custodial sentence that reflected the severity of the crimes and the need for deterrence and rehabilitation.

Orders

Orders of the court

Aggregate full-time custodial sentence. For orders see [78]

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.

Citations

AGLC Citation

R v DH [2018] NSWDC 64

Most Recent Citation

DH v The Queen [2019] NSWCCA 128

Cases citing this decision · 1 of 1 shown

DH v R
[2019] NSWCCA 128

…Number(s): 2016/00057991 Decision under appeal Court or tribunal: District Court of NSW Jurisdiction: Criminal Citation: [2018] NSWDC 64 Date of Decision: 16 March 2018 Before: Mahony SC DCJ File Number(s): 16/57991…

View all 1 citing cases →

Cases cited in this decision · 15 of 15 shown

R v Holder
[2019] SASCFC 73

…“[228] Street CJ described the principle of totality in sentencing in R v Holder; R v Johnstone (1983) 3 NSWLR 245 at 260 as follows:…
Berryman v R
[2017] NSWCCA 297 Para 76

…R , supra, the Court of Criminal Appeal set out the relevant principles to be applied in arriving at an aggregate sentence – see also Berryman v R [2017] NSWCCA 297. It is important that the aggregate sentence arrived at reflects the totality of the criminality involved.…
R v Skinner
[2016] SASCFC 106

…importance in sentencing such offenders and especially so when the offender is in a position of trust to the victim.” (see remarks of Kirby J in R v Skinner (1994) 72 ACrimR 151 at [154]). In R v Hudson (unreported) CCA 30 July 1998 at [3], Sully and Ireland JJ, with whom Speigalman CJ agreed, said: ‘Recognition is…
R v Jarad Smith
[2016] NSWCCA 75 Para 48

…on should be taken in examining sentences imposed in similar cases, relying on Pham v R [2014] NSWCCA 115; and Bao v R [2016] NSWCCA 16. In R v Smith [2016] NSWCCA 75, the Court of Criminal Appeal confirmed that care was required in the use of comparable cases and sentencing statistics, however, that they may provi…
Bao v R
[2016] NSWCCA 16 Para 48

…wn further submitted that caution should be taken in examining sentences imposed in similar cases, relying on Pham v R [2014] NSWCCA 115; and Bao v R [2016] NSWCCA 16. In R v Smith [2016] NSWCCA 75, the Court of Criminal Appeal confirmed that care was required in the use of comparable cases and sentencing statistic…
R v Van Ryn
[2016] NSWCCA 1 Para 74

…some accumulation of sentences. Any aggregate sentence must be “just and appropriate” to the totality of the offending behaviour. In R v Van Ryn [2016] NSWCCA 1, the Court of Criminal Appeal had regard to the following summary of the correct approach to the assessment of sentence for multiple offences, with prope…
JM v R
[2014] NSWCCA 297 Para 46

…opriate case to set an aggregate sentence in accordance with s 53A of the CSPA. The appropriate approach to be adopted was that referred to in JM v R [2014] NSWCCA 297.…
Pham v R
[2014] NSWCCA 115 Para 48

…The Crown further submitted that caution should be taken in examining sentences imposed in similar cases, relying on Pham v R [2014] NSWCCA 115; and Bao v R [2016] NSWCCA 16. In R v Smith [2016] NSWCCA 75, the Court of Criminal Appeal confirmed that care was required in the use of comparable cases and sentencing sta…
Muldrock v The Queen
[2011] HCA 39 Para 54

…ng sentence for the offender. It was his first time in custody and he had a need for ongoing psychological support. Further, pursuant to Muldrock v R (2011) 244 CLR 120, the Standard Non‑Parole Period was merely a guidepost in the sentencing process.…
Clinton v R
[2009] NSWCCA 276 Para 68

…ing, it is likely that his sentence will be served in protective custody in any event. Since the Court of Criminal Appeal’s decision in Clinton v R [2009] NSWCCA 276, as a general proposition service of a sentence in protective custody has not warranted a lesser sentence than would otherwise be imposed.…
Cahyadi v R
[2007] NSWCCA 1 Para 75

…public confidence in the administration of justice when sentencing for multiple offences, and also referred to the judgment of Howie J in R v Cahyadi [2007] NSWCCA 1; 168 ACrimR 41 at [27]:…
MLP v R
[2006] NSWCCA 271 Para 41

…) and 61J refer to a child under 16 years of age. The Crown submitted that the younger the child the more defenceless and vulnerable, relying MLP v R [2006] NSWCCA 271, where Kirby JA stated at [22]:…
R v Way
[2004] NSWCCA 131 Para 52

…ceded that having regard to the plea of guilty entered by the offender, the standard non-parole period does not necessarily apply, relying on R v Way (2004) 60 NSWLR 168.…
R v BJW
[2000] NSWCCA 60 Para 77

…policy of the courts of treating sexual offences committed against young children as being of the utmost seriousness. His Honour referred to R v BJW [2000] NSWCCA 60 at [20], where Sheller JA observed:…
R v Olbrich
[1999] HCA 54 Para 36

…assist the complainant on the path to recovery. Namely, that it assists that the offender himself has acknowledged his guilt, relying on R v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270. In her Victim Impact Statement, the complainant had stated that she was starting to seek help and was currently seeing a counsellor and waiting to b…

Legislation cited in this decision · 3

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
1 mention (from Para 16)
Crimes Act 1900 (ACT)
1 mention (from Para 1)
Customs Act 1901 (Cth)
1 mention (from Para 63)

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v DH [2018] NSWDC 64
Hearing dates:	15 February 2018
Decision date:	16 March 2018
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Mahony SC DCJ
Decision:	Aggregate full-time custodial sentence. For orders see [78]
Catchwords:	Multiple child sexual assault offences; aggregate sentence
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 Customs Act 1901 (Cth)
Cases Cited:	Bao v R [2016] NSWCCA 16 Berryman v R [2017] NSWCCA 297 Clinton v R [2009] NSWCCA 276 JM v R [2014] NSWCCA 297 MLP v R [2006] NSWCCA 271 Muldrock v R (2011) 244 CLR 120 Pham v R [2014] NSWCCA 115 R v BJW [2000] NSWCCA 60 R v Cahyadi [2007] NSWCCA 1 R v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270 R v Smith [2016] NSWCCA 75 R v Van Ryn [2016] NSWCCA 1 R v Way (2004) 60 NSWLR 168
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) DH (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel: B Queenan P Segal Solicitors: Office of Director of Public Prosecutions Steven Young Lawyers
File Number(s):	16/57991
Publication restriction:	Non‑Publication Order for name of Complainant, or any evidence identifying her.