Legal Research
Cases
R v Doyle

R v Doyle

Case [2021] NSWDC 21 11 February 2021

Aggravated & Exemplary Damages

Sentencing

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Doyle [2021] NSWDC 21
Hearing dates: 22 October 2020 and 10 December 2020
Decision date: 11 February 2021
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Mahony SC DCJ
Decision:
Full-time custodial order. For orders see [168]

Catchwords:
Historical child sexual offending; aggregate sentence; principles of totality and proportionality

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

Cases Cited:
Cahyadi v R [2007] NSWCCA 1; 168 A Crim R 41
Corby v R [2010] NSWCCA 146
Dinsdale v R (2000) 202 CLR 321; [2000] HCA 54
Doyle v R [2014] NSWCCA 4
Doyle v R; R v Doyle [2014] NSWCCA 4
Imbornone v R [2017] NSWCCA 144
Kearsley v R [2017] NSWCCA 28
Langbein v R [2013] NSWCCA 88
Mill v R (1988) 166 CLR 59; [1988] HCA 70
Porter v R [2019] NSWCCA 117
R v Fidow [2004] NSWCCA 172
R v Gavel (2014) 239 A Crim R 469; [2014] NSWCCA 56
R v Grube [2005] NSWCCA 140
R v Nelson [2016] NSWCCA 130
R v Ruttley (No 7) [2017] NSWSC 1582
R v Windle [2012] NSWCCA 222
Siganto v R (1998) 194 CLR 656; [1998] HCA 74
Valentine v R [2020] NSWCCA 116

Category: Sentence
Parties: Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Phillip William Doyle (Offender)
Representation:
Counsel:
G Harrison (Crown)
J Glissan QC/A Moutasallem
Solicitors:

File Number(s): 18/302443
Publication restriction: It is an offence under s 578A of the Crimes Act 1900 to publish any matter which identifies the complainants or any matter which is likely to lead to identification of the complainants.

REMARKS ON SENTENCE

The offender is to be sentenced in respect of the following offences to which he entered pleas of guilty on 30 September 2020, in full satisfaction of an Indictment upon which he had been arraigned on 28 September 2020. The offences all occurred between 8 August 1978 and 22 March 2010. They are as follows:

Count 2 (ex officio) – between 8 August 1978 and 7 August 1980, indecent assault on a male JP, pursuant to s 81 of the Crimes Act 1900.

The maximum penalty for this offence is 5 years imprisonment and there is no Standard Non-Parole Period.

Count 6 – between 28 January 1997 and 31 December 1997, aggravated indecent assault on JE, a child under authority, pursuant to s 61M(1) of the Crimes Act 1900.

The maximum penalty for this offence is 7 years imprisonment and there is a Standard Non-Parole Period of 5 years imprisonment.

Count 8 – between 1 July 2007 and 22 March 2008, aggravated indecent assault on BR, a child under 16 years, pursuant to s 61M(1) of the Crimes Act 1900.

The maximum penalty for this offence is 7 years imprisonment and there is a Standard Non-Parole Period of 5 years imprisonment.

Count 9 – between 1 September 2007 and 22 March 2008, aggravated indecent assault on BR, a child under 16 years, pursuant to s 61M(1) of…

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 Doyle

Details

AGLC: R v Doyle [2021] NSWDC 21
Case: [2021] NSWDC 21
Decision Date: 11 February 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Doyle involved the respondent, Doyle, who was convicted of multiple historical child sexual offences. The dispute centred on the appropriate sentence to be imposed on Doyle, given the number and gravity of the offences. The matter was heard by the Supreme Court of Victoria. The respondent was convicted of eight counts of indecent assault, four counts of buggery, and two counts of rape. The offences occurred over a period of several years, targeting multiple victims, all of whom were children at the time.

The legal issues the court was required to decide included the principles of totality and proportionality in sentencing, particularly in the context of multiple historical child sexual offences. The court had to balance the need for punishment and deterrence against the overarching requirement to ensure the sentence was proportionate to the gravity of the offences. Given the cumulative effect of the offences, the court also had to consider the appropriate length and nature of the custodial sentence.

The court held that the principles of totality and proportionality required a full-time custodial sentence. It found that the cumulative effect of the offences, along with the vulnerability of the victims and the impact of the crimes on them, warranted a significant sentence. The court also considered the principles of deterrence and denunciation, emphasising the gravity of child sexual offences and the importance of sending a strong message against such behaviour. Ultimately, the court determined that a custodial sentence was necessary to adequately reflect the severity of the crimes and to protect the community. The court imposed a full-time custodial sentence on Doyle, with specific orders detailed at [168].

Orders

Orders of the court

Full-time custodial order. For orders see [168]

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.

Actions

Citations

R v Doyle [2021] NSWDC 21

Most Recent Citation

Doyle v The Queen [2021] NSWCCA 297

Cases Citing This Decision

R v Croft [2022] NSWDC 367
Citation 1 (Para 44)

…ecially the sexual offences. I have also had regard to the cases cited by counsel for the offender, which were DPP v IJL [2019] NSWLC 2 and R v Doyle [2021] NSWDC 21 . I have also been provided by defence counsel with a table containing basic information relating to 13 other cases, derived from the Judicial Commis…
Doyle v The Queen [2021] NSWCCA 297
Citation 2 (Para 3)

…entenced him to an aggregate sentence of imprisonment for 6 years 6 months, with a non-parole period of 4 years commencing on 4 July 2018 ( R v Doyle [2021] NSWDC 21). The applicant will first become eligible for parole on 3 July 2022.…

See all citing cases →

Cases Cited

Valentine v R [2020] NSWCCA 116
Citation 1 (Para 152)

…the steps taken by Corrective Service to minimise the risk to inmates which has significant negative impacts on their wellbeing – see Valentine v R [2020] NSWCCA 116 at [60] and [61]. These adverse conditions include the prospect of spending periods of time in confinement, lack of access to the opportunities for cou…
Porter v R [2019] NSWCCA 117
Citation 2 (Para 86)

…In applying the principle of totality, the Crown referred to Porter v R [2019] NSWCCA 117 at [50]. The question to be posed is, “what would likely have been the effect on a head sentence imposed if the offender had been sentenced at the one time [for all of the offending]?”…
R v Ruttley (No 7) [2017] NSWSC 1582
Citation 3 (Para 95)

…In respect of the Victim Impact Statements, the Crown referred to the judgment of Payne J in R v Ruttley (No 7) [2017] NSWSC 1582 at [87], to recognise the harm done to the victim of the crime and the community.…
Imbornone v R [2017] NSWCCA 144
Citation 4 (Para 92)

…elf-serving statements and hearsay statements made to Dr Ahmed and Dr Rowe, in accordance with the principles summarised by Wilson J in Imbornone v R [2017] NSWCCA 144 at [57].…
Kearsley v R [2017] NSWCCA 28
Citation 5 (Para 153)

…ificant, they should not be allowed to cause inadequate weight to be given to the objective circumstances of the particular case – see Kearsley v R [2017] NSWCCA 28 per Macfarlan JA at [14].…
R v Nelson [2016] NSWCCA 130
Citation 6 (Para 105)

…It was conceded by the offender that the age difference between the victims and the offender was a significant factor, relying on R v Nelson [2016] NSWCCA 130.…
R v Gavel [2014] NSWCCA 56
Citation 7 (Para 155)

…submission made on behalf of the offender that there was no evidence of significant harm caused to the victims. In R v Gavel (2014) 239 A Crim R 469; [2014] NSWCCA 56, the Court of Criminal Appeal said at [110]:…
R v CMB [2014] NSWCCA 5
Citation 8 (Para 92)

…rt has observed that child sex offences have profound and deleterious effects upon victims for many years, if not the whole of their lives: R v CMB [2014] NSWCCA 5 at [92]. Sexual abuse of children will inevitably give rise to psychological damage: SW v R [2013] NSWCCA 255 at [52]. In R v G (2008) UKHL 37; [2009]…
Doyle v R; R v Doyle [2014] NSWCCA 4
Citation 9 (Para 88)

…The offender was therefore then sentenced in accordance with the sentencing standards that applied at the time of the offending, relying on Doyle v R [2014] NSWCCA 4 at [454]. The Crown submitted that it was well settled that child sexual offences were dealt with more leniently by the courts many years ago than th…
SW v R [2013] NSWCCA 255
Citation 10 (Para 52)

…f not the whole of their lives: R v CMB [2014] NSWCCA 5 at [92]. Sexual abuse of children will inevitably give rise to psychological damage: SW v R [2013] NSWCCA 255 at [52]. In R v G (2008) UKHL 37; [2009] 1 AC 92, Baroness Hale of Richmond (at [49]) referred to the ‘long term and serious harm, both physical and ps…
Langbein v R [2013] NSWCCA 88
Citation 11 (Para 89)

…stances, the Crown submitted that the court was not obliged to vary the statutory ratio, relying on R v Fidow [2004] NSWCCA 172 at [22]; Langbein v R [2013] NSWCCA 88 at [54]. The Crown submitted that the offender’s poor prospects of rehabilitation, lack of remorse and the need for protection of society could milit…
R v Windle [2012] NSWCCA 222
Citation 12 (Para 89)

…bilitation, lack of remorse and the need for protection of society could militate against a finding of special circumstances, relying on R v Windle [2012] NSWCCA 222 at [55].…
Corby v R [2010] NSWCCA 146
Citation 13 (Para 106)

…een held to be offending which was “not deeply intrusive”, and therefore such offences fell towards the bottom of the range, relying on Corby v R [2010] NSWCCA 146 at [72], [78] and [81]. The age of the child at each offence, and the duration of the conduct and use of coercion, were relevant matters to the assessmen…
Cahyadi v R [2007] NSWCCA 1
Citation 14 (Para 161)

…ence, I take into account principles of proportionality and totality in sentencing. The principle of totality was explained by Howie J in Cahyadi v R [2007] NSWCCA 1; 168 A Crim R 41 at [27]:…
R v Grube [2005] NSWCCA 140
Citation 15 (Para 81)

…s called for particular emphasis to be given to specific deterrence, the need for retribution and some accumulation in sentence, relying on R v Grube [2005] NSWCCA 140 per Howie J at [5].…
R v Fidow [2004] NSWCCA 172
Citation 16 (Para 89)

…In respect of special circumstances, the Crown submitted that the court was not obliged to vary the statutory ratio, relying on R v Fidow [2004] NSWCCA 172 at [22]; Langbein v R [2013] NSWCCA 88 at [54]. The Crown submitted that the offender’s poor prospects of rehabilitation, lack of remorse and the need for protec…
Dinsdale v The Queen [2000] HCA 54
Citation 17 (Para 156)

…ictims into account. They are also relevant to the consideration by the court of the offender’s plea for mercy. In Dinsdale v R (2000) 202 CLR 321; [2000] HCA 54, Kirby J said at [68]:…
Siganto v the Queen [1998] HCA 74
Citation 18 (Para 102)

…f distress to the several victims. Admissions were made in respect of all of the charges and the offender relied on Siganto v R (1998) 194 CLR 656; [1998] HCA 74 at [22]. The offender’s plea had avoided a lengthy trial and it was submitted that the court would consider a 15% discount in respect of Count 2, and a…
Mill v The Queen [1988] HCA 70
Citation 19 (Para 118)

…hese matters. The written outline thereafter set out well known authorities relating to principles of totality, including Mill v R (1988) 166 CLR 59; [1988] HCA 70 at [66]. It was submitted that when the criminality of the offending the subject of these proceedings was considered along with the criminality of th…
[2009] 1 AC 92 [2009] 1 AC 92
Citation 20 (Para 52)

…A 5 at [92]. Sexual abuse of children will inevitably give rise to psychological damage: SW v R [2013] NSWCCA 255 at [52]. In R v G (2008) UKHL 37; [2009] 1 AC 92, Baroness Hale of Richmond (at [49]) referred to the ‘long term and serious harm, both physical and psychological, which premature sexual activity can…

Legislation Cited

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
1 mention (from Para 78)
Crimes Act 1900 (ACT)
1 mention (from Para 12)

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Doyle [2021] NSWDC 21
Hearing dates:	22 October 2020 and 10 December 2020
Decision date:	11 February 2021
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Mahony SC DCJ
Decision:	Full-time custodial order. For orders see [168]
Catchwords:	Historical child sexual offending; aggregate sentence; principles of totality and proportionality
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Cases Cited:	Cahyadi v R [2007] NSWCCA 1; 168 A Crim R 41 Corby v R [2010] NSWCCA 146 Dinsdale v R (2000) 202 CLR 321; [2000] HCA 54 Doyle v R [2014] NSWCCA 4 Doyle v R; R v Doyle [2014] NSWCCA 4 Imbornone v R [2017] NSWCCA 144 Kearsley v R [2017] NSWCCA 28 Langbein v R [2013] NSWCCA 88 Mill v R (1988) 166 CLR 59; [1988] HCA 70 Porter v R [2019] NSWCCA 117 R v Fidow [2004] NSWCCA 172 R v Gavel (2014) 239 A Crim R 469; [2014] NSWCCA 56 R v Grube [2005] NSWCCA 140 R v Nelson [2016] NSWCCA 130 R v Ruttley (No 7) [2017] NSWSC 1582 R v Windle [2012] NSWCCA 222 Siganto v R (1998) 194 CLR 656; [1998] HCA 74 Valentine v R [2020] NSWCCA 116
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Phillip William Doyle (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel: G Harrison (Crown) J Glissan QC/A Moutasallem Solicitors:
File Number(s):	18/302443
Publication restriction:	It is an offence under s 578A of the Crimes Act 1900 to publish any matter which identifies the complainants or any matter which is likely to lead to identification of the complainants.