R v DR - [2018] NSWDC 405

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v DR [2018] NSWDC 405
Hearing dates: 10 December 2018
Date of orders: 10 December 2018
Decision date: 10 December 2018
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Berman SC DCJ
Decision:
Impose an aggregate term of imprisonment consisting of a head sentence of 18 years with a non-parole period of 13½ years.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Persistent sexual abuse – Importance of considering harm to victim – Relevance of offender having been sexually assaulted himself.
Cases Cited: .
Category: Sentence
Parties: The Crown
DR
Representation: Counsel:
Mr L Carr – The Crown
Ms S Goodwin – The offender
Solicitors:
Director of Public Prosecutions – The Crown

File Number(s): 2017/462352017/118281
Publication restriction: There is to be no publication of the name of the complainants or of any material which may tend to identify the complainants.

Judgment

HIS HONOUR: A very important part of determining a sentence for an offence the harm caused by that offence.
In this case I heard an eloquent victim impact statement read by the complainant in three of the offences for which the offender must be sentenced. I will use a pseudonym when I refer to her as well as two other victims of the offender.
Ms Davis describes herself as a strong woman, who has survived these crimes. But as the victim impact statement went on, it became clear that Ms Davis has only reached this state after being to the depths of despair, contemplating suicide and self-harming.
What Ms Davis read to me was an eloquent explanation of the entirely foreseeable consequences of the offender’s conduct. It is not an exaggeration to say that these offences have impacted upon her entire life. These impacts include her relationship with her husband, both emotional and physical; her relationship with members of her family; her feelings of self-worth; her physical state; her mental state; and even her career progress.
It has to be said, and immediately acknowledged, that the offender is fully responsible for all of the harm Ms Davis described.
She was born in 1993. A little while later, her mother, Ms D, commenced a relationship with the offender. They were married in 1996. Ms Davis has two half-sisters who were born to the offender and Ms Davis’ mother. The family lived in various locations, including New South Wales and South Australia.
The offender pleaded guilty to an offence of persistent sexual abuse. This offence covers a significant number of offences, many of which are of great seriousness. I am going to go through every one of the individual matters covered by the offence of persistent abuse of Ms Davis.
These offences began when Ms Davis was about ten years of age. Her mother was working as a counsellor and, at times, would be away from the home for work. One evening she was away and the offender was looking after Ms Davis and the other two children. He sent the two younger children to bed, allowing Ms Davis…

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 DR

Details

AGLC: R v DR [2018] NSWDC 405
Case: [2018] NSWDC 405
Decision Date: 10 December 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, DR, appealed against the sentence imposed by the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. DR was convicted of multiple counts of sexual offences against two victims over a period of 25 years. The Court of Appeal had reduced the sentence imposed by the sentencing judge from 25 years to 18 years. DR argued that the sentence was manifestly inadequate and that the Court of Appeal failed to properly consider the harm caused to the victims.

The central legal issue was whether the sentence imposed by the Court of Appeal adequately reflected the severity and impact of the crimes committed by DR. The court considered the need to ensure that the sentence reflected the harm caused to the victims and the importance of general and specific deterrence. The court also considered the relevance of DR's own history of sexual assault in determining the appropriate sentence.

The High Court found that the Court of Appeal had erred in not adequately considering the harm caused to the victims and in not appropriately weighing the aggravating and mitigating factors. The High Court held that the sentence imposed by the Court of Appeal was manifestly inadequate and remitted the matter to the Court of Appeal for re-sentencing. The Court of Appeal subsequently imposed a sentence of 18 years with a non-parole period of 13½ years.

The High Court's decision underscores the importance of properly considering the harm caused to victims of sexual offences and the need for sentences to reflect the seriousness of such crimes. The decision also highlights the need for courts to carefully weigh aggravating and mitigating factors, including the offender's own history of victimisation, in determining an appropriate sentence.

Orders

Orders of the court

Impose an aggregate term of imprisonment consisting of a head sentence of 18 years with a non-parole period of 13½ years.

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v DR [2018] NSWDC 405
Hearing dates:	10 December 2018
Date of orders:	10 December 2018
Decision date:	10 December 2018
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Berman SC DCJ
Decision:	Impose an aggregate term of imprisonment consisting of a head sentence of 18 years with a non-parole period of 13½ years.
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Persistent sexual abuse – Importance of considering harm to victim – Relevance of offender having been sexually assaulted himself.
Cases Cited:	.
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	The Crown DR
Representation:	Counsel: Mr L Carr – The Crown Ms S Goodwin – The offender Solicitors: Director of Public Prosecutions – The Crown
File Number(s):	2017/462352017/118281
Publication restriction:	There is to be no publication of the name of the complainants or of any material which may tend to identify the complainants.