District Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: R v Drenkhahn [2020] NSWDC 113 Hearing dates: 14 February 2020 Decision date: 14 February 2020 Jurisdiction: Criminal Before: Haesler SC DCJ Decision: Aggregate sentence of four years imprisonment. Non-parole period of two years
Catchwords: SENTENCING - after trial - indecent assault - sexual assault – old offences.
SENTENCING- relevant factors on sentence - available maximum penalties - victim impact – delay -strong subjective case - special circumstances.Legislation Cited: Children's (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987
Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Criminal Procedure Act 1987
Firearms Act 1996Cases Cited: Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59
Moon v R [2000] NSWCCA 534; (2000) 117 A Crim R 497
MPB v R [2013] NSWCCA 213
R v Cattell [2019] NSWCCA 297
R v MJR (2002) 54 NSWLR 388
R v Simpson [2001] NSWCCA 534; 53 NSWLR 704Texts Cited: Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse (Criminal Justice Report, August 2017) Category: Sentence Parties: Reinhard Drenkhahn (the offender)
Director of Public ProsecutionsRepresentation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
Mr I Lloyd QC (for the offender)
Ms N Keay (for Director of Public Prosecutions)
WMD Law (for the offender)
File Number(s): 2016/00375896 Publication restriction: Pursuant to s 15A Children's (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 and s 578A Crimes Act 1900, there is to be no publication of any information, picture or other material that identifies or is likely to lead to the identification of the child complainant
SENTENCE
-
Pseudonyms have been used for the names of the complainants who were, at the relevant times, children. Pursuant to s 15A Children's (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 and s 578A Crimes Act 1900, there is to be no publication of any information, picture or other material that identifies or is likely to lead to the identification of a child complainant. Identifying information has been removed from this version of the judgment to comply with the statutes.
INTRODUCTION
-
Reinhard ‘Fritz’ Drenkhahn, now 69 years old, was until 4 December 2019, regarded by many as an upstanding citizen. As a trawler skipper and owner, he had made a real contribution, in a number of areas, to the community of Eden on the far South Coast of New South Wales.
-
On 4 December 2019 after a seven-day trial, a jury found Drenkhahn guilty of four offences committed against two boys. The offences occurred between 2000 and 2003. The boys, who are now men, were the sons of close friends; one, “Robert”, was his godson. At the time Robert was aged 13 almost 14. His younger brother, “Barry”, was also 13 to 14.
The facts for sentence
-
The jury, by their verdicts, accepted that the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt each offence. The jury did, however, acquit Drenkhahn of the aggravated form of count 3. He must have the full benefit of that acquittal.
-
By their verdicts, the jury accepted beyond reasonable doubt that between 1 September 2002 and 1 February 2003 at Eden, Drenkhahn…
Continue reading R v Drenkhahn
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Drenkhahn [2020] NSWDC 113
- Case
- [2020] NSWDC 113
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues addressed by the court involved the application of sentencing principles to historical offences, the consideration of victim impact statements, and the implications of the significant delay in bringing the case to trial. The court had to balance these factors against the need for general deterrence and the rehabilitation of the offender.
The court acknowledged the severity of the crimes and the significant harm caused to the victims. The delay in prosecution and the age of the offences were noted as mitigating factors, but the court emphasised the importance of ensuring that the sentence reflected the gravity of the crimes. Ultimately, the court determined an aggregate sentence of four years imprisonment, with a non-parole period of two years, reflecting a balance between the need for punishment and the mitigating circumstances of the case.
Orders
Orders of the court
Aggregate sentence of four years imprisonment. Non-parole period of two 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.