R v Drenkhahn

Case [2020] NSWDC 113


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 1996
Cases 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 704
Texts 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 Prosecutions
Representation:

Counsel:
Mr I Lloyd QC (for the offender)
Ms N Keay (for Director of Public Prosecutions)

  Solicitors:
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

  1. 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

  1. 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.

  2. 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

  1. 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.

  2. 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

Details
AGLC
R v Drenkhahn [2020] NSWDC 113
Case
[2020] NSWDC 113
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Drenkhahn, the appellant was convicted of multiple counts of indecent and sexual assault, offences committed over a decade ago. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria where the primary focus was on determining an appropriate sentence for the appellant.

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.