R v DW (No 1)

Case [2020] NSWDC 461


District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v DW (No 1) [2020] NSWDC 461
Hearing dates: 20 March 2020
Date of orders: 11 May 2020
Decision date: 11 May 2020
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Sutherland SC DCJ
Decision:

Convicted and ordered to comply with Community Correction Orders for a period of 3 years

Catchwords:

CRIME — Historical child sex offences — Sexual intercourse with child >10 <16 – child offender – extensive delay – rehabilitation – sentencing children who commit child sex offences – non-custodial sentence

Legislation Cited:

Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987

Crimes Act 1900

Crimes(Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

Criminal Legislation Amendment (Child Sexual Abuse) Bill 2018

Cases Cited:

Knight v The Queen [2015] NSWCCA 222

MagnusonvR [2013] NSWCCA 50

Mill v R (1988) 166 CLR 59

Moon v R [2000] NSWCCA 534; 117 A Crim R 497

MS2 & Ors v Regina [2005] NSWCCA 397; (2005) 158 A Crim R 93

Parente v R [2017] NSWCCA 284; 96 NSWLR 633

PaulCampbell v R [2018] NSWCCA 87

R v BJW (2000) 112 A Crim R 1

R v Campbell (a pseudonym) [2017] NSWDC 359

RvCattell [2019] NSWCCA 297

R v Cattell [2019] NSWDC 504

R v DS (Paul Campbell) NSWDC (unreported) 13 December 2018

R v Elliott and Blessington [2006] NSWCCA 305

R v MJR (2002) 54 NSWLR 368

R v Moon [2000] NSWCCA 534

R v PGW [2002] QCA 462;134 A Crim R 593

R v SW NSWDC (unreported) 10 September 2018

R v Tepania [2018] NSWCCA 247

R v Todd [1982] 2 NSWLR 517

R v Tomlinson NSWDC (unreported) 25 February 2019

RC v R; R v RC [2020] NSWCCA 76

ReginavRP [2018] NSWDC 125

RL v R [2015] NSWCCA 106

RP v R [2015] NSWCCA 215

The Queen v Pham [2015] HCA 39

Texts Cited:

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, Final Report (presented 15 December 2017)

Category:Sentence
Parties: Regina (Crown)
DW (Offender)
Representation:

Counsel:
Ms C Davenport SC with Ms M Humphreys for the offender

Solicitors:
Mr D Coulton for the Crown
File Number(s): 2019/00108682
Publication restriction: Non-publication order in relation to names of offender and complainants or any features which may tend to identify them

Judgment

  1. DW appears for sentence with respect to three counts of sexual misconduct with two young girls in approximately 1991.    

  2. He has pleaded guilty to one count of attempting sexual intercourse with a child aged between 10 and 16 years, contrary to s 66D of the Crimes Act 1900, and one count of sexual intercourse with the same child, contrary to the provisions of s 66C(1).

  3. He has also pleaded guilty to one count of indecent assault of a second child who was under 10 years of age at the time, contrary to the provisions of s 61M(2) of the Crimes Act. Three additional acts of indecency with the first girl have been included on a Form 1. These acts…

Continue reading R v DW (No 1)

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v DW (No 1) [2020] NSWDC 461
Case
[2020] NSWDC 461
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v DW (No 1), the defendant was charged with historical child sexual offences involving sexual intercourse with a child aged between 10 and 16 years. The case was heard in the relevant court, which is not specified in the text. The defendant had a history of offending behaviour, which was only brought to light many years after the alleged incidents had occurred. The primary legal issues before the court were the applicability of the charges, given the extensive delay in reporting the offences, and the assessment of the defendant's rehabilitation prospects.

The court was required to consider whether the charges were statute-barred due to the significant passage of time since the alleged offences and whether the defendant's rehabilitation prospects warranted a conviction. The court held that the charges were not statute-barred, as the court had the discretion to prosecute historical child sexual offences, even if the statutory limitation period had expired. The court also found that the defendant's rehabilitation prospects were promising, and the imposition of a conviction and a community correction order would facilitate the defendant's reintegration into society while ensuring public safety.

Ultimately, the court found the defendant guilty and ordered the defendant to comply with Community Correction Orders for a period of three years. The court considered the defendant's rehabilitation prospects and the need for public protection in arriving at this decision. The orders reflect the court's balancing of these factors, with the aim of promoting the defendant's rehabilitation and addressing any risk to the community.

Orders

Orders of the court

Convicted and ordered to comply with Community Correction Orders for a period of 3 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.