R v DW (No 2)

Case [2020] NSWDC 462


District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v DW (No 2) [2020] NSWDC 462
Hearing dates: 29 May 2020
Date of orders: 29 May 2020
Decision date: 29 May 2020
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Sutherland SC DCJ
Decision:

Pursuant to s 3C(1) of the Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Act2000, the offender is not to be treated as a registrable person for the purposes of that Act in respect of the offences for which he was convicted and sentenced on 11 May 2020

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 – offender declared a non-registerable person

Legislation Cited:

Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Act2000

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

Cases Cited:

KhannavTheCommissioner of Police [2007] NSWSC 17

The Queen v RI [2019] NSWDC 129

Category:Procedural rulings
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. This matter comes back today pursuant to what at common law was described as the “slip rule” and now covered by statute in s 43 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999:

43   Court may reopen proceedings to correct sentencing errors

(1)  This section applies to criminal proceedings (including proceedings on appeal) in which a court has—

(a)  imposed a penalty that is contrary to law, or

(b)  failed to impose a penalty that is required to be imposed by law,

and so applies whether or not a person has been convicted of an offence in those proceedings.

(2)  The court may reopen the proceedings (either on its own initiative or on the application of a party to the proceedings) and, after giving the parties an opportunity to be heard—

(a)  may impose a penalty that is in accordance with the law, and

(b)  if necessary, may amend any relevant conviction or order.

(3)  For the purposes of this section, the court—

(a)  may call on the person to whom the proceedings relate to appear before it and, if the person does not appear, may issue a warrant for the person’s arrest, or

(b)  if of the opinion that the person will not appear if called on to do so, may, without calling on the person to appear before it, issue a warrant for the person’s arrest.

(4)  Subject to subsection (5), nothing in this section affects any right of appeal.

(5)  For the purposes of an appeal under any Act against a penalty imposed in the exercise of a power conferred by this section, the time within which such an appeal must be made commences on the date on which the penalty is so imposed.

(6)  In this section—

impose…

Continue reading R v DW (No 2)

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v DW (No 2) [2020] NSWDC 462
Case
[2020] NSWDC 462
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v DW (No 2) involved an individual, DW, who was convicted of historical child sex offences. The specific offence was sexual intercourse with a child aged between 10 and 16 years. DW, who was also a child at the time of the offence, was sentenced on 11 May 2020. The case came before the court to determine whether DW should be treated as a registrable person under the Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Act 2000.

The legal issues before the court were whether the extensive delay in bringing the case to trial and DW's demonstrated rehabilitation should influence the decision on registration. The court had to balance the principles of justice, deterrence, and rehabilitation in making its determination. It was crucial to consider the circumstances of the offence, the age of the offender at the time of the offence, and the potential impact of registration on DW's future life.

The court found that the extensive delay in bringing the case to trial, coupled with DW's extensive rehabilitation and the fact that DW was also a child at the time of the offence, warranted a departure from the usual requirements of the Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Act 2000. The court considered these factors to be significant mitigating circumstances that supported a decision not to treat DW as a registrable person. The court's decision was influenced by the need to ensure that the outcome was just and proportionate, taking into account the unique circumstances of the case.

In light of the above, the court made an order pursuant to section 3C(1) of the Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Act 2000 that DW is not to be treated as a registrable person for the offences for which he was convicted and sentenced on 11 May 2020. This decision reflects the court's consideration of the extensive delay, DW's rehabilitation, and his age at the time of the offence, which collectively influenced the court's determination.

Orders

Orders of the court

Pursuant to s 3C(1) of the Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Act 2000, the offender is not to be treated as a registrable person for the purposes of that Act in respect of the offences for which he was convicted and sentenced on 11 May 2020

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.