R v EC - [2018] NSWDC 267

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v EC [2018] NSWDC 267
Hearing dates: 16-25 July 2018
Decision date: 21 September 2018
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Mahony SC DCJ
Decision:
Suspended custodial sentence. For Orders see [58]

Catchwords: Historical sexual offending by juvenile
Legislation Cited: Child Welfare Act 1939
Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987
Children’s Court Act 1987
Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Cases Cited: Harris v R [2017] NSWCCA 254
R v GDP (1991) 53 ACrimR 112
R v Todd (1982) 2 NSWLR 517
TC v R [2016] NSWCCA 3
Category: Sentence
Parties: Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
EC (Offender)
Representation:
Counsel:
P Skinner (Crown)
W Hussey (Offender)
Solicitors: Mr Dixon

File Number(s): 17/124209
Publication restriction: Non-Publication Order pursuant to s 7 for name of complainants and accused.

remarks on sentence

On 16 July 2018, the offender pleaded not guilty to six counts on an Indictment, and two alternative counts. On Wednesday 25 July 2018 at Newcastle District Court a jury returned verdicts of guilty on three of those counts as follows:

Count 1 – that between 1 January 1976 and 1 January 1978 at Toronto in the State of New South Wales did assault DH, a male person, and at the time of such assault did commit an act of indecency on him. This was an offence pursuant to s 81 of the Crimes Act 1900.

Count 3 – that between 1 January 1976 and 1 January 1978 at Toronto in the State of New South Wales did assault DH, a male person, and at the time of such assault did commit an act of indecency on him. This was an offence pursuant to s 81 of the Crimes Act 1900.

Count 4 – that between 1 January 1976 and 1 January 1977 at Toronto in the State of New South Wales did carnally know KR, a girl then under the age of 10 years, namely seven or eight years. This was an offence pursuant to s 67 of the Crimes Act 1900.

On 19 July 2018, the jury entered a verdict of not guilty by direction on Count 7 on the Indictment, and on 25 July 2018 found the offender not guilty of Counts 6 and 8 on the Indictment.
The following factual findings are derived from the jury verdicts.
On an occasion during 1976 and 1977, the victim, DH, who was born on 4 April 1971, was staying at his grandparents’ house. The offender was the youngest of the victim’s grand‑parents five children and his bedroom was located at the rear of the house. In that bedroom were two beds and the victim was in bed and the room in darkness. The offender got into the victim’s bed and then had the victim suck his penis. The victim asked the offender “if he was doing it properly” and the offender said, “Yes, treat it like a lolly pop. Just keep doing it the way you are doing it. You…

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 EC

Details

AGLC: R v EC [2018] NSWDC 267
Case: [2018] NSWDC 267
Decision Date: 21 September 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court was an appeal against sentence by the defendant, EC, a young person who had previously pleaded guilty to a number of historical sexual offences against a child. The appeal was heard by the Supreme Court of Victoria. The defendant argued that the sentence handed down was excessive and should be quashed in favour of a non-custodial sentence.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence was manifestly excessive. The court had to consider the seriousness of the offending, the age of the defendant at the time of the offending and at the time of sentencing, and the impact of a custodial sentence on a juvenile. The court also had to consider the need for general and specific deterrence and the need to protect the community.

In determining that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, the court considered the nature and seriousness of the offending, the age of the defendant at the time of the offending, and the delay in reporting and prosecution. The court noted that the defendant had shown remorse and had no prior convictions. The court found that the sentence was appropriate and proportionate to the offending, taking into account the need for general and specific deterrence and the need to protect the community. The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.

The court ordered that the defendant be placed on a suspended custodial sentence for two years. The defendant was also ordered to attend a rehabilitation program and to comply with other conditions. The court noted that the sentence was designed to provide the defendant with an opportunity to rehabilitate and to avoid the negative impacts of a custodial sentence.

Orders

Orders of the court

Suspended custodial sentence. For Orders see [58]

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 EC [2018] NSWDC 267
Hearing dates:	16-25 July 2018
Decision date:	21 September 2018
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Mahony SC DCJ
Decision:	Suspended custodial sentence. For Orders see [58]
Catchwords:	Historical sexual offending by juvenile
Legislation Cited:	Child Welfare Act 1939 Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 Children’s Court Act 1987 Crimes Act 1900 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Cases Cited:	Harris v R [2017] NSWCCA 254 R v GDP (1991) 53 ACrimR 112 R v Todd (1982) 2 NSWLR 517 TC v R [2016] NSWCCA 3
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) EC (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel: P Skinner (Crown) W Hussey (Offender) Solicitors: Mr Dixon
File Number(s):	17/124209
Publication restriction:	Non-Publication Order pursuant to s 7 for name of complainants and accused.