Legal Research
Cases
R v Gommeson

R v Gommeson

Case [2014] NSWCCA 159 15 August 2014

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available
Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Gommeson [2014] NSWCCA 159
Hearing dates: 20 June 2014
Decision date: 15 August 2014
Before: Johnson J at [1]; [138]
Harrison J at [136]; [138]
Garling J at [137]; 138]
Decision:
1. Crown appeal allowed.
2. The sentences imposed in the Sydney District Court upon the Respondent on 11 October 2013 are confirmed with respect to the offence against JH of attempt aggravated sexual assault of a child contrary to s.61J(1) Crimes Act 1900 (Sequence 49), and the offence against JH of aggravated sexual intercourse with a child contrary to s.66C(4) Crimes Act 1900 (Sequence 29) (taking into account an offence of aggravated indecent assault under s.61M(2) Crimes Act 1900 on a Form 1 (Sequence 61)).
3. All other sentences of imprisonment passed on 11 October 2013 are quashed and, in their place, sentence the Respondent to the following terms of imprisonment:
(i) for the offence against BW of aggravated indecent assault contrary to s.61M(2) Crimes Act 1900 (Sequence 50), imprisonment comprising a non-parole period of two years commencing on 15 July 2014 and expiring on 14 July 2016 with a balance of term of one year commencing on 15 July 2016 and expiring on 14 July 2017;
(ii) for the offence against JW of aggravated indecent assault contrary to s.61M(2) Crimes Act 1900 (Sequence 51), imprisonment comprising a non-parole period of two years commencing on 15 July 2015 and expiring on 14 July 2017 with a balance of term of one year commencing on 15 July 2017 and expiring on 14 July 2018;
(iii) for the offence against LW of aggravated sexual intercourse under s.66C(2) Crimes Act 1900 (Sequence 39), and taking into account an offence of aggravated indecent assault under s.61M(2) Crimes Act 1900 on a Form 1 (Sequence 62), imprisonment comprising a non-parole period of five years and three months commencing on 15 July 2015 and expiring on 14 October 2020 with a balance of term of one year and nine months commencing on 15 October 2020 and expiring on 14 July 2022;
(iv) for the offence against JK of aggravated sexual intercourse under s.66C(2) Crimes Act 1900 (Sequence 52), imprisonment comprising a non-parole period of five years commencing on 15 July 2016 and expiring on 14 July 2021 with a balance of term of one year and nine months commencing on 15 July 2021 and expiring on 14 April 2023;
(v) for the offence involving JG of possession of child abuse material under s.91H(2) Crimes Act 1900 (Sequence 3), a fixed term of imprisonment for 12 months commencing on 15 July 2021 and expiring on 14 July 2022;
(vi) on each of seven offences involving JG, being offences of aggravated sexual intercourse contrary to s.66C(2) Crimes Act 1900 (Sequences 19, 21, 23, 26, 43, 44 and 45), concurrent terms of imprisonment comprising a non-parole period of five years and three months commencing on 15 July 2016 and expiring…

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 Gommeson

Details

AGLC: R v Gommeson [2014] NSWCCA 159
Case: [2014] NSWCCA 159
Decision Date: 15 August 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Gommeson involved the respondent who pleaded guilty to multiple serious child sexual abuse offences against seven male victims between the years 2005 and 2011. The Crown appealed against the sentence imposed by the lower court, arguing that it was manifestly inadequate given the nature and number of the offences. The Court of Appeal was tasked with reviewing the sentences imposed on the respondent and determining whether they were appropriate in light of the crimes committed.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the sentences imposed on the respondent for specific offences and overall were manifestly inadequate. This involved examining the nature and gravity of the offences, the degree of concurrency in the sentences, and the extent to which the sentences reflected the harm caused to the victims. The court also considered the impact of the respondent’s age and the mitigating factors presented during sentencing.

In its reasoning, the Court of Appeal noted that while the sentences for individual offences and for some victims were concurrent, the overall sentence did not sufficiently reflect the total number and severity of the offences committed. The court found that the sentences failed to accumulate in a manner that adequately addressed the harm caused, particularly given the substantial maximum penalties for the offences. The appeal was allowed, and the respondent was resentenced to a total effective sentence of 17 years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of 12 years. The court emphasised the need for sentences in such cases to reflect the long-term and serious harm inflicted on the victims and the seriousness of the criminal conduct.

The final orders of the Court of Appeal were that the original sentences imposed by the lower court were set aside, and the respondent was resentenced to a total effective sentence of 17 years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of 12 years. This resentence aimed to appropriately reflect the gravity of the respondent's crimes and the harm done to the victims.

Orders