R v Graham (a pseudonym)

Case [2020] NSWDC 747


District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Graham (a pseudonym) [2020] NSWDC 747
Hearing dates: 16 October 2020
Decision date: 16 October 2020
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Haesler SC DCJ
Decision:

Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 15 years. Non parole period of 11 years.

Catchwords:

CRIME — Child sex offences — Sexual intercourse with child <10 - Sexual intercourse with child >10 <14 - Sexual offences - Indecent assault - Circumstances of aggravation - Persistent sexual abuse of a child

SENTENCE – Maximum penalty life imprisonment

SENTENCE - Relevant factors on sentence – father and daughter- escalating abuse - age of child - period over which abuse occurred - abuse of position authority over the victim - breach of trust - need for care to double count aggravating features series of criminal acts – admissions on arrest - early guilty plea - impact of abuse on child – remorse or regret - COVID 19 not eligible for early release – impact of offender’s intellectual disability - special circumstances not required.

Legislation Cited:

Crimes Act 1900

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act1999

Cases Cited:

Anderson v R (1981) VR 155

DPP vDe La Rosa [2010] NSWCCA 155

R vHerring (1956) 73 WN (NSW) 203

R v Jarvis (a pseudonym) [2020] NSWDC 396

Category:Sentence
Parties: John Graham (the offender)
Director of Public Prosecutions
Representation:

Counsel:
Mr S Fraser, Public Defender (for the offender)
Mr D Scully, Deputy Senior Crown Prosecutor

Solicitors:
Legal Aid NSW (for the offender)
File Number(s): 2019/00375480
Publication restriction: Pseudonyms have been used for the names of the accused and the complainant. Pursuant to s15A Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 and s578A 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. Identifying information has been removed from this version of the judgment to comply with the statutes

SENTENCE – ex tempore revised

Facts for sentence

  1. John Graham was born in 1983. His eldest daughter, the complainant, was born in July 2004. The family lived close to where Graham had grown up in southern Wollongong. The complainant is the eldest of his three children.

  2. In November 2019 a report was received by police about the possibility the complainant had been involved in sexual activity with Graham. The complainant disclosed to police that the offender had engaged in sexual activity with her from the age of eight. He had told her that this was normal. And, because she was young, she believed him. As she grew older she came to realise that what was happening was not normal, but the offender would still force her to do what he wanted. The events would usually occur in one of the bedrooms of the family home.

  3. Touching in a sexual manner became regularised. The acts included penile-vaginal intercourse. Sometimes a condom was used, sometimes it was not. The complainant said the offender took care not to…

Continue reading R v Graham (a pseudonym)

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Graham (a pseudonym) [2020] NSWDC 747
Case
[2020] NSWDC 747
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, referred to as Graham, was charged with multiple counts of sexual intercourse with a child under the age of 16, in this instance, his daughter. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence for Graham, taking into account the aggravating and mitigating factors of the case.

The primary legal issue before the court was to determine the appropriate term and non-parole period for Graham's sentence. The court considered several factors, including the escalating nature of the abuse, the age of the victim, the duration of the abuse, Graham's abuse of his position of authority, the breach of trust, and the need to ensure that aggravating features were not double-counted. Additionally, the court considered the impact of the abuse on the child, Graham's admissions on arrest, his early guilty plea, and the impact of his intellectual disability.

The court found that the appropriate sentence for Graham was a term of imprisonment of 15 years, with a non-parole period of 11 years. The court noted that while Graham had shown some remorse, this was not sufficient to warrant a reduced sentence. Furthermore, due to the severity of the crimes, early release was not an option. The court also noted that while Graham's intellectual disability was a mitigating factor, it did not warrant a special circumstances sentence. Overall, the court found that the sentence was commensurate with the gravity of the crimes committed.

The court ordered that Graham be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 15 years, with a non-parole period of 11 years. The court also noted that Graham was not eligible for early release due to the nature of his crimes.

Orders

Orders of the court

Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 15 years. Non parole period of 11 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.