District Court
New South Wales
- Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: R v Grech (a pseudonym) [2022] NSWDC 721 Hearing dates: 15 December 2022 Date of orders: 15 December 2022 Decision date: 15 December 2022 Jurisdiction: Criminal Before: Haesler SC DCJ Decision: Aggregate sentence of 8 years with a non-parole period of 5 years
Catchwords: CRIME – Sexual intercourse without consent (DV) - Intentionally choke etc person without consent (DV) -
Possess child abuse material
SENTENCING - Relevant factors on sentence – late guilty plea after cut-off date - practical remedy of an injustice – non-consensual sexual intercourse within marriage - child abuse material offence- domestic violence – Form 1 matters - Victim impact - victim vindication - expressions of remorse not accepted - ill health
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900
Cases Cited: Attorney General’s Application under s 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 No 1 of 2002, [2013] NSWCCA 115; (2002) 56 NSWLR 146
Markarianv The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357at [51]-[54]; [2005] HCA 25
R v Clinch (1994) 72 A Crim R 301
R vThompson [2000] NSWCCA 309; (2000) 49 NSWLR 383
Category: Sentence Parties: Vincent Grech (the offender)
Director of Public ProsecutionsRepresentation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
Mr B Clark (for the offender)
Ms N Keay, Deputy Senior Crown Prosecutor
Crowther Sim, Lawyers (for the offender)
Director of Public Prosecutions
File Number(s): 2021/00158070 Publication restriction: The name of the complainant and her child are not to be published, nor is any other material that could lead to the identification them s.578A Crimes Act 1900 and s.15A Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987. Pseudonyms have been used and identifying information has been removed from this version of the judgment to comply with the statutes.
SENTENCE – EX TEMPORE REVISED
Introduction
-
Vincent Grech (a pseudonym) is for sentence today for five serious offences. Four of them involve offences against the wife he professed to love and care for, and did, at least for a period of their relationship, love, and care for.
-
At the age of 35 he changed his behaviour. What caused the change, as his counsel said, is a mystery. Courts have a limited capacity to delve into the genesis of matters such as this. What courts must do is deal with the consequences, particularly where those consequences resulted in serious crimes being committed. And there is no doubt that the offences committed against the complainant were serious crimes.
-
There is also a matter involving possession of child abuse material, which is an offence against the community. That offence, when it came to light, led to an early plea of guilty by Grech and I will reduce its otherwise appropriate sentence by 25% to take into account that early plea: s 25D Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.
Continue reading R v Grech (a pseudonym)
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Grech (a pseudonym) [2022] NSWDC 721
- Case
- [2022] NSWDC 721
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appeal hinged on several legal issues. One of the primary issues was the late guilty plea by the respondent. The court considered whether a reduction in sentence was appropriate to remedy the injustice caused by the late plea. Another issue was the nature of the offences, particularly the sexual offences occurring within a marriage. The court also had to consider the seriousness of the child abuse material offence and the respondent's ill health, which was claimed to warrant a reduced sentence. The appeal further examined the relevance of the expressions of remorse made by the respondent.
In allowing the appeal, the Court of Appeal noted that while the offences were serious, the sentence imposed was excessive. The court determined that a late guilty plea could warrant a reduction in sentence, especially if it could practically remedy an injustice. However, the court found that the expressions of remorse were not accepted as genuine. The court also acknowledged the respondent's ill health but did not consider it a significant mitigating factor. The court reduced the sentence to an aggregate of 8 years with a non-parole period of 5 years, considering the factors mentioned and the overall impact on the victim.
Orders
Orders of the court
Aggregate sentence of 8 years with a non-parole period of 5 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.