R v Grimmer

Case [2020] NSWDC 63


District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Grimmer [2020] NSWDC 63
Hearing dates: 25 February 2020
Date of orders: 27 March 2020
Decision date: 27 March 2020
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Weinstein SC DCJ
Decision:

Full-time custodial order to be served by way of aggregate term of imprisonment. For orders see [63]

Catchwords: SENTENCE – Multiple offences of indecent assault person under 16 years of age – late plea of guilty
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Cases Cited: Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25
Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59
Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120
R v Jarrold [2010] NSWCCA 69
Category:Sentence
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Stephen Vincent Grimmer (Offender)
Representation: Ms A Pinkerton (Crown)
Mr J Lo-Schiavo (Defence)
File Number(s): 2017/101174
Publication restriction: Non Publication Order on the name of the complainant or any information that may identify her.

Judgment

  1. The offender, Stephen Vincent Grimmer, born in 1964, is before the court for sentence for 3 counts of indecent assault person under 16 years of age, contrary to section 61M(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 and for which the maximum penalty is 10 years and the standard non-parole period is 8 years.

Evidence

  1. Before me are 4 exhibits. Exhibit 1 is a bundle of documents prepared by the Crown which includes:

  1. The Agreed Facts;

  2. The Indictment;

  3. The offender’s criminal history;

  4. The offender’s custodial history; and

  5. The Sentencing Assessment Report (SAR) under the hand of Ms Claire Takács, dated 13 February 2020.

  1. Exhibit 2 is a forensic psychiatrist report from Dr Adam Martin, dated 9 December 2019.

  2. Exhibit 3 is a bundle of case notes from psychologist Ms Nicole Rowe and clinical psychologist Dr Barry McNamara.

  3. Exhibit 4 is a letter from Ms Linda Grimmer, dated 25 February 2020.

  4. I was assisted by the written and oral submissions of Mr Lo Schiavo on behalf of the offender and Ms Pinkerton on behalf of the Crown.

  5. The Agreed Facts are as follows:-

  1. The victim is AB, born in 2001. The offender was aged 53 at the time of the offending. The offender was known to the victim, as they would both holiday at a caravan park during NSW school holiday periods. The offender was acquainted with the grandmother and a family friend of the victim, with whom she would stay with at the caravan park. The victim was first introduced to the offender when she was 9 years of age. The victim described the offender as being a father figure to her.

  2. On 6 December 2016, the victim was interviewed at her high school where she disclosed numerous indecent assault offences committed by the offender whilst she holidayed with her grandmother and friends at the caravan park. The victim was aged 14 years at the time of the offences.

  3. During the NSW school Christmas holidays of December 2015 and January 2016 (18 December 2015 – 26 January 2016) AB described the offender as starting to behave 'stupid', saying…

Continue reading R v Grimmer

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Grimmer [2020] NSWDC 63
Case
[2020] NSWDC 63
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant in this case, Grimmer, was convicted of multiple offences of indecent assault against a person under the age of 16. The case was heard in the Court of Appeal where the appellant contested the sentence imposed by the lower court. Grimmer had initially pleaded not guilty to the charges but later changed his plea to guilty. The primary legal issues before the court were the appropriateness of the sentence given the late plea and the cumulative impact of the offences. The court needed to determine whether the sentence was unduly lenient or harsh, and whether the lower court had adequately considered relevant factors.

The Court of Appeal considered the severity of the offences, the vulnerability of the victim, and the appellant's late plea. It was noted that the appellant had delayed in entering a guilty plea, which impacted the proceedings and potentially the victim. The court also weighed the need for deterrence and the rehabilitation of the offender. Ultimately, the court found that the sentence imposed by the lower court was appropriate, taking into account all relevant factors, including the cumulative impact of the offences and the delay in the plea. The appeal against the sentence was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.

In the final orders, the Court of Appeal confirmed the sentence imposed by the lower court. The appellant was to serve a full-time custodial term, which was to be an aggregate term of imprisonment. The specifics of the order were detailed in paragraph 63 of the judgement. The appellant's appeal against the sentence was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld as appropriate.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full-time custodial order to be served by way of aggregate term of imprisonment. For orders see [63]

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.