R v H, GJ (No 2)

The appellant, H, appealed against sentences imposed by a sentencing judge for offences including indecent assault and persistent sexual exploitation. The charges related to three complainants: SC, JC, and DC. The offending against SC and JC occurred between 1981 and 1984, while the persistent sexual exploitation of DC occurred between 1984 and 1989. The appeal was heard by the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia, comprising Peek, Blue, and Stanley JJ.

The primary legal issues before the Full Court concerned whether the sentencing judge had given sufficient weight to various factors raised by the appellant in his grounds of appeal. These included the significant delay between the offending and the sentencing, the appellant's rehabilitation and changed circumstances during that period, and the fact that the appellant and DC lived together as husband and wife for 20 years after the offending ceased. The appellant also argued that the sentencing judge erred in imposing individual sentences for each complainant and ordering them to be served cumulatively, and that the head sentence and non-parole period were manifestly excessive, with a failure to suspend the sentence.

The Full Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that the sentencing judge had given sufficient weight to the delay in all the circumstances, distinguishing relevant authorities. The court also found that the judge had adequately considered the appellant's cohabitation with DC for 20 years after the offending ceased and had correctly allowed a measure of concurrency in sentencing, though not required to make sentences concurrent between complainants. The court concluded that while the sentence was severe, neither the head sentence nor the non-parole period were manifestly excessive, and the decision not to suspend the sentence was within the sentencing judge's discretion.