R v Harvey (No 2)

This matter concerned a Crown appeal against a sentence imposed on the respondent, who had been found guilty of four counts of persistent sexual exploitation of a child. The respondent had been sentenced to two years' imprisonment, to be served cumulatively upon an existing six-year sentence for unlawful sexual intercourse committed in 2010. A non-parole period of three years and three months was fixed. The appeal was heard by Kourakis CJ, Blue and Bampton JJ.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the two-year sentence and the consequent non-parole period were manifestly inadequate, given the nature of the offences and the respondent's position of trust as director of an Out of School Hours Care program. The court was required to consider the importance of general and personal deterrence in sentencing for such offences.

The court reasoned that the sentence imposed failed to adequately reflect the principles of sentencing, particularly the paramount considerations of personal and general deterrence. The offending constituted a gross breach of trust, was committed against four victims over an extended period, and had caused significant community outrage. The court emphasised the insidious effect of such offences on community trust in those responsible for children's care, referencing established legal principles regarding the need for punishment to fit the crime and to mark societal condemnation. The court concluded that the sentence was manifestly inadequate and that the non-parole period, like the head sentence, must be proportionate to the gravity of the crime.

The court granted the Director's application for permission to appeal and allowed the appeal, finding the sentence to be manifestly inadequate.