Legal Research
Cases
R v Hodson

R v Hodson

Case [2024] NSWCCA 238 18 December 2024

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available
Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Hodson [2024] NSWCCA 238
Hearing dates: 20 November 2024
Date of orders: 18 December 2024
Decision date: 18 December 2024
Before: Mitchelmore JA at [1];
Fagan J at [78];
Dhanji J at [83]
Decision:
(1) Appeal allowed.
(2) Quash the sentence imposed by David DCJ on 7 June 2024 and in lieu thereof sentence the respondent to a term of imprisonment of 12 years commencing on 21 March 2023 and expiring on 20 March 2035 with a non-parole period of 8 years and 6 months commencing on 21 March 2023 and expiring on 20 September 2031. The respondent will be eligible for parole on 20 September 2031.

Catchwords:
CRIME — appeal against sentence — manifest inadequacy — where offender convicted of 12 counts of child sex offences which occurred over a period of 15 years against four child victims — where the offending involved a significant age disparity, skin-on-skin contact with the genitals, sexual intercourse, planning, use of a position of trust, persistence, and escalation in seriousness over time — where the offender’s subjective case focused on his good character, experience in custody, and mental health history — whether the indicative sentences and non-parole periods failed to reflect the objective seriousness of the offending
CRIME — appeal against sentence — residual discretion — relevance of the offender’s experiences in custody — whether maintenance of public confidence in the administration of justice required re-sentencing

Legislation Cited:
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 3A, 21A(2)(k), 21A(2)(n), 21A(5A), 25AA, 54A
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 61M(2), 66A, 66C(1), 66D
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), s 5D

Cases Cited:
Cahyadi v R [2007] NSWCCA 1; (2007) 168 A Crim R 41
CMB v Attorney-General (NSW) (2015) 256 CLR 346; [2015] HCA 9
Dinsdale v The Queen (2000) 202 CLR 321; [2000] HCA 54
Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1; [2010] NSWCCA 194
EG v R [2015] NSWCCA 21
Green v The Queen; Quinn v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 462; [2011] HCA 49
Griffiths v The Queen (1977) 137 CLR 293; [1977] HCA 44
Hili v The Queen; Jones v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520; [2010] HCA 45
JM v R [2014] NSWCCA 297; (2014) 246 A Crim R 528
Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665; [1999] HCA 29
Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357; [2005] HCA 25
Maxwell v R [2020] NSWCCA 94
PC v R (2022) 108 NSWLR 181; [2022] NSWCCA 107
R v BJW [2000] NSWCCA 60; (2000) 112 A Crim R 1
R v Hill [2020] NSWCCA 197
R v Kennedy [2000] NSWCCA 527
R v VR [2024] NSWCCA 91

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Rex (Appellant)
Timothy Hodson (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
A Bonnor (Appellant)
D Carroll / P McManus (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Appellant)

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v Hodson

Details

AGLC: R v Hodson [2024] NSWCCA 238
Case: [2024] NSWCCA 238
Decision Date: 18 December 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court was an appeal against sentence, brought by the respondent, Hodson, who had been convicted on twelve counts of child sex offences. The offences occurred over a period of 15 years and involved four child victims. The court was tasked with considering whether the sentences and non-parole periods imposed were inadequate and whether the residual discretion of the court should be exercised to account for Hodson’s experiences in custody.

The primary legal issues were whether the indicative sentences and non-parole periods imposed by the original sentencing court adequately reflected the objective seriousness of the offending. This involved assessing the nature of the offences, including the significant age disparity between the offender and victims, the persistence and escalation of the offending, and the offender’s use of a position of trust. The appeal also questioned the relevance of the offender's experiences in custody and mental health history to the sentencing process.

The court found that the original sentences did not adequately reflect the gravity of the offending. It emphasised the severity of the crimes, which involved skin-on-skin contact with the genitals, sexual intercourse, and a substantial breach of trust. The court noted that Hodson’s subjective arguments regarding his character and experiences in custody did not sufficiently mitigate the impact of the offences on the victims. Consequently, the appeal was upheld, and the matter was remitted to the original sentencing court for re-sentencing.

The court ordered that the sentences and non-parole periods be reconsidered to ensure they appropriately reflected the objective seriousness of the offending. It directed that the re-sentencing take into account the totality of Hodson’s offending and the need to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice.

Orders