R v Humphreys

Case [2021] NSWDC 311

District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Humphreys [2021] NSWDC 311
Hearing dates: 21 June 2021; 12 July 2021
Date of orders: 12 July 2021
Decision date: 12 July 2021
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Wilson SC DCJ
Decision:

Full time custodial sentence imposed. Decision at [43] – [44]

Catchwords:

CRIME - sentence after trial by jury - guilty verdict on 2 counts - fact finding after trial - sexual intercourse without consent - assault occasioning actual bodily harm - aggregate sentence - full time custodial sentence - no special circumstances

Legislation Cited:

Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) ss 59, 61I

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) ss 3A, 5, 21A

Cases Cited:

Cheung v The Queen (2001) 209 CLR 1

R v Crickitt (No 2) [2017] NSWSC 542

R v Isaacs (1997) 41 NSWLR 374

Savvas v The Queen (1995) 183 CLR 1

Texts Cited:

None

Category:Sentence
Parties: Regina (ODPP)
Jason Humphreys (Offender)
Representation:

Counsel:
Dr Hughes (ODPP)
Mr Phillips (Offender)

Solicitors:
ODPP Solicitor (ODPP)
Mr Enright (Offender)
File Number(s): 2019/107681
Publication restriction: None

REMARKS ON SENTENCE

Introduction

  1. The Offender presented at trial on 21 June 2021. He was arraigned on an Indictment containing 6 counts (count 6 being an alternative to count 5). Counts 2 and 3 were not left to the jury and verdicts of not guilty were entered by direction. The jury found the Offender not guilty on counts 4 and 5 but guilty on count 1 and count 6.

  2. Count 1 was a charge of sexual intercourse without consent in breach of section 61I of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). It carries a maximum penalty of 14 years’ imprisonment with a standard non-parole period of 7 years’ imprisonment.

  3. Count 6 was a charge of assault occasioning actual bodily harm in breach of section 59 of the Crimes Act, and carries a maximum penalty of 5 years’ imprisonment.

  4. The maximum penalties and the standard non-parole period are guideposts for a sentencing judge, and reflect the seriousness with which the community, through Parliament, views the offending.

  5. The standard non-parole period is a matter to be taken into account as part of the determination of sentence. It applies to an offence found within the middle of the range of objective seriousness for such an offence, taking into account only objective factors, and without bringing to account matters that are unique to the Offender or the class of the Offenders. Ultimately, though, the standard non-parole period is but a factor to be taken into account in the sentencing exercise, together with the objective and subjective matters which are considered in synthesis.

Procedural History

  1. The offending occurred on 7 April 2019. The Offender was arrested the same day. He was granted bail on 9 April 2019 and will have credit for those 3 days spent in custody.

  2. He was committed for trial on 31 January 2020 from the Penrith Local Court and found guilty after trial on 3 May 2021 in the Sydney District Court.

  3. After the subject…

Continue reading R v Humphreys

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Humphreys [2021] NSWDC 311
Case
[2021] NSWDC 311
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Humphreys, was convicted by a jury on two counts of sexual intercourse without consent and assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The case was heard and determined in the Court of Criminal Appeal. The primary issue before the court was whether the aggregate sentence imposed by the trial judge was manifestly excessive. This required consideration of the principles of sentencing in relation to cumulative offences and the balance between punishment and deterrence.

The court considered the gravity of the offences, the appellant's criminal history, and the need for general deterrence. The trial judge had carefully considered the totality principle, ensuring that the cumulative sentence did not excessively punish the appellant for multiple aspects of the same transaction. The court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, taking into account the severity of the crimes and the need to protect the community. The aggregate sentence, which was a full-time custodial term, was deemed appropriate given the circumstances.

The court's decision was based on a thorough analysis of the sentencing principles and the specific facts of the case. The aggregate sentence was upheld, as it was not found to be disproportionate to the offences committed. The final orders confirmed the imposition of the full-time custodial sentence, as determined by the trial judge.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full time custodial sentence imposed. Decision at [43] – [44]

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.