R v George Philip Iles (Unreported, County Court of Victoria, Judge Kelly, 18 October 2007)
---
CRIMINAL LAW – Sentencing – Indecent assault – Sexual penetration of a child under 10 – Error in sentencing as a serious sexual offender on all counts – Whether error was material – Old age of the appellant a significant mitigating factor – Manner in which an offender’s age and medical conditions have been considered must be identified by the sentencing judge –Appeal allowed – Appellant re-sentenced.
---
APPEARANCES:
Counsel
Solicitors
For the Crown
Mr S M Cooper
Mr C Hyland, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Appellant
Mr D A Dann
Leanne Warren & Associates
NEAVE JA:
I will ask Lasry AJA to deliver the first judgment in this matter.
LASRY AJA:
On 15 October 2007, the appellant pleaded guilty in the County Court to one count of indecent assault (Count 1), four counts of sexual penetration of a child under the age of ten (Counts 2, 3, 4 and 5), contrary to ss 44(1) and 47(1) of the Crimes Act1958 (Crimes Act) respectively.
On 18 October 2007, the appellant was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment on Count 1 and three years’ imprisonment on each of Counts 2, 4 and 5. On Count 3, which was the count of sexual penetration of a child under the age of ten years, he was sentenced to four years’ imprisonment. Count 3 was the base sentence and the sentencing judge directed that one year of the sentence imposed on each of Counts 2, 4 and 5 be served cumulatively upon each other and upon the sentence imposed on Count 3, resulting in a total effective sentence of seven years’ imprisonment. The sentencing judge ordered that four years of imprisonment be served before the appellant was eligible to apply for parole. It seems likely that in relation to all counts the appellant was erroneously sentenced as a serious sexual offender rather than just on Counts 3, 4 and 5. His Honour noted that, although the prisoner is a serious sexual offender, it was not necessary to pass a disproportionate sentence. I will return briefly to this matter shortly.
Leave to appeal against the sentence was granted to the appellant on 30 January 2009.
Four grounds of appeal against the sentence were argued before us, the first three of which appeared in the original Notice of Appeal. They were:
1.The exercise of the sentencing discretion miscarried because in considering whether a suspended sentence could be imposed the learned sentencing judge applied the wrong test of what amounted to exceptional circumstances.
2.The learned sentencing judge erred in not according special weight to the appellant’s age as…
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 Iles
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Iles [2009] VSCA 197
Case
[2009] VSCA 197
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the matter of the Commonwealth of Australia versus Iles, the appellant faced charges relating to indecent assault involving sexual penetration of a child under the age of 10. The case was heard and determined by the High Court of Australia. The appellant was convicted of multiple counts of serious sexual offences and sentenced as a serious sexual offender on all counts. The appeal focused on the alleged error in the sentencing process, specifically whether the trial judge's failure to correctly identify the mitigating factor of the appellant's advanced age constituted a material error.
The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the error in sentencing was material, given the significant mitigating factor of the appellant's old age. The Court had to determine whether the trial judge's oversight in not identifying the mitigating factor of the appellant's age and medical conditions as required by the sentencing principles warranted a new sentencing hearing. The appellant's counsel argued that the error was material because it directly impacted the sentencing outcome, whereas the prosecution contended that the error was not material as it did not affect the overall sentence imposed.
The Court held that the error was indeed material. The High Court emphasised the importance of the sentencing judge correctly identifying and considering all relevant mitigating factors, including the offender’s age and medical conditions. The Court noted that the appellant's advanced age and medical issues were significant factors that should have been properly weighed in the sentencing process. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal and remitted the matter to the lower court for re-sentencing, ensuring that the appellant's age and medical conditions were appropriately considered. The Court's decision underscores the necessity for meticulous adherence to sentencing guidelines and the critical role of mitigating factors in determining an appropriate sentence.