R v JA

Case [2019] NSWDC 314

District Court


New South Wales

  • Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: R v JA [2019] NSWDC 314
Hearing dates: 7 December 2018
Date of orders: 01 February 2019
Decision date: 01 February 2019
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Wilson SC DCJ
Decision:

At [87]-[91]

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – sentencing – 3 convictions – one following a jury trial – 2 following guilty plea – historical child sex abuse
Legislation Cited: Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987
Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth)
Cases Cited: Barbaro v R; Zirilli v R (2014) 253 CLR 58
Conte v R [2018] NSWCCA 209
Jonson v R (2016) 263 A Crim R 268
Monis v The Queen; Droudis v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 92
R v AA [2017] NSWCCA 84
R v AJP (2004) 150 A Crim R 575
R v Lulham (2016) 263 A Crim R 287
The Queen v Pham (2015) 256 CLR 550
Texts Cited: None
Category:Sentence
Parties: Regina (Crown)
JA (Offender)
Representation:

Counsel:
Ms E Nicholson (Crown)
Ms R Court (Offender)

  Solicitors:
ODPP (Crown)
Panwar Legal (Offender)
File Number(s): 2016/154764
Publication restriction: Non-Publication Order with regards to the name of the complainant, the Offender and the Offender's family

Introduction

  1. The Offender appears before the Court today for sentencing after pleading guilty to two charges on the Crown Sentence Summary (Exhibit A), and also in relation to a matter which is the subject of jury deliberation and a finding of guilt, which presented itself on indictment.

  2. In sentencing the Court has regard to the guideposts of maximum penalties and the standard non‑parole periods if such exists. The maximum penalty is the parliament’s assessment of the seriousness of the offending. The standard non-parole period is to be applied unless circumstances justify a departure from it.

  3. The offences for which this Offender is to be sentenced and the applicable guideposts are as follows:

  1. charge number ending 733 and being sequence 4 that is sexual intercourse with a child under 10 years, in breach of s66A of the Crimes Act. At the time of the commission of the offence had a maximum penalty of 20 years imprisonment and no standard non‑parole period. I note that the offence now carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment and this is the offence for which the Offender was found guilty after pleading not guilty at trial;

  2. charge number ending 733 and is sequence 5 being using a carriage service to menace, harass or offend in breach of s474.17(1) of the Criminal Code which has a maximum penalty of three years imprisonment with no standard non‑parole period; and

  3. the further offence for which the Offender is to be sentenced has the same charge number as the other two offences but relates to sequence 2 in respect of that charge, namely being possess child abuse material in breach of s91H of the Crimes Act which has a maximum penalty of ten years imprisonment without a standard non‑parole period.

  1. The Offender was born in…

Continue reading R v JA

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v JA [2019] NSWDC 314
Case
[2019] NSWDC 314
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v JA, the appellant was convicted of three charges of historical child sexual abuse. The first conviction followed a jury trial, while the other two were pursuant to a guilty plea. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The appellant appealed against the sentences imposed, arguing they were excessive. The respondent, the State of Queensland, submitted that the sentences were appropriate given the nature and impact of the crimes.

The legal issues before the court included the appropriate weight to be given to the principles of parity and proportionality in sentencing, and whether the cumulative sentences imposed were excessive. The court had to consider the principles of sentencing in relation to historical child sexual abuse, including the gravity of the offences, the appellant's criminal history, and the impact on the victims. Additionally, the court considered the principle of parity, which requires sentences for similar offences to be comparable.

The court found that while the sentences were severe, they were not excessive. The trial judge had appropriately considered the aggravating and mitigating factors, including the appellant's guilty plea and the impact of the crimes on the victims. The court held that the sentences reflected the gravity of the offences and were proportionate to the crimes committed. The principle of parity was also upheld, as the sentences were consistent with those imposed in similar cases. The appeal was ultimately dismissed.

The court made no changes to the sentences imposed. The orders were to affirm the sentences of imprisonment for each of the three convictions, totaling 12 years with a non-parole period of 8 years. The appellant was also subject to additional orders, including registration as a sex offender and supervision requirements.

Orders

Orders of the court

At [87]-[91]

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.