Legal Research
Cases
R v Jarvis (a pseudonym)

R v Jarvis (a pseudonym)

Case [2020] NSWDC 396 8 April 2020

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Jarvis (a pseudonym) [2020] NSWDC 396
Hearing dates: 8 April 2020
Decision date: 08 April 2020
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Haesler SC DCJ
Decision:
Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 9 years 9 months. Non parole period of 5 years 5 months.

Catchwords:
CRIME - Persistent sexual abuse of a child.
SENTENCE - Relevant factors on sentence –stepfather- escalating abuse – admissions - early guilty plea - change of law and increase in maximum penalty during course of crime - impact of abuse - delay – remorse - victim acknowledges admissions as aiding her recovery - older offender - COVID 19 - not eligible for early release - special circumstances.

Legislation Cited:
Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987
Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act 2010
Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act1999
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Crimes Act 1900
Sentencing Act 1989 (now repealed)

Cases Cited:
Brown v R [2020] VSC 60
Eacott (a pseudonym) v R [2019] NSWCCA 158
IS v R [2011] NSWCCA 142
Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357
Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59
MJR v R [2002] NSWCCA 129
R v Cattell [2019] NSWCCA 297
R v DR [2018] NSWDC 405
R v Maclay (1990) 19 NSWLR 112
R v Todd [1982] 2 NSWLR 517
Ryanv The Queen (2001) 206 CLR 267
Siganto v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 656
The Queen v Pham [2015] HCA 39: (2015) 256 CLR 550
Thompson (2000) 49 NSWLR 383; (2000) 115 A Crim R 104
Weininger v The Queen (2003) 212 CLR 629

Category: Sentence
Parties: William Jarvis (the offender)
Director of Public Prosecutions
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr A Moutasallem (for the offender)
Mr D Coulton, Solicitor Advocate (for Director of Public Prosecutions)
Solicitors:
DGB Lawyers (for the offender)

File Number(s): 2019/00131902
Publication restriction: 1. Non-publication order relating to any information, picture or other material that identifies or is likely to lead to the identification of the child victim, including the identity of the offender: s578A Crimes Act 1900; S15A Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987.
2. Suppression order in respect of offender and complainant. The Offender and complainant will be referred to by a pseudonym: s 7 Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act 2010.

SENTENCE – EX TEMPORE REVISED

On 29 April 2019 William Jarvis, a pseudonym for the offender, was arrested and after proper charge negotiation procedures accepted his guilt in relation to an offence that as an adult he maintained an unlawful relationship with a child; s 66EA Crimes Act 1900. Jarvis must have the benefit of a 25%reduction of the otherwise applicable sentence to reflect the utilitarian value of that early guilty plea; s 25D Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.

Agreed facts

There are agreed facts before the Court. I have read them a number of times. I will not be reading them onto the record. Rather I will set out the short form description of the offences…

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 Jarvis (a pseudonym)

Details

AGLC: R v Jarvis (a pseudonym) [2020] NSWDC 396
Case: [2020] NSWDC 396
Decision Date: 08 April 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved the sentencing of a man identified as Jarvis for persistent sexual abuse of a child. The abuse spanned several years and included escalating acts of violence and control. Jarvis, the stepfather of the victim, had entered a guilty plea at an early stage of the proceedings, which was acknowledged by the court as a mitigating factor. The case raised several complex legal issues regarding sentencing, particularly the relevance of various factors such as the nature of the relationship between the offender and the victim, the escalation of the abuse, the impact on the victim, the offender's remorse, and the delay in bringing the case to court.

The court was required to balance these factors against others, including the change in the maximum penalty for the offence during the course of the crime, the offender's age, and the impact of COVID-19 on the prison system. Additionally, the victim's statement that she found Jarvis's admissions helpful in her recovery process was considered. The court also had to determine the appropriate length of the non-parole period, taking into account that Jarvis was not eligible for early release due to special circumstances. After weighing all these factors, the court delivered its judgment and sentenced Jarvis to a term of imprisonment of 9 years and 9 months, with a non-parole period of 5 years and 5 months.

Orders

Orders of the court

Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 9 years 9 months. Non parole period of 5 years 5 months.

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.

Citations

AGLC Citation

R v Jarvis (a pseudonym) [2020] NSWDC 396

Most Recent Citation

R v Masina (No 3) [2020] ACTSC 154

Cases citing this decision · 10 of 10 shown

Director of Public Prosecutions v Wilson (a pseudonym) (No 3)
[2025] ACTSC 229

…Director of Public Prosecutions v Jarvis (a pseudonym) [2018] VSCA 173; 55 VR 543 DPP v Wilson (a pseudonym) [2023] ACTSC 100 DPP v Wilson (a pseudonym) (No 2) [2024] ACTSC 286 DPP v Wilson (a pseudonym) (No 2) [2025] ACTCA 13 R v BEO [2025] QCA 40 R v Masina (No 3) [2020] ACTSC 154 WGC v The Queen [2007] HC…
DLS v Tasmania
[2024] TASCCA 10

…Cases cited: Director of Public Prosecutions v Jarvis (a pseudonym) [2018] VSCA 173, 55 VR 543 M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487 R v Dean [1932] NZLR 753 R v Dossi (1918) 13 Cr App R 158 R v Hughes [2000] NSWCCA 3 R v Jacobs [1993] 2 Qd R 541 R v McDonald (1995) 65 SASR 322…
Police v Roberts
[2023] ACTMC 38

…Director of Public Prosecution v Jarvis (a pseudonym) [2018] VSCA 173; 55 VR 543 Jago v District Court (NSW) [1989] HCA 46; 168 CLR 23…
R v Rose
[2022] NSWDC 705 Para 104

…In R v Jarvis (a pseudonym) [2020] NSWDC 396, the offender pleaded guilty to a single charge contrary to s 66EA of the Crimes Act . The offender was the stepfather of the victim. The sexual offending commenced when the child was about 10 or 11 years of age. Inappropriate touching constituting indecent assaults init…
R v Bradshaw (a pseudonym)
[2021] NSWDC 476 Para 6

…– cf Burr v R [2020] NSWCCA 282 per Johnson J at [104], with whom Leeming JA and Rothman J agreed) were retrospective (cf R v Jervis (a pseudonym) [2020] NSWDC 396 per Haesler SC DCJ at [29] – [30]).…
R v Garay (No 3)
[2021] ACTSC 215 Para 1

…In Director of Public Prosecutions v Jarvis (a pseudonym) [2018] VSCA 173; 55 VR 543 at [14] the Victorian Court of Appeal stated:…
R v NK
[2021] NSWDC 275 Para 71

…offender referred the court to competing authorities as to the applicability of the increased statutory maximum penalty. In R v Jarvis (a pseudonym) [2020] NSWDC 396, Haesler DCJ concluded the applicable maximum penalty was life imprisonment, despite the offending in that case pre-dating the commencement of the am…
Monaghan v Calatzis
[2021] ACTSC 4

…R 190 R v Coventry [1938] HCA 31; 59 CLR 633 R v Galvin [1998] ACTSC 104 R v Girvan (No 2) [2013] ACTSC 138 R v Jarvis (a pseudonym) [2018] VSCA 173; 55 VR 543 R v Masina (No 3) [2020] ACTSC 154 Shepherd v The Queen [1990] HCA 56; 170 CLR 573 R v Tangye (1997) 92 A Crim R 545 The Queen v Baden-Clay [2016] HC…
R v Graham (a pseudonym)
[2020] NSWDC 747 Para 13

…mprisonment. That maximum penalty was not available during the whole course of the offending activity, but as I discussed in R v Jarvis (a pseudonym) [2020] NSWDC 396, the maximum penalty applies to this offence. I was not asked to revisit that decision today.…
R v Masina (No 3)
[2020] ACTSC 154 Para 1

…In Director of Public Prosecutions v Jarvis (a pseudonym) [2018] VSCA 173; 55 VR 543 at [10]-[14] the Victorian Court of Appeal said:…

View all 10 citing cases →

Cases cited in this decision · 14 of 14 shown

Brown v R
[2020] VSC 60 Para 64

…relevant and must by synthesised along with all other matters. I have tried to do so based on the particular facts in this individual case: Brown v R [2020] VSC 60. It is also notorious, and I can take judicial notice of the fact that those of us who are in our sixties, seventies or older are more vulnerable to…
R v Cattell
[2019] NSWCCA 297 Para 40

…t, benefit from the delay in the revelation of and reporting the offences. These factors were explored by the Court of Criminal Appeal in R v Cattell [2019] NSWCCA 297; but each case and every offender is individual. There is no general principal as to the operation of leniency arising from delay.…
Eacott (a pseudonym) v R
[2019] NSWCCA 158 Para 69

…Here at one end of the spectrum I was taken to Eacott (a pseudonym) v R [2019] NSWCCA 158, a case which has some similarities to the present offending although the objective circumstances so far as Eacott were concerned seem to be less objectively seriousness than the present matter. At the other end are cases such…
R v DR
[2018] NSWDC 405 Para 69

…cumstances so far as Eacott were concerned seem to be less objectively seriousness than the present matter. At the other end are cases such as R v DR [2018] NSWDC 405 , a judgment of Judge Berman or IS v R [2011] NSWCCA 142. It is accepted that in a range of offending this offence falls below the middle which is on…
R v Pham
[2015] HCA 39 Para 68

…nd every case is individual and the mix of factors that must be weighed will never be precisely the same as in a past case or cases: The Queen v Pham [2015] HCA 39: (2015) 256 CLR 550.…
IS v R
[2011] NSWCCA 142 Para 69

…ss objectively seriousness than the present matter. At the other end are cases such as R v DR [2018] NSWDC 405 , a judgment of Judge Berman or IS v R [2011] NSWCCA 142. It is accepted that in a range of offending this offence falls below the middle which is one, but only one, relevant factor.…
Markarian v The Queen
[2005] HCA 25 Para 31

…ctors. Greater focus should be on the comparison between the instant case and other cases. But, as the High Court made clear in Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357, it is not appropriate to look first to the maximum penalty and then make some proportional deductions from it.…
Weininger v The Queen
[2003] HCA 14 Para 76

…are horrors inflicted on others as part of a calculus for converting human behaviour in all its forms into units of punishment: Weininger v The Queen (2003) 212 CLR 629.…
R v MJR
[2002] NSWCCA 129 Para 22

…Reference was made to MJR v R [2002] NSWCCA 129. Mr Moutasallem’s submission made reference to the previous provisions which could have applied to the facts here. He said that had the offender been arrested any time between 1999 and 2018, s 19 meant that the maximum penalty for his offending would have been 25 years…
Ryan v The Queen
[2001] HCA 21 Para 72

…reflects the community’s expectation an offender will suffer punishment and that particular offences will merit severe punishment; Ryan v The Queen (2001) 206 CLR 267. Child sex offences fall into that category.…
R v Thomson; R v Houlton
[2000] NSWCCA 383 Para 56

…n of remorse. Much greater weight, however, needs to be accorded to statements which confirm a position of genuine and deep felt contrition; Thompson (2000) 49 NSWLR 383; (2000) 115 A Crim R 104, at [118]. At [3] the Chief Justice made the point that early pleas of guilty are of particular importance in matter such as…
Siganto v the Queen
[1998] HCA 74

…attell [2019] NSWCCA 297 R v DR [2018] NSWDC 405 R v Maclay (1990) 19 NSWLR 112 R v Todd [1982] 2 NSWLR 517 Ryan v The Queen (2001) 206 CLR 267 Siganto v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 656 The Queen v Pham [2015] HCA 39: (2015) 256 CLR 550 Thompson (2000) 49 NSWLR 383; (2000) 115 A Crim R 104 Weininger v The Queen (2003) 212 CLR 6…
Radenkovic v The Queen
[1990] HCA 54 Para 27

…In submission reference was made to R v Maclay (1990) 19 NSWLR 112. Maclay was a case that involved the abolition of remissions following the introduction of the Sentencing Act 1989 (now repealed) . There the Court said, “The primary task of the sentencing judge is to apply the new sentencing system according to the t…
Mill v The Queen
[1988] HCA 70 Para 42

…commission of the offences, calls for a considerable measure of understanding and flexibility; R v Todd [1982] 2 NSWLR 517 at 519 ; Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59, at [14]. Offenders in any case are entitled to have evaluated in their favour any factors deriving from their conduct that reflects to their advanta…

Legislation cited in this decision · 7

Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW)
1 mention
Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW)
1 mention
Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 (NSW)
1 mention (from Para 63)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
1 mention (from Para 1)
Crimes Act 1900 (ACT)
1 mention
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
1 mention (from Para 1)
Sentencing Act 1989 (NSW)
1 mention (from Para 27)

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Jarvis (a pseudonym) [2020] NSWDC 396
Hearing dates:	8 April 2020
Decision date:	08 April 2020
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Haesler SC DCJ
Decision:	Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 9 years 9 months. Non parole period of 5 years 5 months.
Catchwords:	CRIME - Persistent sexual abuse of a child. SENTENCE - Relevant factors on sentence –stepfather- escalating abuse – admissions - early guilty plea - change of law and increase in maximum penalty during course of crime - impact of abuse - delay – remorse - victim acknowledges admissions as aiding her recovery - older offender - COVID 19 - not eligible for early release - special circumstances.
Legislation Cited:	Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act 2010 Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act1999 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 Crimes Act 1900 Sentencing Act 1989 (now repealed)
Cases Cited:	Brown v R [2020] VSC 60 Eacott (a pseudonym) v R [2019] NSWCCA 158 IS v R [2011] NSWCCA 142 Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357 Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59 MJR v R [2002] NSWCCA 129 R v Cattell [2019] NSWCCA 297 R v DR [2018] NSWDC 405 R v Maclay (1990) 19 NSWLR 112 R v Todd [1982] 2 NSWLR 517 Ryanv The Queen (2001) 206 CLR 267 Siganto v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 656 The Queen v Pham [2015] HCA 39: (2015) 256 CLR 550 Thompson (2000) 49 NSWLR 383; (2000) 115 A Crim R 104 Weininger v The Queen (2003) 212 CLR 629
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	William Jarvis (the offender) Director of Public Prosecutions
Representation:	Counsel: Mr A Moutasallem (for the offender) Mr D Coulton, Solicitor Advocate (for Director of Public Prosecutions) Solicitors: DGB Lawyers (for the offender)
File Number(s):	2019/00131902
Publication restriction:	1. Non-publication order relating to any information, picture or other material that identifies or is likely to lead to the identification of the child victim, including the identity of the offender: s578A Crimes Act 1900; S15A Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987. 2. Suppression order in respect of offender and complainant. The Offender and complainant will be referred to by a pseudonym: s 7 Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act 2010.