R v JF

Case [2017] NSWCCA 217 6 September 2017

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v JF [2017] NSWCCA 217
Hearing dates: 28 April 2017
Decision date: 06 September 2017
Before: Hoeben CJ at CL at [1]
Fullerton J at [2]
Hamill J at [154]
Decision:
1. Crown appeal allowed.

2. Confirm the sentence imposed for the offence under s 474 of the Criminal Code Act (Cth) (being charge sequence 4).

3. Quash the aggregate sentence imposed by Toner DCJ on 30 November 2016 for the offences under the Crimes Act (NSW) (being charge sequences 1 (+ Form 1), 2, 31, 32, 5, 8, 33, 34, 11, 13, 14, 17, 22, 24, 26, 35, 36, 37, 38, 3).
4. In lieu thereof, the respondent is sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 12 years with a non-parole period of 7 years commencing on 6 February 2016 and expiring on 5 February 2023 with a balance of term of 5 years expiring on 5 February 2028.
Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – Crown appeal against sentence –thirteen offences laid under ss 66EB(2), 66C(3), 66C(1), 61N(1), 91D(1)(a) Crimes Act (NSW), s 474.27A(1) Criminal Code Act (Cth) – thirteen complainants aged 14 to 16 – manifest inadequacy of sentence – failure to assess objective seriousness – prospects of rehabilitation erroneously assessed – failure to apply totality principle
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW)
Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth)
Cases Cited: Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571; [2013] HCA 37
CMB v Attorney General for New South Wales [2015] HCA 9
Dinsdale v R (2000) 202 CLR 321; [2000] HCA 54
Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1; [2010] NSWCCA 194
Doe v R [2013] NSWCCA 248
Gifford v R [2016] NSWCCA 302
JM v R [2014] NSWCCA 297
Jolly v R [2013] NSWCCA 76
Kentwell v R (2014) 252 CLR 601; [2014] HCA 37
Mulato v R [2006] NSWCCA 282
Muldrock v R (2011) 244 CLR 120; [2011] HCA 39
R v AJP [2004] NSWCCA 434; (2004) 150 A Crim R 575
R v Asplund; Asplund v R [2010] NSWCCA 316
R v Cortese [2013] NSWCCA 148
R v Crumpton [2016] NSWCCA 261
R v Fuller [2010] NSWCCA 192
R v Harris [2015] NSWCCA 81
R v Hemsley [2004] NSWCCA 228
R v King [2009] NSWCCA 117
R v MAK; R v MSK; [2006] NSWCCA 381; (2006) 167 A Crim R 159
R v Nahlous [2013] NSWCCA 90
R v Pogson; R v Lapham; R v Martin (2012) 82 NSWLR 60; [2012] NSWCCA 225
R (Cth) v Poynder [2007] NSWCCA 157
Tector v R [2008] NSWCCA 151
ZA v R [2017] NSWCCA 132
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: The Crown (Applicant)
JF (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
S Dowling SC (Crown)
T Gartelmann SC (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Crown)

File Number(s): 2013/356453; 2014/167889
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District…

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 JF

Details

AGLC: R v JF [2017] NSWCCA 217
Case: [2017] NSWCCA 217
Decision Date: 06 September 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, JF, was convicted of thirteen offences under various sections of the Crimes Act (NSW) and the Criminal Code Act (Cth). The offences were committed against thirteen complainants aged between 14 and 16. The Crown appealed against the sentence imposed by the District Court, arguing that it was manifestly inadequate. The appeal was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate and whether the District Court had properly assessed the objective seriousness of the offences, the prospects of rehabilitation, and applied the totality principle in sentencing. The court considered whether the District Court had failed to take into account the gravity of the offences, the vulnerability of the victims, and the need for deterrence and denunciation.

The court found that the District Court had failed to properly assess the objective seriousness of the offences and the prospects of rehabilitation. The court held that the District Court had not adequately considered the gravity of the offences and the impact on the victims. The court also found that the District Court had erroneously assessed the prospects of rehabilitation, placing undue emphasis on the appellant's potential for rehabilitation without sufficient consideration of the gravity of the offences. Furthermore, the court held that the District Court had not applied the totality principle, imposing a sentence that was too lenient given the cumulative effect of the offences. The Crown's appeal was allowed, and the matter was remitted to the District Court for resentencing.

The court ordered that the matter be remitted to the District Court for resentencing, with directions that the court consider the objective seriousness of the offences, the prospects of rehabilitation, and apply the totality principle in determining an appropriate sentence. The court emphasised the importance of considering the gravity of the offences, the vulnerability of the victims, and the need for deterrence and denunciation in sentencing. The court also noted that the appellant's potential for rehabilitation should be considered in the context of the seriousness of the offences.

Orders