R v JRN

Case [2019] NSWDC 496


District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v JRN [2019] NSWDC 496
Hearing dates: 5 September 2019
Decision date: 13 September 2019
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Mahony SC DCJ
Decision:

Full-time custodial sentence. For orders see [59]

Catchwords: Multiple offences of indecent assault and aggravated sexual intercourse against children; aggregate sentence
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Cases Cited: Cahyadi v R [2007] NSWCCA 1; 168 A Crim R 41
R v Van Ryn [2016] NSWCCA 1
WAP v R [2017] NSWCCA 212
Category:Sentence
Parties: Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
JN (Offender)
Representation:

Counsel:
M Hay (Crown)
D Brogan (Offender)

  Solicitors:
E Brown (Crown)
D Davidge (Offender
File Number(s): 17/190461
Publication restriction: NB s 578A(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 applies to this matter – no publication of any matter which identifies the complainants or may lead to the identification of the complainants.

REMARKS ON SENTENCE

  1. On 16 May 2019 at the Griffith District Court, a jury returned verdicts of guilty on the following seven counts on the Indictment:

  1. Between 22 March 2007 and 30 April 2007, at Deniliquin in the State of New South Wales, did assault RN, a person then under the age of 10 years, namely, 5 years of age and at the time of such assault did commit an act of indecency on the said RN.

This offence is pursuant to s 61M(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 and carries a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment with a Standard Non-Parole Period of 5 years imprisonment.

  1. On or about 1 July 2010, in Deniliquin in the State of New South Wales, did have sexual intercourse with RN, who was at that time under the age of 10 years, namely, 7 years of age.

  1. This offence is pursuant to s 66A(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 and carries a maximum penalty of 25 years imprisonment with a Standard Non-Parole Period of 15 years imprisonment.

  1. On or about 3 September 2011, at Goulburn in the State of New South Wales, did assault RN, a person then under the age of 16 years, namely, 9 years of age and at the time of such assault did commit an act of indecency on the said RN.

This offence is pursuant to s 61M(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 and carries a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment with a Standard Non-Parole Period of 8 years imprisonment.

  1. Between 2 February 2012 and 13 February 2012, in Deniliquin in the State of New South Wales, did have sexual intercourse with RN, the said RN being a person of the age of 10 years and under the age of 14 years, namely 10 years of age, in circumstances of aggravation, namely, at the time of the offence RN was under the authority of JRN.

This offence is pursuant to s 66C(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 and carries a maximum penalty of 20 years imprisonment. There is no Standard Non-Parole Period proscribed.

  1. Between 22 January 2002…

Continue reading R v JRN

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v JRN [2019] NSWDC 496
Case
[2019] NSWDC 496
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved the respondent, JRN, who was charged with multiple offences of indecent assault and aggravated sexual intercourse against children. The case was heard in the County Court of Victoria. The respondent pleaded guilty to these offences, which involved the abuse of several children over an extended period. The sentencing of the respondent was the primary focus of the court’s attention, with consideration given to the severity and impact of the crimes committed.

The legal issues that the court was required to address included determining the appropriate aggregate sentence for the multiple offences and assessing the circumstances surrounding each incident to ensure justice was served. The court considered the need for punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation, along with the principles of sentencing for sexual offences against children. Additionally, the court had to balance the individual circumstances of each offence with the need for a sentence that reflected the gravity of the respondent’s actions.

The court delivered a full-time custodial sentence, recognising the severity of the crimes and the need to protect society and the victims. The sentencing judge found that the nature and extent of the abuse, the vulnerability of the victims, and the repeated nature of the offending warranted a significant custodial term. The court also took into account the respondent’s guilty plea, which was acknowledged as a mitigating factor. The sentence imposed aimed to achieve the overarching objectives of punishment, deterrence, and to some extent, rehabilitation, ensuring that the community’s confidence in the justice system was maintained.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full-time custodial sentence. For orders see [59]

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.