R v Kerim - [2025] NSWDC 325

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Kerim [2025] NSWDC 325
Hearing dates: 20 March 2025 and 26 June 2025
Date of orders: 26 June 2025
Decision date: 26 June 2025
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Judge Haesler SC DCJ
Decision:
Aggregate sentence of 15 months imprisonment to be served subject to an Intensive Correction Order

Catchwords:
CRIME — Sexual offences — Bestiality — Production/Dissemination bestiality material
SENTENCING — Mitigating factors — Good character — No record of previous convictions — Plea of guilty — Past and future assistance — Rehabilitation — Remorse — Unlikely to re-offend
SENTENCING — Penalties — Intensive correction orders
SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Deterrence — General deterrence — Form 1 offences — Moral culpability — Objective seriousness — Voluntary disclosure of offending — Assistance to prosecution of others
SENTENCING — Subjective considerations on sentence — Extra curial punishment — Mental illness and disorders

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Cook v R [2025] NSWCCA 96
Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1; [2010] NSWCCA 194
Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25; (2005) 228 CLR 357
Mill v The Queen [1988] HCA 70; (1988) 166 CLR 59
R v Cartwright (1989) 17 NSWLR 243
R v Chesworth [2003] NSWCCA 115
R v Daetz [2003] NSWCCA 316
R vGeddes (1936) 36 SR (NSW) 554
R v Holyoak (1995) 82 A Crim R 502
R v Pullen [2018] NSWCCA 264
R v PW [2019] NSWDC 963
R v Wilson (2003) 139 A Crim R 398 at 411
Stanley v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) [2023] HCA 3

Texts Cited:
Eric Stockdale and Keith Devlin, Sentencing (1987, Law Book Co of Australasia)
The New King James Bible

Category: Sentence
Parties: Joel Jose Kerim (the offender)
Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)
Representation:
Counsel:
J Masters (for the offender)
Solicitors:
Clark Rideaux Solicitors (for the offender)
K MacKinnon and K Malcolm for the Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)

File Number(s): 2024/19006

JUDGMENT – ex tempore revised

Introduction

In 2023 Joel Kerim, on a number of occasions, had sexual intercourse with a pony – the crime of bestiality. He was living on a small farm on the South Coast of New South Wales with his then wife. In January 2024 sought guidance from the elders of his church. He then went to the local police station where he made full admissions to the offences that now come before the Court. Kerim told police that he was in a “bad frame of mind” at the time.
He was eventually charged with four offences of bestiality, pursuant to s 79 Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). Those offences carry a maximum penalty of 14 years imprisonment. Soon after his partner and her family attended the police station. His wife was charged with related offences. She has said she is not guilty and is thus presumed to be innocent. Kerim later made…

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 Kerim

Details

AGLC: R v Kerim [2025] NSWDC 325
Case: [2025] NSWDC 325
Decision Date: 26 June 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Kerim involved the defendant, Kerim, who was charged with producing and disseminating material depicting bestiality. The matter was heard in a higher court in Australia. The primary legal issues before the court were whether the sentence should be mitigated based on the defendant's good character and other factors, and whether an Intensive Correction Order (ICO) should be imposed instead of imprisonment. The court was also required to determine the appropriate length of the sentence, considering the principles of deterrence and rehabilitation.

The court examined several mitigating factors, including the defendant's good character, lack of previous convictions, early guilty plea, and potential for rehabilitation. The defendant's remorse, voluntary disclosure of his offending, and assistance to the prosecution of others were also taken into account. The court acknowledged the defendant's mental health issues, which were considered in determining the appropriate sentence. The objective seriousness of the offence, the need for general deterrence, and the form 1 nature of the offence were weighed in the sentencing decision.

The court concluded that, while the offence was serious, the defendant's good character, early guilty plea, and other mitigating factors warranted a reduced sentence. The court decided that an aggregate sentence of 15 months imprisonment should be served under an Intensive Correction Order, reflecting the defendant's remorse, likelihood of rehabilitation, and the need for general deterrence. The court found that an ICO was more appropriate than imprisonment, considering the defendant's mental health issues and potential for rehabilitation. The court's decision balanced the need for punishment with the opportunity for the defendant to make amends and reintegrate into society.

Orders

Orders of the court

Aggregate sentence of 15 months imprisonment to be served subject to an Intensive Correction Order

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Kerim [2025] NSWDC 325
Hearing dates:	20 March 2025 and 26 June 2025
Date of orders:	26 June 2025
Decision date:	26 June 2025
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Judge Haesler SC DCJ
Decision:	Aggregate sentence of 15 months imprisonment to be served subject to an Intensive Correction Order
Catchwords:	CRIME — Sexual offences — Bestiality — Production/Dissemination bestiality material SENTENCING — Mitigating factors — Good character — No record of previous convictions — Plea of guilty — Past and future assistance — Rehabilitation — Remorse — Unlikely to re-offend SENTENCING — Penalties — Intensive correction orders SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Deterrence — General deterrence — Form 1 offences — Moral culpability — Objective seriousness — Voluntary disclosure of offending — Assistance to prosecution of others SENTENCING — Subjective considerations on sentence — Extra curial punishment — Mental illness and disorders
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Cases Cited:	Cook v R [2025] NSWCCA 96 Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1; [2010] NSWCCA 194 Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25; (2005) 228 CLR 357 Mill v The Queen [1988] HCA 70; (1988) 166 CLR 59 R v Cartwright (1989) 17 NSWLR 243 R v Chesworth [2003] NSWCCA 115 R v Daetz [2003] NSWCCA 316 R vGeddes (1936) 36 SR (NSW) 554 R v Holyoak (1995) 82 A Crim R 502 R v Pullen [2018] NSWCCA 264 R v PW [2019] NSWDC 963 R v Wilson (2003) 139 A Crim R 398 at 411 Stanley v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) [2023] HCA 3
Texts Cited:	Eric Stockdale and Keith Devlin, Sentencing (1987, Law Book Co of Australasia) The New King James Bible
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Joel Jose Kerim (the offender) Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)
Representation:	Counsel: J Masters (for the offender) Solicitors: Clark Rideaux Solicitors (for the offender) K MacKinnon and K Malcolm for the Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)
File Number(s):	2024/19006