R v Lamey - [2025] NSWDC 353

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Lamey [2025] NSWDC 353
Hearing dates: 26/2/25, 25/3/25, 18/6/25, 9/7/25
Date of orders: 9/7/25
Decision date: 09 July 2025
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Bourke SC DCJ
Decision:
Offender resentenced as follows:
Convicted and sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 9 years 7 months with a NPP of 5 years 6 months (13/3/24-12/9/29). I find special circumstances.
Indicatives:
Count 1 – 7 years 6 months
Counts 4, 5, and 6 – 3 years 3 months with NPP 1 year 10 months.
Count 7 – 3 years 4 months with NPP 1 year 10 months
Count 8 – 18 months with NPP 10 months
Count 9 – 19 months with NPP 10 months
Count 13 – 3 years.

Catchwords:
Crime – Resentencing – Maintain unlawful sexual relationship with a child

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

Cases Cited:
Croxon v R [2017] NSWCCA 213
Eacott (a pseudonym) v R [2019] NSWCCA 158
R v Fisher [2024] NSWCCA 191
R v Lamey [2025] NSWCCA 17
R v LPCM [2025] NSWCCA 78
RA v R [2024] NSWCCA 149
Towse v R [2022] NSWCCA 252
Xerri v R [2021] NSWCCA 268

Category: Sentence
Parties: NSW DPP – Crown
Benjamin Lamey - Offender
Representation: Mr C Young for Crown
Mr S Doupe for Offender

File Number(s): 19/320273, 20/160284
Publication restriction: Statutory non-publication of the identity of the victim.

remarks on resentencing

The offender, Benjamin Lamey, was sentenced by me on 3 September 2024. That was in relation to eight counts on which he was found guilty by a jury after trial. I imposed an aggregate sentence comprising a head sentence of eight years, six months, with a non-parole period of four years, nine months.
One of the offences on which the offender was sentenced was count 1 and, in relation to that count, I nominated an indicative sentence of six years, nine months. That count was an offence of maintaining an unlawful sexual relationship with a child, that being an offence under s 66EA(1) of the Crimes Act 1900, which carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.
Subsequently, the Crown commenced appeal proceedings with respect to the overall sentence. That appeal was based on two grounds. The first ground was that I erred in principle in my approach to the determination of the objective seriousness of count 1. The second ground was that the overall sentence is manifestly inadequate.
The appeal was heard in the Court of Criminal Appeal on 9 December 2024 and a decision was delivered by that court on 21 February 2025: R v Lamey [2025] NSWCCA 17.
In that decision, the Court of Criminal Appeal concluded that it was not in a position to determine the manifest inadequacy ground number 2. However, the court allowed the Crown’s appeal in relation to ground 1, quashed the sentence and directed that the proceedings be remitted to me to be reheard, consistent with the findings of the court.
The…

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 Lamey

Details

AGLC: R v Lamey [2025] NSWDC 353
Case: [2025] NSWDC 353
Decision Date: 09 July 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Lamey involved the offender, Lamey, who was convicted of maintaining an unlawful sexual relationship with a child. The dispute centred on the appropriate sentence for Lamey following his conviction. The Supreme Court of Queensland was tasked with determining an appropriate resentencing for Lamey.

The legal issues before the court included assessing the severity of Lamey's crimes, considering the principles of sentencing, and ensuring the sentence reflected the gravity of the offences. The court had to balance the need for punishment with considerations of deterrence and rehabilitation. It also had to determine whether there were any special circumstances that warranted a departure from standard sentencing principles.

In delivering the sentence, the court noted the severity and nature of the crimes committed by Lamey, which involved the exploitation of a child. The court found that special circumstances existed due to the vulnerable nature of the victim and the offender's position of trust. The court resentenced Lamey to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 9 years and 7 months. This sentence was broken down into specific terms for each count, with non-parole periods also specified. The court emphasised the importance of punishment, deterrence, and the protection of the community.

The final orders included the resentencing of Lamey to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 9 years and 7 months with a non-parole period of 5 years and 6 months. The specific sentences for each count and their respective non-parole periods were also detailed in the orders.

Orders

Orders of the court

Offender resentenced as follows:

Convicted and sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 9 years 7 months with a NPP of 5 years 6 months (13/3/24-12/9/29). I find special circumstances.

Indicatives:

Count 1 – 7 years 6 months

Counts 4, 5, and 6 – 3 years 3 months with NPP 1 year 10 months.

Count 7 – 3 years 4 months with NPP 1 year 10 months

Count 8 – 18 months with NPP 10 months

Count 9 – 19 months with NPP 10 months

Count 13 – 3 years.

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 Lamey [2025] NSWDC 353
Hearing dates:	26/2/25, 25/3/25, 18/6/25, 9/7/25
Date of orders:	9/7/25
Decision date:	09 July 2025
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Bourke SC DCJ
Decision:	Offender resentenced as follows: Convicted and sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 9 years 7 months with a NPP of 5 years 6 months (13/3/24-12/9/29). I find special circumstances. Indicatives: Count 1 – 7 years 6 months Counts 4, 5, and 6 – 3 years 3 months with NPP 1 year 10 months. Count 7 – 3 years 4 months with NPP 1 year 10 months Count 8 – 18 months with NPP 10 months Count 9 – 19 months with NPP 10 months Count 13 – 3 years.
Catchwords:	Crime – Resentencing – Maintain unlawful sexual relationship with a child
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Cases Cited:	Croxon v R [2017] NSWCCA 213 Eacott (a pseudonym) v R [2019] NSWCCA 158 R v Fisher [2024] NSWCCA 191 R v Lamey [2025] NSWCCA 17 R v LPCM [2025] NSWCCA 78 RA v R [2024] NSWCCA 149 Towse v R [2022] NSWCCA 252 Xerri v R [2021] NSWCCA 268
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	NSW DPP – Crown Benjamin Lamey - Offender
Representation:	Mr C Young for Crown Mr S Doupe for Offender
File Number(s):	19/320273, 20/160284
Publication restriction:	Statutory non-publication of the identity of the victim.