R v LD

Case [2020] NSWDC 227


District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v LD [2020] NSWDC 227
Hearing dates: 12 March 2020; 2 April 2020
Date of orders: 02 April 2020
Decision date: 02 April 2020
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Wilson SC DCJ
Decision:

At [105] – [117]

Catchwords: CRIME – sentencing – historical child sex offence – indecent assault – guilty plea - special circumstances found
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 NSW ss61M(2), 61O(2), 91H(2
Crimes (High‑Risk Offenders) Act 2006 ss 1A, 5
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 NSW ss 21A, 23, 25AA(1)
Mental Health Act 2007 NSW
Cases Cited: Gore v R (2010) 208 A Crim R 353
Ivimy v R [2008] NSWCCA 25
McLaughlin v R [2013] NSWCCA 152
R v Cattell [2019] NSWCCA 297
R v De Leeuw [2015] NSWCCA 183
Texts Cited: None
Category:Sentence
Parties: Regina (ODPP)
[REDACTED] (Offender)
Representation: Solicitors:
Ms J Turner (ODPP)
Ms T Johnson (Offender)
File Number(s): 2019/90140
Publication restriction: Name of victim restricted together with any information which may lead directly or indirectly identifying the victim.

Judgment

  1. The Offender appears today in court for sentence in relation to six counts together with an additional charge on a Form 1 in relation to incidents that occurred some time ago and also in relation to possessing child abuse material more recently.

  2. The Offender was born on 27 October 1964 and is now 55 years of age. He was made redundant from his employment at the age of 50 and his life spiralled into alcoholism and gambling.

  3. The charges for which he is to be sentenced are as follows:

  1. Count 1 indecent assault where the victim under the age of ten in contravention of s 61M(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 NSW. That carries a period maximum penalty of ten years imprisonment and there is no standard non-parole period;

  2. Count 2 is the same charge with the same maximum penalty involving the same victim;

  3. Count 3 is the same charge with the same maximum penalty involving the same victim;

  4. Count 4 is the same charge with the same maximum penalty involving the same victim;

  5. Count 5 is a charge of commit an act of indecency with victim under the age of ten years in breach of s 61O(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 that carries a maximum sentence of seven years imprisonment. Again, the same victim was involved in that offending.

  6. Count 6 is the possession of child abuse material in breach of s 91H(2) of the Crimes Act, which carries a maximum penalty of ten years imprisonment.

  1. There is an additional charge which is sequence 4 in the charge number, namely another count under s 61M(2), that is indecent assault with victim under the age of ten. That sequence or charge attaches by way of a Form 1 document to count 2.

  2. The Offender was committed for sentence on 31 October 2019 from the Central Local Court, and that will be reflected in the discount on sentence which that guilty plea attracts. He…

Continue reading R v LD

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v LD [2020] NSWDC 227
Case
[2020] NSWDC 227
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v LD, the defendant pleaded guilty to a historical charge of indecent assault. The matter came before the court for the purpose of determining an appropriate sentence. The defendant, LD, had been charged with indecent assault involving a child, and had entered a guilty plea. Special circumstances were found to apply, including the age of the offence, the defendant's otherwise good character, and his acceptance of responsibility.

The primary legal issue for the court was to determine a sentence that balanced the gravity of the offence, the defendant's guilty plea, and the special circumstances. The court had to consider the principles of sentencing for sexual offences, the need for deterrence, and the importance of rehabilitation. It was also required to examine the impact of the offence on the victim and the community, and the defendant's capacity for rehabilitation.

The court meticulously weighed the aggravating and mitigating factors of the case. It noted the seriousness of the offence, the vulnerability of the victim, and the defendant's early guilty plea. However, it also considered the age of the offence, the defendant's otherwise good character, and his remorse. The court found that a custodial sentence was necessary to adequately reflect the gravity of the offence, but that the special circumstances warranted a sentence at the lower end of the spectrum. Ultimately, the court imposed a sentence of imprisonment, with specific conditions aimed at the defendant's rehabilitation and the protection of the community.

The final orders of the court were detailed at [105] – [117], outlining the sentence of imprisonment, the specific conditions to be imposed, and the terms of the defendant's release and supervision.

Orders

Orders of the court

At [105] – [117]

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.