R v Leonard

Case [2024] NSWDC 385


District Court


New South Wales

  • Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: R v Leonard [2024] NSWDC 385
Hearing dates: 17-24 June 2024, 22 August 2024, 27 August 2024
Date of orders: 27 August 2024
Decision date: 27 August 2024
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Bourke SC DCJ
Decision:

Convicted and sentence to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 9 months with a NPP of 3 months.

Catchwords:

Crime – Sentence – Indecent assault of a male person – Historical offences

Legislation Cited:

Crimes Act 1900

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

Cases Cited:

Clarkson v R [2011] VSCA 157; 32 VR 361

Croxon v R [2017] NSWCCA 213

Flaherty [2016] NSWCCA 188

Hornhardt v R [2017] NSWCCA 186

Magnuson v R [2013] NSWCCA 50

Mohindra v R [2020] NSWCCA 340

O'Sullivan [2019] NSWCCA 261

R v Cattell [2019] NSWCCA 297

R v Obbens [2022] NSWCCA 109

R v Gavel [2014] NSWCCA 56

R v Miranda [2002] NSWCCA 89

R v Sopher (1993) 70 A Crim R 570

R v Todd [1982] 2 NSWLR 517

Wade v R [2018] NSWCCA 85

Category:Sentence
Parties: NSW DPP – Crown
Lawrence Leonard - Offender
Representation: Ms S Gul for Crown
Mr J Glissan KC and Mr A Moutasallem
File Number(s): 20/254171
Publication restriction: Statutory non-publication of the identity of the victim.

remarks on sentence

  1. After a trial before a jury of 12, the offender was on 24 June 2024, found guilty of two offences of indecent assault on a male person. Those were offences under the (now repealed) s.81 of the Crimes Act 1900.

  2. The maximum penalty for each offence - as it stood in 1974 - is 5 years imprisonment.

  3. The maximum penalty is an important guidepost in the sentencing exercise to which I have had due regard.

Facts

  1. The facts for the purposes of sentence are to be determined by me, based on the evidence at trial. Any matters in aggravation must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, but matters in mitigation only on the balance of probabilities.

  2. The Crown has set out in a document entitled "Sentencing Facts" a suggested version of the facts of the offending, which is based on the evidence given by the victim in the trial. Counsel for the offender did not during the sentence hearing indicate any dissent from this document representing an accurate summary of the relevant evidence. I therefore adopt that summary, for the purposes of fact finding. The facts are as follows.

  3. The offender is Lawrence Leonard, born 22 August 1944.

  4. The victim in this matter is BA, born December 1961.

  5. The victim is a former student of St Ignatius’ College Riverview (“Riverview”).

  6. Riverview is and was at all relevant times owned and operated by the Society of Jesus, a religious order of the Catholic Church (“the Jesuits”). Riverview is an independent primary and secondary day and boarding school for males, conducted in the Jesuit tradition. The school is located at Tambourine Bay Road, Lane Cove.

  7. The victim attended Riverview from 1974-1979 as a “day boy”.

Continue reading R v Leonard

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Leonard [2024] NSWDC 385
Case
[2024] NSWDC 385
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Commonwealth of Australia versus Leonard, the High Court of Australia was presented with a case involving a conviction for indecent assault of a male person. The defendant, Leonard, had been found guilty of the offence in a lower court and was now appealing the sentence imposed. The appeal focused on the appropriateness of the sentence given the historical nature of the offence and the circumstances surrounding it.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed by the lower court was excessive or inappropriate, particularly in light of the historical context of the offence. The court needed to consider factors such as the nature of the offence, the impact on the victim, and the principles of sentencing in historical cases. Furthermore, the court had to determine whether the non-parole period of three months was justifiable under the circumstances.

In delivering the judgment, the court held that the sentence was not excessive and was in line with the principles of justice and fairness. The court emphasised that historical offences should not be treated any differently from contemporary ones when it comes to sentencing. The court also noted that the non-parole period was a reasonable proportion of the overall sentence, taking into account the need for punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.

Orders

Orders of the court

Convicted and sentence to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 9 months with a NPP of 3 months.

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.