R v LF (No. 2)

[2022] NSWDC 465

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

R v LF (No. 2) [2022] NSWDC 465

Hearing dates:

17 June 2022

Date of orders:

15 July 2022

Decision date:

15 July 2022

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Before:

Bennett SC DCJ

Decision:

Specify an aggregate sentence of imprisonment of 5 years 6 months with a non-parole period of 3 years

Catchwords:

CRIME — Child sex offences — Child abuse material — Production/Dissemination/Possession

CRIME — Child sex offences — Sexual intercourse with child <14 – Circumstances of aggravation

Legislation Cited:

Crimes Act 1900

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

Cases Cited:

BeavisvR [2018] NSWCCA 248

Cheung v Regina (2001) 209 CLR 1

CR v R [2020] NSWCCA 289

Markarianv The Queen [2005] HCA 25

Muldrockv The Queen [2011] HCA 39

RvDaley [2010] NSWCCA 223 48

R v De Simoni [1981] 147 CLR 383

R v Fisher (1989) 48 Crim R 442

RvHudson (Unreported, NSWCCA, 30 July 1998)

R v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 162

Regina v Isaacs (1997) 41 NSWLR 374

Savvas v The Queen (1995) 183 CLR 1

TepaniavR [2018] NSWCCA 247

Category:

Sentence

Parties:

Regina (Crown)
LF (Offender)

Representation:

Jane Krippner (Solicitor Advocate)
Matthew Johnston SC (senior counsel for the Offender)

Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)
Braye Cragg Solicitors (Offender)

File Number(s):

2019/00356030

Publication restriction:

No publication of the name of the accused or complainants or of any information which may enable their identities to be ascertained

REVISED EX TEMPORE JUDGEMENT

INTRODUCTION

1. These are proceedings for the imposition of sentence upon the offender identified in these proceedings as LF.  The offender appeared before me in the District Court of NSW sitting at Newcastle for trial upon an indictment containing five offences.  Before then, there had been evidence taken from the complainants before another, or other, judges, presented to the jury in the manner which is now adopted for proceedings involving child complainants in sexual offence allegations.

PRE-TRIAL RULING

2. When the evidence was taken before another judge there was opposition to the use of the pre-recorded interview conducted by a police officer under the arrangements with the Joint Investigation Response Team.  The complaint was that the interview of the child was conducted in a less than satisfactory fashion, with a measure of imposition on the part of the police officer that ultimately led to the disclosure of misconduct founding the charges brought in respect of that complainant; notwithstanding that before then she had disavowed any such allegation against the offender. 

3. In the trial the matter was not agitated before me other than to bring to my attention the difficulty that the approach by the police officer created.  This, of course, was a matter that was properly developed in the conduct of the offender's defence when the jury were encouraged to the view, on behalf of the offender, that the representations alleging the misconduct could not be accepted as entirely truthful and accurate to such an extent that there would be a reasonable doubt…