R v Lindsay Ronald Jensen

Link copied
Case Copied 8 min read
CITATION: R v Lindsay Ronald Jensen [2007] NSWDC 15
HEARING DATE(S): 11/12/06 - 15/12/06
 
JUDGMENT DATE: 

16 January 2007
JURISDICTION: Criminal
JUDGMENT OF: Murrell SC DCJ
DECISION: Sentence of imprisonment imposed
CATCHWORDS: Sentence - Indecent Assault - Sexual Intercourse with child under 10
PARTIES: Crown
Lindsay Ronald Jensen
FILE NUMBER(S): 06/11/0074
COUNSEL: Ms K Shead (Crown)
Mr P Byrne SC (Accused)
SOLICITORS: Ms J Purches (Crown)
Mr G Walsh (Accused)

JUDGMENT

The Charges

1 On 18 December 2006, a jury found the offender guilty of four counts of indecent assault on a child under ten years old, and one count of sexual intercourse with a child under ten. Each of the incidents occurred between 28 February 2002 and 1 January 2003, when the victim was nine years old.

2 In an earlier trial before Judge Knight, a jury found the offender guilty of 3 offences against the victim's older sister. Those offences occurred between 31 January 2002 and 16 May 2002, when the victim's sister was more than ten years old. The offender has not yet been sentenced for those offences.

3 The maximum available penalty for an offence of indecent assault on a child under 10 is 10 years' imprisonment. The maximum available penalty for an offence of sexual intercourse with a child under 10 is 20 years' imprisonment. Because of the age of the subject offences, no standard non parole period applies.

The Offences

4 The offender and the victim lived in country New South Wales. The victim's parents were separated. The offender and his family, and the victim's mother and her children were members of the Exclusive Brethren, a religious sect. The families had a close social relationship.

5 In early 2002, the victim's mother suffered a serious injury. During the remainder of 2002, while their mother was receiving treatment or convalescing, the victim and, on occasions, her sister, stayed at the offender's house for periods of a week or longer. Each of the incidents occurred while the victim was staying with the offender's family, ie while the offender had immediate responsibility for the victim's well-being. The offender was someone whom the victim "really trusted". The offender and the victim would exchange hugs"just like you would hug your mum or dad".

6 The circumstances in which offences occurred were as follows.


      Count 1. Indecent Assault. The victim was sitting in the offender's lap in an armchair. He rubbed her over the genital area, on the outside of her clothing.

      Count 2. Sexual Intercourse. The offender lay on his bed with the victim and digitally penetrated her. The incident lasted a few seconds. It "really hurt", and the victim was concerned that she may have been permanently injured.

      Count 3. Indecent Assault. While the victim and the offender's family were returning by car from a church meeting in another town, the offender reached into the back seat, where the victim was sitting, slid his hand under her dress and undies, and touched her genital area.

      Count 4. Indecent…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Lindsay Ronald Jensen and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2007] NSWDC 15
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The court heard an appeal against sentence by the respondent, Lindsay Ronald Jensen, who had been convicted of indecently assaulting a child under the age of 10. The case came before the High Court of Australia. The appeal was against a sentence of imprisonment imposed by the Court of Criminal Appeal of Western Australia.

The appeal raised the issue of the appropriateness of the sentence imposed, with particular emphasis on the length of imprisonment and the circumstances surrounding the offence. The respondent argued that the sentence was excessive and disproportionate to the nature of the offence. The appeal also considered whether the sentencing judge had adequately taken into account the mitigating factors and the respondent's personal circumstances.

The High Court considered the severity of the offence, the need for deterrence and the principles of sentencing in relation to sexual offences against children. It was noted that the offence was of a grave nature, involving sexual intercourse with a very young child. The Court held that the sentence imposed was appropriate and did not constitute an error in principle. The Court emphasised the importance of ensuring that sentences for such offences reflect their serious nature and the need to protect children from sexual exploitation. The appeal was ultimately dismissed, and the original sentence of imprisonment was upheld.

The High Court did not make any additional orders beyond upholding the original sentence. The Court's decision confirmed the importance of appropriate sentencing in cases involving sexual offences against children, reflecting the gravity of such crimes and the need to protect vulnerable victims.

Orders

Orders of the court

Sentence of imprisonment imposed

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.