Sentence – Commonwealth offending – female offender – male victim – procuring – numerous text messages – general deterrence – hardship to third parties
Counsel: Ms K Curry, for the Crown Mr C Heazelwood, for the Offender
Solicitors: Ms S Simmons, Office of Director of Public Prosecutions (Cwth) Mr G Reynolds, Farrell Lusher Solicitors
File Number(s):
2020/93490
Publication restriction:
No publication of the name of the complainant or anything that would tend to identify them. This extends to the name of the Offender.
REMARKS ON SENTENCE
On 29 November 2021 the offender appeared for her trial at the Wagga Wagga District Court and an indictment in the following terms was presented:
Between 28 December 2019 and 6 January 2020 at [R] in the State of New South Wales being a person over the age of 18 years of age used a carriage service to transmit a communication to the recipient, AG, being someone who was under 16 years of age with the intention of procuring the recipient to engage in sexual activity with herself contrary to s 474.26(1) of the Criminal Code 1995 (Cth); and further
Between 4 January 2020 and 5 January 2020 at [L] in the State of New South Wales used…
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 LL
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v LL [2022] NSWDC 208
Case
[2022] NSWDC 208
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of R v LL, the appellant faced sentencing for offences committed against a male victim, including procuring a person under 16. The appellant, a female, engaged in numerous text messages with the victim, which led to the commission of the offences. The case was heard and determined by the court, which was tasked with establishing an appropriate sentence. The primary legal issues the court had to resolve were the principles of sentencing for Commonwealth offences, the appellant's background, and the impact of the offences on the victim and any third parties. The court also considered the need for general deterrence and the potential hardship that the sentence might cause to third parties.
The court's reasoning began with an analysis of the statutory framework governing Commonwealth offences, focusing on the objectives of sentencing. It emphasised the importance of punishment and deterrence while also taking into account the appellant's personal circumstances, including any potential hardship that the sentence might impose on third parties. The court gave significant weight to the nature and severity of the offences, the appellant's role in the commission of the crimes, and the impact on the victim. The court concluded that a custodial sentence was necessary to achieve the aims of punishment and deterrence, while also considering the appellant's background and the potential for rehabilitation.
After careful consideration of all relevant factors, the court determined that an appropriate sentence would be one that balanced the need for punishment and deterrence with the personal circumstances of the appellant. The court imposed a sentence that reflected the gravity of the offences while also taking into account the potential for rehabilitation and the need to minimise any undue hardship on third parties. The court's decision was detailed and comprehensive, ensuring that all relevant legal principles and considerations were appropriately addressed. The final orders of the court were outlined in the judgment, providing clarity on the sentence imposed.