R v Logan

Case [2020] NSWDC 80

District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Logan [2020] NSWDC 80
Hearing dates: 26 February 2020
Date of orders: 03 April 2020
Decision date: 03 April 2020
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Weinstein SC DCJ
Decision:

Full-time custodial order to be served by way of aggregate term of imprisonment. For orders see [75]

Catchwords:

CRIME — Child sex offences — Sexual intercourse with child >14 <16 – Camping trip – Isolation - Child abuse material — Production/Possession – Filming children showering without knowledge 
SENTENCING — Penalties — Imprisonment – Aggregate

Legislation Cited:

Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

Cases Cited:

Abbas & Ors v R [2013] NSWCCA 115
Attorney General’s Application (No 1) (2002) 56 NSWLR 146
in Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120
Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25
Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59
R v Hutchinson [2018] NSWCCA 152
Watts v R [2007] NSWCCA 153

Category:Sentence
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Stephen Logan (Defendant)
Representation: Counsel:
Ms Hughes (Crown)
Mr Fraser (Defence)
File Number(s): 2018/348249
Publication restriction: Non Publication Order on the name of the complainant or any information that may identify her.

Judgment

  1. The offender Stephen Logan, born in 1983, is before the court for sentence for two counts of sexual intercourse with a child greater than the age of 14 years but less than the age of 16 years, under authority, contrary to section 66C(4) of the Crimes Act 1900 (sequences 9 and 10) for which the maximum penalty is 12 years and the standard non-parole period is 5 years. The offender is also to be sentenced for possession of child abuse material contrary to section 91H(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 (sequence 12); and produce child abuse material contrary to section 91H(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 (sequence 17), each of which carry a maximum penalty of 10 years and for which there is no standard non-parole period.

  2. There are also Form 1 matters which the offender asks me to take into account when sentencing him. There is a charge of aggravated indecent assault contrary to s 61M(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 (sequence 11), which attaches to sequence 9 and production of child abuse material contrary to s 91H(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 (sequence 16) which attaches to sequence 12.

  3. I note that the offender has been in custody since 13 November 2018.

Evidence

  1. Before me are three exhibits. Exhibit 1 is a bundle of documents prepared by the Crown which includes:

  1. A notice of committal;

  2. The charge certificate dated 15 November 2019;

  3. The Agreed Facts;

  4. The offender’s criminal history;

  5. The offender’s custodial history; and

  6. An annexure describing the images found in the offender’s possession.

  1. Exhibit 2 is a psychologist report dated 17 December 2019 of Mr Sam Borenstein.

  2. Exhibit 3 is a letter from the offender dated 20 February 2020.

  3. Exhibit 4 is a Sentencing Assessment Report (SAR) dated 31 March 2020, under the hand of Todd Marchese, Community Corrections…

Continue reading R v Logan

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Logan [2020] NSWDC 80
Case
[2020] NSWDC 80
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved a defendant who was convicted of sexual offences against a child. The child was over the age of fourteen but under sixteen years old. The defendant took the child on a camping trip, exploiting the isolation of the environment to commit the offences. Additionally, the defendant was found in possession of child abuse material. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland.

The primary legal issue the court had to address was the appropriate sentencing for the defendant's crimes. The court had to consider the severity of the offences, the vulnerability of the victim, and the aggravating factors such as the use of isolation and the possession of child abuse material. The court also needed to determine the appropriate length of the custodial sentence, balancing the need for punishment and deterrence with the potential for rehabilitation.

The court carefully examined the evidence and the aggravating circumstances of the case. It noted the defendant's abuse of trust and the significant impact on the victim. The court concluded that the offences warranted a substantial custodial sentence to adequately reflect their seriousness. It was determined that an aggregate term of imprisonment was the appropriate form of punishment. The court detailed the considerations that led to this decision, including the need to protect the community and provide deterrence.

The final orders of the court mandated that the defendant would serve a full-time custodial sentence, with the specific term of imprisonment detailed in the judgment. The court outlined the reasoning behind the sentence length, ensuring that the outcome was proportionate to the gravity of the offences.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full-time custodial order to be served by way of aggregate term of imprisonment. For orders see [75]

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.