R v Long - [2025] NSWDC 32

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v LONG [2025] NSWDC 32
Hearing dates: 17 February 2025
Date of orders: 17 February 2025
Decision date: 07 March 2025
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Lerve DCJ
Decision:
Sentenced to an aggregate sentence – see paragraphs [72]-[77]

Catchwords:
CRIMES – sexual offences – sexual intercourse with child over a number of years – family friend - finding of guilt after trial
SENTENCE – general deterrence – limited criminal history – special circumstances – aggregate sentence - totality

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act, 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act, 1999

Cases Cited:
Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37
Chamseddine v R [2017] NSWCCA 176
MC v R [2017] NSWCCA 316
R v Burchell (1987) 34 A Crim R 148
R v Muldoon unrep. NSWCCA 13.12.1990
R v Tuala [2015] NSWCCA 8
Rv Van Ryn [2016] NSWCCA 1

Category: Sentence
Parties: Rex
John LONG
Representation:
Counsel:
Ms V Morgan (for the Crown)
Mr R Keller (for the Offender)
Solicitors:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions
Barron Law

File Number(s): 2023/00182045
Publication restriction: There is to be no publication of the name of the victim nor anything that may tend to identify them.

JUDGMENT

On 1 October 2024 the Offender appeared at the Wagga Wagga District Court and pleaded not guilty to each of 13 counts on an indictment. On 14 October 2024 the jury returned verdicts of guilty to 11 of those counts, namely that he:

Count 2: Between 1 January 1992 and 31 December 1992 at Young in the State of New South Wales did assault [CD] and at the time of the assault committed an act of indecency on [CD], a child then under the age of 10 years namely 4 or 5 years, contrary to s 61M(2) of the Crimes Act, 1900 as it then was; and further
Count 3: Between 1 July 1996 and 30 June 1997 at Young in the State of New South Wales, had sexual intercourse with [CD] a child then under the age of 10 years, namely 8 or 9 years, contrary to s 66A of the Crimes Act; and further
Count 5: On 25 December 1999 at St Georges Basin in the State of New South Wales had sexual intercourse with [CD] a child then above the age of 10 years and under the age of 14 years, namely 12 years, contrary to s 66C(1) of the Crimes Act; and further
Count 6: Between 25 December 1999 and 29 February 2000 at St Georges Basin in the State of New South Wales, had sexual intercourse with [CD], a child then above the age of 10 years and under the age of 14 years, namely 12 years, contrary to s 66C(1) of the Crimes Act; and further
Count 7: Between 1 January 2000 and 31 January 2000 at St Georges Basin in the State of New South Wales had sexual intercourse with [CD] a child…

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 Long

Details

AGLC: R v Long [2025] NSWDC 32
Case: [2025] NSWDC 32
Decision Date: 07 March 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Long, the respondent was found guilty following a trial for engaging in sexual intercourse with a child over a number of years. The relationship between the offender and the victim was that of a family friend. The matter was heard in the relevant court, which rendered its judgment on the charges and the appropriate sentence. The court was tasked with determining whether the appropriate penalty could be imposed on the respondent, taking into account the nature of the crimes, the offender's criminal history, and any special circumstances relevant to the case.

The legal issues that the court had to address included the nature and gravity of the offences, the appropriate sentence to be imposed, and the consideration of general and specific deterrence. The court was also required to consider the offender's previous criminal history, which was limited, and any special circumstances that might mitigate the sentence. Additionally, the court had to balance the need for general deterrence with the need to tailor the sentence to the individual circumstances of the offender.

In its reasoning, the court first considered the gravity of the crimes committed by the respondent. The court noted the prolonged and abusive nature of the relationship between the offender and the victim, which underscored the severity of the offences. The court also examined the offender's limited criminal history and other special circumstances, which were taken into account as mitigating factors. The court then deliberated on the appropriate aggregate sentence that would adequately reflect the seriousness of the crimes while also considering the mitigating factors. Ultimately, the court decided on an aggregate sentence, which was detailed in paragraphs [72]-[77] of the judgment.

The court ordered that the respondent be sentenced to the aggregate sentence outlined in paragraphs [72]-[77]. This sentence was deemed appropriate after considering the totality of the circumstances, including the gravity of the offences, the limited criminal history of the offender, and any special circumstances that were relevant. The judgment provided a comprehensive rationale for the sentence, ensuring that it served the purposes of punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation.

Orders

Orders of the court

Sentenced to an aggregate sentence – see paragraphs [72]-[77]

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v LONG [2025] NSWDC 32
Hearing dates:	17 February 2025
Date of orders:	17 February 2025
Decision date:	07 March 2025
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Lerve DCJ
Decision:	Sentenced to an aggregate sentence – see paragraphs [72]-[77]
Catchwords:	CRIMES – sexual offences – sexual intercourse with child over a number of years – family friend - finding of guilt after trial SENTENCE – general deterrence – limited criminal history – special circumstances – aggregate sentence - totality
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act, 1900 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act, 1999
Cases Cited:	Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37 Chamseddine v R [2017] NSWCCA 176 MC v R [2017] NSWCCA 316 R v Burchell (1987) 34 A Crim R 148 R v Muldoon unrep. NSWCCA 13.12.1990 R v Tuala [2015] NSWCCA 8 Rv Van Ryn [2016] NSWCCA 1
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Rex John LONG
Representation:	Counsel: Ms V Morgan (for the Crown) Mr R Keller (for the Offender) Solicitors: Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions Barron Law
File Number(s):	2023/00182045
Publication restriction:	There is to be no publication of the name of the victim nor anything that may tend to identify them.