R v LPCM - [2025] NSWCCA 78

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v LPCM [2025] NSWCCA 78
Hearing dates: 24 March 2025
Date of orders: 28 May 2025
Decision date: 28 May 2025
Before: Harrison CJ at CL at [1]
Hamill J at [88]
Rigg J at [89]
Decision:
Dismiss the Director’s appeal against sentence.

Catchwords:
CRIME – appeals – appeal against sentence – child sexual offences – where offender pleaded guilty to two offences against s 66EA of the Crimes Act 1900 – where complainants are the offender’s cousins – guilty plea in District Court – where offender denied certain particularised unlawful acts – where disputed facts hearing proceeded before the sentencing judge – aggregate term of imprisonment imposed
CRIME – appeals – appeal against sentence – whether the sentencing judge erred in determination of objective seriousness – where sentencing judge concluded objective seriousness of the offences was “towards the bottom” and “at the very lowest end” of the range for a s 66EA offence – assessment of objective seriousness for “new” s 66EA – assessment of “ingredient offences” – where sentencing judge expressly relies on sentencing factors set out in Burr v The Queen – whether focus on ingredient offences and Burr v The Queen factors was a limited approach – whether it can be inferred the sentencing judge did not consider “other matters” – whether use of the term “opportunistic” affected the assessment of the objective seriousness
CRIME – appeals – appeal against sentence – whether the sentence is manifestly inadequate – where Crown submits aggregate sentence is “so far below the range of sentences” which could be imposed – where complaint about “weight” given to sentencing considerations does not assist in the resolution of the adequacy – where sentencing judge nominated indicative sentences – where sentence imposed was not plainly unjust

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 66EA, 61M (repealed), 61O (repealed), 61N (repealed)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 21A, 25AA
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), s 5D

Cases Cited:
Burr v The Queen [2020] NSWCCA 282; (2020) 285 A Crim R 504
GP (a pseudonym) v R [2021] NSWCCA 180
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40
JG v R [2023] NSWCCA 33; (2023) 306 A Crim R 130
R v Fisher [2024] NSWCCA 191
R v Lamey [2025] NSWCCA 17
RA v R [2024] NSWCCA 149
Towse v The Queen [2022] NSWCCA 252
Xerri v R [2021] NSWCCA 268; (2001) 292 A Crim R 355

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Rex (Appellant)
LPCM (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
A Bonnor (Appellant)
P Strickland SC with A Cook SC (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Appellant)
Brightstone Legal (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2021/359380
Publication restriction: Nil.
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court of NSW

Jurisdiction:

Crime

Date of Decision:

19 September 2024

Before:

J Smith SC DCJ

File Number(s):

2021/359380

Decision Under Appeal

HEADNOTE

[This headnote is not to be read as…

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 LPCM

Details

AGLC: R v LPCM [2025] NSWCCA 78
Case: [2025] NSWCCA 78
Decision Date: 28 May 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v LPCM involved an appeal against a sentence imposed on the offender, LPCM, who had pleaded guilty to two offences against section 66EA of the Crimes Act 1900. The offences were committed against the offender's cousins. The case proceeded to the sentencing phase where LPCM denied certain particularised unlawful acts, leading to a hearing before the sentencing judge to determine the disputed facts. Ultimately, an aggregate term of imprisonment was imposed on LPCM, which led to the current appeal.

The legal issues before the court included whether the sentencing judge erred in the determination of the objective seriousness of the offences. The sentencing judge had concluded that the objective seriousness of the offences was "towards the bottom" and "at the very lowest end" of the range for a section 66EA offence. The court was asked to assess the objective seriousness of the "new" section 66EA offence, focusing on the "ingredient offences" and the factors set out in Burr v The Queen. The court considered whether the focus on the ingredient offences and the Burr v The Queen factors constituted a limited approach and whether it could be inferred that the sentencing judge did not consider "other matters." Additionally, the court examined whether the use of the term "opportunistic" affected the assessment of the objective seriousness.

The court found that while the sentence imposed was within the range of possible sentences, the sentencing judge's assessment of the objective seriousness of the offences was not entirely accurate. The court considered the aggregate sentence imposed by the sentencing judge, noting that it was not manifestly inadequate. The Crown had argued that the aggregate sentence was "so far below the range of sentences" which could be imposed, but the court found that the complaint about the "weight" given to sentencing considerations did not assist in resolving the adequacy of the sentence. The sentencing judge had nominated indicative sentences, and the court concluded that the sentence imposed was not plainly unjust.

The final orders of the court were not explicitly detailed in the text, but it can be inferred that the court did not overturn the sentence imposed by the sentencing judge, despite finding some errors in the assessment of the objective seriousness. The court may have directed the sentencing judge to reconsider certain aspects of the sentencing process, but the specific orders were not provided in the text.

Orders