Medium Neutral Citation: R v Miner (a pseudonym) [2025] NSWDC 117
Hearing dates: 14 February 2025
Date of orders: 14 February 2025
Decision date: 14 February 2025
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Haesler SC DCJ
Decision:
Sentence of imprisonment of 6 years with a non-parole period of 4 years

Catchwords:
CRIME — Child sex offences — Intentionally sexually touch child <10 — Intentionally carry out sexual act with child <10 — Intentionally incite child <10 to do sexual act to them
SENTENCING — Aggravating factors — Breach of trust — Father offends against daughter — Age of child
SENTENCING — Mitigating factors — Prior good character — Plea of guilty
SENTENCING — Penalties — Imprisonment
SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Deterrence — General deterrence — General principles — Moral culpability Multiple offences — Totality — Objective seriousness
SENTENCING — Sentencing procedure — Agreed facts — No traversal of pleas of guilty — Instinctive synthesis — Rejection of offender’s assertion about his motive — Psychological reports
SENTENCING — Subjective considerations on sentence —Personal history — Mental health disorders

Legislation Cited:
Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW)
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; (2013) 249 CLR 571
Devaney v R [2012] NSWCCA 285
Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25; (2005) 228 CLR 357
Meissner v The Queen [1995] HCA 41; (1994-1995) 184 CLR 132
Mill v The Queen [1988] HCA 70; (1988) 166 CLR 59
MRWv R [2011] NSWCCA 260
Olbrich v The Queen [1999] HCA 54; (1999) 199 CLR 270
R v Elfar [2003] NSWCCA 358
R vGeddes (1936) 36 SR (NSW) 554
R v Herring (1956) 73 WN (NSW) 203
R v Holder; R v Johnston [1983] 3 NSWLR 245
R v JDX; JDX v R [2017] NSWCCA 9
R v PGM [2008] NSWCCA 172
R v Simpson [2001] NSWCCA 534; 53 NSWLR 704
R v Thompson, R v Houlten [2000] NSWCCA 309; (2000) 49 NSWLR 383
R v Van Ryn [2016] NSWCCA 1
R v Windle [2012] NSWCCA 222
Ryan v R [2017] NSWCCA 209
Ryan v The Queen [2001] HCA 21; (2001) 206 CLR 267
Tepania v R [2018] NSWCCA 247
Weininger v The Queen [2013] HCA 14; (2003) 212 CLR 629

Texts Cited:
D T Kenny, “The Social Dynamics and Impacts of Institutional Child Sexual Abuse” (September 2017) 29 Judicial Officer’s Bulletin 8

Category: Sentence
Parties: Wade Miner (a pseudonym) (the offender)
Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)
Representation:
Counsel:
K Hogan (for the offender)
Solicitors:
Legal Aid (NSW) (for the offender)
R Taylor solicitor advocate for Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)

File Number(s): 2023/300872
Publication restriction: Pseudonyms have been used for the names of the offender and the child. Pursuant to s 15A Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW), there is to be no publication of any information, picture or other material that identifies or is likely to lead…

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 Miner (a pseudonym)

Details

AGLC: R v Miner (a pseudonym) [2025] NSWDC 117
Case: [2025] NSWDC 117
Decision Date: 14 February 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Miner, the defendant was convicted of multiple counts of intentionally sexually touching a child. The case was heard in the relevant Australian court, where the primary focus was on determining an appropriate sentence. The legal issues that the court needed to address included the identification of aggravating and mitigating factors, the objective seriousness of the offences, and the appropriate penalty. The court had to consider the breach of trust given that the offender was the victim's father, the young age of the child, the offender's prior good character, and his plea of guilty.

The court gave considerable weight to the aggravating factors, particularly the breach of trust and the father's abuse of his position towards his daughter. The psychological reports presented were also crucial in understanding the offender's mental health disorders. However, the court also acknowledged the mitigating factor of the offender's plea of guilty and his prior good character. In terms of sentencing, the court focused on general deterrence, moral culpability, and the objective seriousness of the offences. The totality principle was also considered to ensure the sentence was proportionate.

The court ultimately determined that a sentence of imprisonment was necessary, reflecting the gravity of the offences. The sentence was set at six years with a non-parole period of four years. This decision was based on the instinctive synthesis of the facts, the rejection of the offender's assertions about his motives, and the need to uphold the principles of justice, deterrence, and moral culpability. The court's ruling took into account both the aggravating and mitigating factors, ensuring a balanced and just outcome.

Orders

Orders of the court

Sentence of imprisonment of 6 years with a non-parole period of 4 years

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.

Citations

AGLC Citation

R v Miner (a pseudonym) [2025] NSWDC 117

Cases citing this decision · 0 of 0 shown

No citing cases yet.

Cases cited in this decision · 22 of 22 shown

R v Holder
[2019] SASCFC 73 Para 74

…incident, but they are separate aspects of that incident, and one sentence could not properly reflect what was done: R v Holder; R v Johnston [1983] 3 NSWLR 245 at 260 (Street CJ); R v Van Ryn [2016] NSWCCA 1 at [228]-[230]. At the same time, while there is no discount for multiple offending, I have to synthe…
Tepania v The Queen
[2018] NSWCCA 247 Para 10

…m I required to identify features of the offence which were or not taken into account when considering the role of the non-parole period: Tepania v R [2018] NSWCCA 247 [103]-[120]; Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), s 54B(6).…
Ryan v Regina
[2017] NSWCCA 209 Para 50

…vidence, nor were any expressions by him reported without proper evaluation and professional context: Devaney v R [2012] NSWCCA 285 at [88]; Ryan v R [2017] NSWCCA 209 at [9]-[10]; R v JDX; JDX v R [2017] NSWCCA 9.…
R v JDX; JDX v R
[2017] NSWCCA 9 Para 50

…d without proper evaluation and professional context: Devaney v R [2012] NSWCCA 285 at [88]; Ryan v R [2017] NSWCCA 209 at [9]-[10]; R v JDX; JDX v R [2017] NSWCCA 9.…
R v Van Ryn
[2016] NSWCCA 1 Para 74

…that incident, and one sentence could not properly reflect what was done: R v Holder; R v Johnston [1983] 3 NSWLR 245 at 260 (Street CJ); R v Van Ryn [2016] NSWCCA 1 at [228]-[230]. At the same time, while there is no discount for multiple offending, I have to synthesise a just and appropriate sentence that proper…
Bugmy v The Queen
[2013] HCA 37 Para 61

…did not have those significant disadvantages and the other matters that impacted on him when a child. I will give them full weight: Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; (2013) 249 CLR 571 at [43].…
Weinstock v Beck
[2013] HCA 14 Para 3

…exity of the human condition and human behaviour into mathematics or units of punishment, usually expressed in time in custody: Weininger v The Queen [2013] HCA 14; (2003) 212 CLR 629.…
Devaney v R
[2012] NSWCCA 285 Para 50

…by the offender, who did not give evidence, nor were any expressions by him reported without proper evaluation and professional context: Devaney v R [2012] NSWCCA 285 at [88]; Ryan v R [2017] NSWCCA 209 at [9]-[10]; R v JDX; JDX v R [2017] NSWCCA 9.…
R v Windle
[2012] NSWCCA 222 Para 79

…happen if they commit similar offences: R v Herring (1956) 73 WN (NSW) 203 at [205]; Ryan v The Queen [2001] HCA 21; (2001) 206 CLR 267; R v Windle [2012] NSWCCA 222.…
MRW v R
[2011] NSWCCA 260 Para 37

…e technically separate concepts, but here they are so inextricably intertwined that care needs to be taken not to double-count these matters: MRW v R [2011] NSWCCA 260.…
R v PGM
[2008] NSWCCA 172 Para 70

…There are some classes of offences where character may carry less weight and I was referred in submissions to R v PGM [2008] NSWCCA 172 at [43]–[44]. That matter involved a pattern of repeated offending over many months, and a relationship deliberately fostered for sexual gratification. This matter does not fall int…
Markarian v The Queen
[2005] HCA 25 Para 2

…factors that are relevant to the sentence, discuss their significance and make a value judgment about the appropriate sentence: Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25; (2005) 228 CLR 357 at [51] (McHugh J). That sentence has to take into account all relevant factors based in the material put before the Court.…
R v Elfar
[2003] NSWCCA 358 Para 22

…material where there is no evidence given by the offender and no direct evidence is placed before the Court to support those assertions: R v Elfar [2003] NSWCCA 358.…
Weininger v The Queen
[2003] HCA 14 Para 3

…man condition and human behaviour into mathematics or units of punishment, usually expressed in time in custody: Weininger v The Queen [2013] HCA 14; (2003) 212 CLR 629.…
R v Simpson
[2001] NSWCCA 534 Para 75

…mindful however that the minimum period he must spend in custody must properly reflect what he did and the other purposes of sentencing: R v Simpson [2001] NSWCCA 534; 53 NSWLR 704 at [59].…
Ryan v The Queen
[2001] HCA 21 Para 79

…ets this offender, and others, know what will happen if they commit similar offences: R v Herring (1956) 73 WN (NSW) 203 at [205]; Ryan v The Queen [2001] HCA 21; (2001) 206 CLR 267; R v Windle [2012] NSWCCA 222.…
Morawski v State Rail Authority
[2000] NSWCCA 309 Para 6

…d from having to prepare for and participate in, a trial. These are important matters that must also be taken into account: R v Thompson, R v Houlten [2000] NSWCCA 309; (2000) 49 NSWLR 383 at [3].…
R v Thomson; R v Houlton
[2000] NSWCCA 383 Para 6

…epare for and participate in, a trial. These are important matters that must also be taken into account: R v Thompson, R v Houlten [2000] NSWCCA 309; (2000) 49 NSWLR 383 at [3].…
R v Olbrich
[1999] HCA 54 Para 28

…ond reasonable doubt. It is also recognised that sometimes a sentencing court must sentence according to what is known or agreed: Olbrich v The Queen [1999] HCA 54; (1999) 199 CLR 270.…
Regina v Simpson
[1999] NSWCCA 367 Para 75

…at the minimum period he must spend in custody must properly reflect what he did and the other purposes of sentencing: R v Simpson [2001] NSWCCA 534; 53 NSWLR 704 at [59].…
Meissner v the Queen
[1995] HCA 41 Para 8

…try of a plea of guilty upon grounds such as these, nevertheless, constitutes an admission of all the elements of the offence: Meissner v The Queen [1995] HCA 41; (1994-1995) 184 CLR 132.…
Mill v The Queen
[1988] HCA 70 Para 73

…entence for each matter to be indicated and structure the sentence so that it is just and appropriate to the totality of his crimes: Mill v The Queen [1988] HCA 70; (1988) 166 CLR 59 at [62]-[63].…

Legislation cited in this decision · 3

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
54B(6) 2 mentions (from Para 10)
Crimes Act 1900 (ACT)
2 mentions (from Para 4)
Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW)
1 mention

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Miner (a pseudonym) [2025] NSWDC 117
Hearing dates:	14 February 2025
Date of orders:	14 February 2025
Decision date:	14 February 2025
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Haesler SC DCJ
Decision:	Sentence of imprisonment of 6 years with a non-parole period of 4 years
Catchwords:	CRIME — Child sex offences — Intentionally sexually touch child <10 — Intentionally carry out sexual act with child <10 — Intentionally incite child <10 to do sexual act to them SENTENCING — Aggravating factors — Breach of trust — Father offends against daughter — Age of child SENTENCING — Mitigating factors — Prior good character — Plea of guilty SENTENCING — Penalties — Imprisonment SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Deterrence — General deterrence — General principles — Moral culpability Multiple offences — Totality — Objective seriousness SENTENCING — Sentencing procedure — Agreed facts — No traversal of pleas of guilty — Instinctive synthesis — Rejection of offender’s assertion about his motive — Psychological reports SENTENCING — Subjective considerations on sentence —Personal history — Mental health disorders
Legislation Cited:	Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW) Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Cases Cited:	Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; (2013) 249 CLR 571 Devaney v R [2012] NSWCCA 285 Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25; (2005) 228 CLR 357 Meissner v The Queen [1995] HCA 41; (1994-1995) 184 CLR 132 Mill v The Queen [1988] HCA 70; (1988) 166 CLR 59 MRWv R [2011] NSWCCA 260 Olbrich v The Queen [1999] HCA 54; (1999) 199 CLR 270 R v Elfar [2003] NSWCCA 358 R vGeddes (1936) 36 SR (NSW) 554 R v Herring (1956) 73 WN (NSW) 203 R v Holder; R v Johnston [1983] 3 NSWLR 245 R v JDX; JDX v R [2017] NSWCCA 9 R v PGM [2008] NSWCCA 172 R v Simpson [2001] NSWCCA 534; 53 NSWLR 704 R v Thompson, R v Houlten [2000] NSWCCA 309; (2000) 49 NSWLR 383 R v Van Ryn [2016] NSWCCA 1 R v Windle [2012] NSWCCA 222 Ryan v R [2017] NSWCCA 209 Ryan v The Queen [2001] HCA 21; (2001) 206 CLR 267 Tepania v R [2018] NSWCCA 247 Weininger v The Queen [2013] HCA 14; (2003) 212 CLR 629
Texts Cited:	D T Kenny, “The Social Dynamics and Impacts of Institutional Child Sexual Abuse” (September 2017) 29 Judicial Officer’s Bulletin 8
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Wade Miner (a pseudonym) (the offender) Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)
Representation:	Counsel: K Hogan (for the offender) Solicitors: Legal Aid (NSW) (for the offender) R Taylor solicitor advocate for Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)
File Number(s):	2023/300872
Publication restriction:	Pseudonyms have been used for the names of the offender and the child. Pursuant to s 15A Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW), there is to be no publication of any information, picture or other material that identifies or is likely to lead…