R v MK

Link copied
Case Copied 36 min read

District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v MK [2022] NSWDC 566
Hearing dates: Wednesday 3 August 2022
Date of orders: Monday 8 August 2022
Decision date: 08 August 2022
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Tupman DCJ
Decision:

The offender is convicted.
He is sentenced to a non-parole period of 2 years with parole thereafter of 2 years giving rise to an overall term of imprisonment of 4 years.

Catchwords:

CRIME — Sexual offences — Aggravated sexual assault — In company — Maximum sentence of 20 years — Found guilty by a jury on one count — penile vaginal intercourse — Victim was either 16 or 17 years old at the time the offence was committed — Co-offender is the sister of the victim and was the partner of the offender — Co-offender gave evidence at trial — Objective criminality falls below the mid-range — Offender does not demonstrate remorse or contrition — Offender maintains his innocence — Victim Impact Statement provided and taken into account.

Legislation Cited:

Bail Act 2013 (NSW): s 22B;

Crimes Act 1900 (NSW): s 61J;

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW): s 3A;

Evidence Act 1995 (NSW): ss 66, 108(3).

Cases Cited:

Manojlovic v R; R v Manojlovic [2020] NSWCCA 315

Category:Sentence
Parties: Regina (The Crown)
MK (The Offender)
Representation:

Counsel:
Ms. N. Keay (The Crown)
Mr. S. Corish (The Offender)

Solicitors:
Mr. D. Rideaux (The Offender)
Mr. G. Gaynor (The Crown)
File Number(s): 2019/0017447
Publication restriction: Section 578A of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) applies: There is to be no publication of anything which may identify the complainant in this matter.

Judgment

  1. HER HONOUR: This is the sentence judgment in the matter of MK. The offender is before the Court for sentence after being found guilty by a jury on 23 June 2020 on count 1 in an indictment dated 27 July 2021. Count 1 is a charge contrary to s 61J of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) namely that between 1 June 2006 and 1 February 2007 at Cooma he had sexual intercourse with the named complainant without her consent in circumstances of aggravation, namely being in company with the named co-offender. The named co-offender is the victim’s sister. The offence carries a maximum penalty of 20 years imprisonment with a standard non-parole period of 10 years.
     

  2. The offender stood trial before a jury at the District Court in Queanbeyan in June 2022 on four counts in total and was acquitted on counts 2, 3 and 4. Counts 2 and 3 were also offences of aggravated sexual intercourse involving the same complainant and alleging that he was in company with the same co offender and committed in the same premises but on two different dates. Count 4 was a count of sexual intercourse without consent contrary to s 61I of the Crimes Act, 1900 alleged to have occurred about the same time as count 3 involving the same complainant.
     

  3. He thus comes for sentence before me on count 1. He was initially…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v MK and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2022] NSWDC 566
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v MK, the defendant was convicted by a jury on a charge of aggravated sexual assault. The offence was committed in company with the victim's sister, who was also the defendant's partner, and involved penile vaginal intercourse. The victim was either 16 or 17 years old at the time of the offence. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence, taking into consideration the maximum penalty of 20 years imprisonment for this type of offence, and the objective criminality of the case which fell below the mid-range.

The legal issues before the court included the objective criminality of the offence, the age of the victim, the role of the co-offender, the lack of remorse or contrition shown by the defendant, and the maintenance of innocence by the defendant. The court also had to consider the victim impact statement provided and the appropriate sentence to be imposed, considering the maximum penalty available.

The court considered the objective criminality of the case, which fell below the mid-range, and the lack of remorse or contrition shown by the defendant, who maintained his innocence throughout. The court also took into account the role of the co-offender, who gave evidence at the trial. Ultimately, the court sentenced the offender to a non-parole period of 2 years with parole thereafter of 2 years, giving rise to an overall term of imprisonment of 4 years. The court took into consideration the victim impact statement provided.

The court orders that the offender is convicted and is sentenced to a non-parole period of 2 years with parole thereafter of 2 years, giving rise to an overall term of imprisonment of 4 years.

Orders

Orders of the court

The offender is convicted.

He is sentenced to a non-parole period of 2 years with parole thereafter of 2 years giving rise to an overall term of imprisonment 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.