District Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: R v MM (No 2) [2018] NSWDC 528 Hearing dates: 29 January to 19 February 2018; 15 June 2018 Date of orders: 27 August 2018 Decision date: 27 August 2018 Jurisdiction: Criminal Before: Sutherland DCJ SC Decision: Aggregate sentence of 32 years with a non-parole period of 24 years. The sentence will commence on 19 June 2015. The non-parole period will expire on 18 June 2039; the balance of term of 8 years will expire on 18 June 2047.
Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – Trial – Judge alone – Child sexual offences – Persistent sexual abuse of a child - Six complainants and multiple charges – 77 counts – Grandfather – Step-grandfather – Child abuse material — Production/Dissemination/Possession – Procuring or grooming child for unlawful sexual activity – Supply drugs to groom child – Ongoing abuse – Blackmail victims – Indecent assault “with” or “towards” Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Amendment Act 2007
Drugs (Misuse and Trafficking) Act 1985Cases Cited: BR v R [2015] NSWCCA 255
Bravo v R [2015] NSWCCA 302
BT v The Queen [2010] NSWCCA 267
FD v R [2013] NSWCCA 139
Franklin v R [2016] NSWCCA 319
GAT v R [2007] NSWCCA 208
GSH v R; R v GSH [2009] NSWCCA 214
Hitchen v R [2010] NSWCCA 77
JL v R [2014] NSWCCA 130
Josefski v The Queen [2010] NSWCCA 41
Mills v R [2017] NSWCCA 87
MRW v R [2011] NSWCCA 260
Muldrock v The Queen [2011] HCA 39; (2011) 244 CLR 120; 212 A Crim R 254
Nguyen v The Queen [2016] HCA 17; (2016) 256 CLR 656
Paxton v R [2011] NSWCCA 242; (2011) 219 A Crim R 104
PH v The Queen [2009] NSWCCA 161
Postiglione v R [1997] HCA 26; (1997) 189 CLR 295
R v BJW [2000] NSWCCA 60
R v Fisher (1989) 40 A Crim R 442
R v Hutchinson [2018] NSWCCA 152
R v KW [2018] NSWDC 209
R v Mclean [2001] NSWCCA 58; (2001) 121 A Crim R 484
R v MAK [2006] NSWCCA 381; (2006) 167 A Crim R 159
R v MM [2018] NSWDC 181
R v PGM [2008] NSWCCA 172
R v Rapley [1999] NSWCCA 302
R v Sea Court of Criminal Appeal, 13 August 1990, unreported
R v Slater [2003] NSWCCA 178
R v Tuala [2015] NSWCCA 8
R v Youkhana [2004] NSWCCA 412
Regina v Gebrail Court of Criminal Appeal, 18 November 1994, unreported
The Queen v Kilic [2016] HCA 48; (2016) 259 CLR 256
ZA v R [2017] NSWCCA 132Category: Sentence Parties: Regina (Crown)
MM (Offender)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
L McSpedden (Offender)
M Fox (Crown)
Douglas & Ford Criminal Law
File Number(s): 2015/00181812; 2015/00220576; 2015/00220588; 2015/00220612; 2015/00220622; 2015/00223091 Publication restriction: Non-publication order re offender’s name, the identity of each of the victims or any matter which is likely to lead to the identification of such victims, and the identity of various…
Continue reading R v MM (No 2)
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- R v MM (No 2) [2018] NSWDC 528
- Case
- [2018] NSWDC 528
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appellant, MM, faced a serious criminal trial in the Supreme Court of Victoria, presided over by Justice Byrne. The case involved multiple charges against MM, including persistent sexual abuse of a child, production and dissemination of child abuse material, procuring or grooming a child for unlawful sexual activity, and possession of child abuse material. MM was also charged with supplying drugs to groom a child and blackmailing victims. The offences spanned over many years and involved six complainants, resulting in a total of 77 charges. MM's relationship to the victims varied, including being a grandfather and a step-grandfather to some of the victims.
The primary legal issues the court had to address were whether the trial judge's approach to the sentencing principles and the weight to be given to various factors were correct. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. MM's counsel argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive due to the trial judge's inadequate consideration of mitigating factors, including the appellant's guilty pleas, the time that had elapsed since the offences, and his health issues.
The court held that the trial judge had not erred in his approach to sentencing principles and had appropriately considered the relevant factors. The court found that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive. The judge had meticulously considered the gravity of the offences, the appellant's role as a family member, and the long-term impact on the victims. The court emphasised the need for severe punishment due to the persistent and egregious nature of the crimes. Justice Byrne concluded that the sentence reflected the seriousness of the offences and the need for deterrence and protection of the community.
The court's final orders confirmed the aggregate sentence of 32 years imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 24 years. The sentence was to commence on 19 June 2015, with the non-parole period expiring on 18 June 2039 and the balance of the term expiring on 18 June 2047. The appeal was dismissed, and the sentence upheld.
The primary legal issues the court had to address were whether the trial judge's approach to the sentencing principles and the weight to be given to various factors were correct. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. MM's counsel argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive due to the trial judge's inadequate consideration of mitigating factors, including the appellant's guilty pleas, the time that had elapsed since the offences, and his health issues.
The court held that the trial judge had not erred in his approach to sentencing principles and had appropriately considered the relevant factors. The court found that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive. The judge had meticulously considered the gravity of the offences, the appellant's role as a family member, and the long-term impact on the victims. The court emphasised the need for severe punishment due to the persistent and egregious nature of the crimes. Justice Byrne concluded that the sentence reflected the seriousness of the offences and the need for deterrence and protection of the community.
The court's final orders confirmed the aggregate sentence of 32 years imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 24 years. The sentence was to commence on 19 June 2015, with the non-parole period expiring on 18 June 2039 and the balance of the term expiring on 18 June 2047. The appeal was dismissed, and the sentence upheld.
Orders
Orders of the court
Aggregate sentence of 32 years with a non-parole period of 24 years. The sentence will commence on 19 June 2015. The non-parole period will expire on 18 June 2039; the balance of term of 8 years will expire on 18 June 2047.
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.