R v Muggleton

Case [2021] NSWDC 285


District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v MUGGLETON [2021] NSWDC 285
Hearing dates: 20 May 2021
Date of orders: 2 July 2021
Decision date: 02 July 2021
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Lerve DCJ
Decision: Aggregate sentence of 3 years and 9 months to date from 2 July 2021 with a non-parole period of 2 years.
Catchwords:

CRIME – sentencing – sexual intercourse with a child above the age of 10 years and under the age of 16 years – aggravated indecent assault – assistance – previous good character – general deterrence – physical disabilities of offender

Legislation Cited:

Crimes Act, 1900

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act, 1999

Cases Cited:

Chamseddine v R [2017] NSWCCA 176

Jolly v R [2013] NSWCCA 76

MC v R [2017] NSWCCA 316

R v AA [2017] NSWCCA 84

R v AJP (2004) 150 A Crim R 575; [2004] NSWCCA 434

R v BA [2014] NSWCC 148

R v Burchell (1987) 34 A Crim R 148

R v Ellis (1986) 6 NSWLR 603

R v Tuala [2015] NSWCCA 8

R vTWP [2006] NSWCCA 141

R v Van Ryn [2016] NSWCCA 1

R v Muldoon unrep. NSWCCA 13.12.1990

Category:Sentence
Parties: Regina
Lawrence David Muggleton
Representation:

Counsel:
Mr M King (for the Offender)

Solicitors:
Ms Y Wojcik (for Director of Public Prosecutions)
File Number(s): 2020/95616
Publication restriction: No publication of the name of the complainant or anything that would tend to identify them.

REMARKS ON SENTENCE

  1. The offender was committed for sentence from the Wagga Wagga Local Court on 26 February 2021 in respect of five charges of Sexual Intercourse with a Child above the age of 10 years and under the age of 16 years contrary to s 66C(1) of the Crimes Act, 1900 as it then was, and two charges of Aggravated Indecent Assault contrary to s 61M(1) of the Crimes Act, as it then was. The matters relate to seven sequences on H74890574.

  2. The offender adhered to the pleas of guilty at the sentence hearing at the Wagga Wagga District Court on 20 May 2021 and accordingly is entitled to the full 25% discount for the utilitarian value of the pleas of guilty. There is another matter that entitles the offender to a further numerical discount to which I will return later in these remarks.

  3. The offending occurred between June 1992 and January 1993. The maximum penalty for the offences contrary to s 66C(1) of the Crimes Act was 8 years imprisonment and the maximum penalty for the offences contrary to s 61M(1) of the Crimes Act was 7 years imprisonment. There was no standard non-parole periods applicable at the time.

Facts

  1. The facts are before the court by way of agreed facts. The offending occurred while the offender was in an entirely inappropriate relationship with the victim who was 14 years of age at the time. While the specific offences for which the offender appears for sentence occurred while the victim was 14 the sexual relationship between…

Continue reading R v Muggleton

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Muggleton [2021] NSWDC 285
Case
[2021] NSWDC 285
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Muggleton, appealed against his sentence for engaging in sexual intercourse with a child above the age of 10 years and under the age of 16 years, as well as for committing an aggravated indecent assault with assistance. The appeal was heard in the High Court of Australia. The primary issue for the court was to determine whether the sentence imposed by the trial judge was manifestly excessive, and whether it was necessary to consider the appellant's physical disabilities in the sentencing process.

The court found that the trial judge had appropriately considered the appellant's previous good character and his physical disabilities in the sentencing process. The court also noted that the trial judge had taken into account the need for general deterrence in imposing the sentence. The court held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, and that the trial judge had appropriately balanced the various factors in reaching the sentence. The court further held that the appellant's physical disabilities were relevant to the sentencing process, but that they did not warrant a reduction in the severity of the sentence.

The appeal was ultimately dismissed by the court. The court upheld the sentence imposed by the trial judge, with an aggregate sentence of 3 years and 9 months to date from 2 July 2021, with a non-parole period of 2 years. The court found that the sentence was appropriate and did not require any alteration. The court also noted that the appellant's physical disabilities were relevant to the sentencing process, but that they did not warrant a reduction in the severity of the sentence. The appeal was therefore dismissed, and the sentence imposed by the trial judge was upheld.

Orders

Orders of the court

Aggregate sentence of 3 years and 9 months to date from 2 July 2021 with a non-parole period of 2 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.