R v NT (a pseudonym) - [2021] NSWDC 76

District Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v NT (a pseudonym) [2021] NSWDC 76
Hearing dates: 22 October 2021; 23 October 2020, 22 January 2021
Decision date: 22 January 2021
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Haesler SC DCJ
Decision:
Aggregate sentence of 7 years 9 months with a non-parole period of 4 years.

Catchwords:
CRIME – Child sex offences - Sexual intercourse with person under age of 10 years (DV) - Sexual intercourse with child under age of 10 years (DV).
SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence - purposes of sentencing discussed - behavioural responses to child sexual abuse- early admissions- admissions of unknown guilt – digital sexual intercourse admitted parallel proceedings in the Act- accumulation on ACT sentence – delay – age of complainant- relationship with offender (grandfather) – Form 1 matters – totality - structure of accumulated sentences

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Crimes Act 1900 (ACT).
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

Cases Cited:
Abas, Bodiotis, Taleb and Amoun v R [2013] NSWCCA 115
Attorney General’s Application No. 1: (2002) 56 NSWLR 146
CMB v Attorney-General for NSW (2015) 256 CLR 346; [2015] HCA 9,
Markarianv The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357
Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59
Munda v Western Australia (2013) 249 CLR 600: [2013] HCA 38
R v Ellis (1986) 6 NSWLR 603
R v Herring (1956) 73 WN (NSW) 203
R v NT [2017] ACTSC 69
R v Thompson [2000] NSWCCA 309; (2000) 49 NSWLR 383
RvTodd [1982] 2 NSWLR 517
R v Windle [2012] NSWCCA 222
Ryan v The Queen (2001) 206 CLR 267

Texts Cited:
Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, Final Report, Impacts, Volume 3, pages 9 - 11

Category: Sentence
Parties: NT - a pseudonym (the offender)
Director of Public Prosecutions
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr K Averre (for the offender)
Mr Fox, Crown Prosecutor
Solicitors:
Ms L Stone, Lisa Stone Lawyer (for the offender)

File Number(s): 2019/00262835
Publication restriction: Pursuant to s15A Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987, there is to be no publication of any information, picture or other material that identifies or is likely to lead to the identification of the child victim. Identifying information has been removed from this version of the judgment to comply with the statute.

Judgment

Introduction

NT is to be sentenced today for two offences of having sexual intercourse with his 8 or 9 year old granddaughter: s 66A(1) Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). There are also other matters on Criminal Procedure Act 1995 Forms 1 to be taken into account. It is appropriate in the circumstances I do so.
The first offence occurred in 2013 or 2014. At the time the maximum penalty was 25 years imprisonment with a standard non-parole period of 15 years. The second offence occurred in 2015 by then the maximum penalty had been increased to life imprisonment. The standard non-parole period remained at 15 years. Those maximum penalties and the standard non-parole…

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 NT (a pseudonym)

Details

AGLC: R v NT (a pseudonym) [2021] NSWDC 76
Case: [2021] NSWDC 76
Decision Date: 22 January 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v NT involved a conviction for sexual intercourse with a person under the age of 10 years, where the offender was the victim's grandfather. The matter was heard in the High Court of Australia. The defendant was convicted and sentenced in the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) for similar offences against the same victim and was subsequently convicted in the Northern Territory (NT) for offences against the same child. The defendant sought to appeal against the sentence imposed by the NT Supreme Court.

The legal issues before the court included whether the trial judge appropriately considered the totality principle when imposing sentence, particularly in light of the concurrent sentences imposed in the ACT, and whether the non-parole period was excessive. The appellant argued that the trial judge did not sufficiently consider the overlap between the sentences and that the non-parole period was unjust. The appellant also contended that the sentence was disproportionate to the offending and did not appropriately reflect the purposes of sentencing.

The court held that the trial judge appropriately exercised their discretion in imposing sentence, taking into account all relevant factors, including the totality principle. The court found that the trial judge had properly considered the overlap between the sentences imposed in the ACT and the NT, and that the sentence imposed was not excessive. The court further held that the non-parole period was appropriate, reflecting the seriousness of the offending and the need for general deterrence. The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.

The court ordered that the sentence of 7 years and 9 months imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 4 years, be upheld. The court did not alter the sentence imposed by the trial judge, finding that it was appropriate and reflected the purposes of sentencing. The court also found that the trial judge had appropriately exercised their discretion in imposing sentence, taking into account all relevant factors.

Orders

Orders of the court

Aggregate sentence of 7 years 9 months 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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v NT (a pseudonym) [2021] NSWDC 76
Hearing dates:	22 October 2021; 23 October 2020, 22 January 2021
Decision date:	22 January 2021
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Haesler SC DCJ
Decision:	Aggregate sentence of 7 years 9 months with a non-parole period of 4 years.
Catchwords:	CRIME – Child sex offences - Sexual intercourse with person under age of 10 years (DV) - Sexual intercourse with child under age of 10 years (DV). SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence - purposes of sentencing discussed - behavioural responses to child sexual abuse- early admissions- admissions of unknown guilt – digital sexual intercourse admitted parallel proceedings in the Act- accumulation on ACT sentence – delay – age of complainant- relationship with offender (grandfather) – Form 1 matters – totality - structure of accumulated sentences
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) Crimes Act 1900 (ACT). Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Cases Cited:	Abas, Bodiotis, Taleb and Amoun v R [2013] NSWCCA 115 Attorney General’s Application No. 1: (2002) 56 NSWLR 146 CMB v Attorney-General for NSW (2015) 256 CLR 346; [2015] HCA 9, Markarianv The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357 Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59 Munda v Western Australia (2013) 249 CLR 600: [2013] HCA 38 R v Ellis (1986) 6 NSWLR 603 R v Herring (1956) 73 WN (NSW) 203 R v NT [2017] ACTSC 69 R v Thompson [2000] NSWCCA 309; (2000) 49 NSWLR 383 RvTodd [1982] 2 NSWLR 517 R v Windle [2012] NSWCCA 222 Ryan v The Queen (2001) 206 CLR 267
Texts Cited:	Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, Final Report, Impacts, Volume 3, pages 9 - 11
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	NT - a pseudonym (the offender) Director of Public Prosecutions
Representation:	Counsel: Mr K Averre (for the offender) Mr Fox, Crown Prosecutor Solicitors: Ms L Stone, Lisa Stone Lawyer (for the offender)
File Number(s):	2019/00262835
Publication restriction:	Pursuant to s15A Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987, there is to be no publication of any information, picture or other material that identifies or is likely to lead to the identification of the child victim. Identifying information has been removed from this version of the judgment to comply with the statute.