R v ONA

The appellant, ONA, appealed against his sentence for two Commonwealth sexual offences committed on a person under the age of 16 while overseas. The respondent was the Commonwealth. The primary judge found the offences to be of extreme gravity, but took into account a number of factors in mitigation. The appellant was sentenced to a total of 11 years imprisonment, with a non-parole period of seven years and three months. The appellant appealed on the basis that the judge failed to give appropriate weight to the delay between the commission of the offences and the sentencing hearing, did not take account of the purpose of the ‘child sex tourism’ provisions, did not take account of a psychologist’s report and that the sentence was manifestly excessive.

The court noted that the delay between the commission of the offences and the sentencing hearing was a matter that the judge had considered in mitigation. The court found that the delay was not of such significance as to warrant a substantial reduction in sentence. The court found that the judge had properly considered the purpose of the ‘child sex tourism’ provisions and had appropriately weighed this against the appellant’s legitimate business reasons for being overseas. The court found that the psychologist’s report was a matter of mitigation and did not warrant a substantial reduction in sentence. The court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, and was within the range of sentences that could be imposed for such offences. The court noted that the appellant would also be subject to lifetime registration as a sex offender, but found that this was a matter of punishment, not mitigation.

The appeal was dismissed. The court granted the application for leave to add an additional ground of appeal concerning the impact of lifetime reporting requirements under the Sex Offenders Registration Act 2004. The court found that State law did not prohibit the judge from having regard to the consequences of sex offender registration when sentencing the appellant for a Commonwealth offence. The court found that the State law was not ‘picked up’ by Commonwealth law, and was not invalid because of Commonwealth law. The court found that the State law was consistent with the purpose of the Sex Offenders Registration Act 2004, and did not prevent the judge from taking into account the impact of lifetime registration when sentencing the appellant. The court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, and was within the range of sentences that could be imposed for such offences.