Aggregate sentence of 2 years 10 months, with non parole period of 1 year 3 months
Catchwords:
CRIME – SENTENCING – fail to comply with reporting obligations - groom child for unlawful sexual activity – money sent to victim’s accounts – sexually explicit texts – intellectual impairment of offender – reduced moral culpability – general deterrence
Counsel: Ms C Mendes for the Offender Solicitors: Ms V Morgan for the Crown
File Number(s):
2019/232686
Publication restriction:
No publication of the name of the complainant or anything that would tend to identify them.
REMARKS ON SENTENCE
The offender appeared before the Local Court at Wagga Wagga on 22 April 2020 and pleaded guilty to three charges, namely one count of Fail to comply With Reporting Obligations contrary to s 17(1) of the Child Protection (Offender’s Registration) Act, 2000 and two counts of Groom Child for Unlawful Sexual Activity contrary to s 66EB(3) of the Crimes Act, 1900.
The pleas of guilty were adhered to at the sentence hearing at the Wagga Wagga District Court on 23 July 2020 and accordingly the offender is entitled to the full 25% discount for the utilitarian value of the pleas of guilty.
The maximum penalty for the offence of Fail to Comply with Reporting Obligations is 5 years imprisonment and/or a fine of 500 penalty units. There is no standard non-parole period specified in respect of that offence. The maximum penalty for what are shortly or commonly known as the “Grooming” offences is 10 years imprisonment. Parliament has specified a standard non-parole period of 4 years in respect of that offence. I acknowledge that I am engaged in a one-step instinctive process in which two of the principle guideposts are the maximum penalty and the standard non-parole period.
In addition the offender asks that when sentencing him in respect of the first of the Grooming charges I take into account two charges on a Form 1 document, namely two further charges of Fail to Comply with Reporting Obligations contrary to s 17(1) of the Child Protection (Offenders…
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 Paterson
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Paterson [2020] NSWDC 416
Case
[2020] NSWDC 416
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of R v Paterson involved a defendant who was found guilty of failing to comply with reporting obligations, grooming a child for unlawful sexual activity, sending money to the victim's accounts, and sending sexually explicit texts. The case was heard in the relevant court where the defendant's intellectual impairment was considered as a mitigating factor. The legal issues before the court were the appropriate sentence to be imposed on the defendant, taking into account the seriousness of the crimes, the defendant's intellectual impairment, and the need for general deterrence.
The court considered the severity of the crimes, the defendant's intellectual impairment, and the need for general deterrence. The court found that the defendant's intellectual impairment reduced his moral culpability, but also noted that the crimes were serious and had a significant impact on the victim. The court held that the sentence should reflect the seriousness of the crimes, the need for general deterrence, and the defendant's intellectual impairment. The court ultimately imposed an aggregate sentence of 2 years and 10 months, with a non-parole period of 1 year and 3 months.
The court's decision highlights the importance of considering the individual circumstances of each offender when imposing a sentence. The court recognised that the defendant's intellectual impairment reduced his moral culpability, but also emphasised the need for general deterrence and the seriousness of the crimes committed. The final orders of the court reflect this balance, with a sentence that is both proportionate to the crimes committed and takes into account the defendant's intellectual impairment.
Orders
Orders of the court
Aggregate sentence of 2 years 10 months, with non parole period of 1 year 3 months