R v Peterson (a pseudonym) - [2020] NSWDC 122

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Peterson (a pseudonym) [2020] NSWDC 122
Hearing dates: 27 February 2020
Decision date: 27 February 2020
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Haesler SC DCJ
Decision:
Aggregate sentence of six years imprisonment. Non-parole period of four years.

Catchwords: SENTENCING- Sexual intercourse with a person under care - Intentionally sexually touch a child- Aggravated indecent assault
SENTENCING- relevant factors on sentence - two child victims - offender child victims stepfather - early acceptance of responsibility - Form 1 matters - seriousness of sexual assaults against children- deterrent and retributive sentences required- victim impact – remorse
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900,
Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Criminal Legislation Amendment (Child Sexual Abuse) Act 2018
Cases Cited: BT v R [2010] NSWCCA 267
LB v R [2019] NSWCCA 151, at [39]
R v Herring (1956) 73 WN (NSW) 203
R v NJK [2011] NSWCCA 151
R v Windle [2012] NSWCCA 222
Ryan v The Queen (2001) 206 CLR 267
Thompson v R (2000) 49 NSWLR 383
Category: Sentence
Parties: George Peterson (the offender)
Director of Public Prosecutions
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr S Fraser, Public Defender (for the offender)
Solicitors:
Legal Aid NSW (for the offender)
Ms N Olender (for Director of Public Prosecutions)

File Number(s): 2019/00186375
Publication restriction: The Offender’s name is subject to a suppression order. The name of the complainants are not to be published, nor is any other material that could lead to the identification of that complainants or any information that may reveal the relationship between the defendant and the child complainant; this includes the name of the mother of the complainants and her relationship with the accused: s.578A Crimes Act 1900 and s.15A Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987

SEntence – ex tempore revised

There is to be no publication of either complainant’s name or anything that may lead to the identification of a child complainant: s 578A Crimes Act 1900 and s 15A Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987. This includes the name of the offender, the children’s mother and the offender, given his relationship to the mother and the children. Identifying information has been removed from this judgment to comply with the statute. Pseudonyms have been used for the names of the offender and the child victims.

Introduction

On the evening of Saturday 15 June 2019, Mrs Peterson went into her son Chris’s bedroom. She saw her husband, George Peterson, kneeling beside her son’s bed. She saw that her son’s penis was exposed. She said, "What the fuck are you doing?" The offender responded, "Nothing" and walked out. Soon after Chris told his mother, "He touched me. He sucked my penis". The distress that that those revelations caused Mrs Peterson, her children and the whole family unit, needs no further elucidation.
The police were called and on 16 June 2019 the offender was arrested. He has been in custody since that date. Initially, he told police a story denying any crime. Further complaints were…

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 Peterson (a pseudonym)

Details

AGLC: R v Peterson (a pseudonym) [2020] NSWDC 122
Case: [2020] NSWDC 122
Decision Date: 27 February 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Peterson, the appellant was convicted of two counts of aggravated indecent assault against two children under his care. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of the relevant jurisdiction. The appellant, who was the step-father of the victims, sexually abused them over a period of time. The matter before the court was to determine an appropriate sentence for the appellant's crimes.

The primary legal issue the court had to address was the determination of an appropriate sentence for the appellant's crimes. The court needed to consider the gravity of the offences, the appellant's acceptance of responsibility, and the impact of the crimes on the victims. The court also had to consider the appellant's background, his remorse, and the need for both deterrence and retribution.

The court found that the appellant's crimes were of a serious nature, given the vulnerability of the victims and the fact that the appellant was in a position of trust. The court noted that the appellant had accepted responsibility early on and expressed remorse for his actions. However, the court found that the crimes warranted a sentence that would serve both as a deterrent to the appellant and others in similar situations, and as retribution for the harm caused to the victims. The court imposed an aggregate sentence of six years imprisonment, with a non-parole period of four years.

Orders

Orders of the court

Aggregate sentence of six years imprisonment. Non-parole period of four 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 Peterson (a pseudonym) [2020] NSWDC 122
Hearing dates:	27 February 2020
Decision date:	27 February 2020
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Haesler SC DCJ
Decision:	Aggregate sentence of six years imprisonment. Non-parole period of four years.
Catchwords:	SENTENCING- Sexual intercourse with a person under care - Intentionally sexually touch a child- Aggravated indecent assault SENTENCING- relevant factors on sentence - two child victims - offender child victims stepfather - early acceptance of responsibility - Form 1 matters - seriousness of sexual assaults against children- deterrent and retributive sentences required- victim impact – remorse
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900, Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 Criminal Legislation Amendment (Child Sexual Abuse) Act 2018
Cases Cited:	BT v R [2010] NSWCCA 267 LB v R [2019] NSWCCA 151, at [39] R v Herring (1956) 73 WN (NSW) 203 R v NJK [2011] NSWCCA 151 R v Windle [2012] NSWCCA 222 Ryan v The Queen (2001) 206 CLR 267 Thompson v R (2000) 49 NSWLR 383
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	George Peterson (the offender) Director of Public Prosecutions
Representation:	Counsel: Mr S Fraser, Public Defender (for the offender) Solicitors: Legal Aid NSW (for the offender) Ms N Olender (for Director of Public Prosecutions)
File Number(s):	2019/00186375
Publication restriction:	The Offender’s name is subject to a suppression order. The name of the complainants are not to be published, nor is any other material that could lead to the identification of that complainants or any information that may reveal the relationship between the defendant and the child complainant; this includes the name of the mother of the complainants and her relationship with the accused: s.578A Crimes Act 1900 and s.15A Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987