Legal Research
Cases
R v Pritchard

R v Pritchard

Case [1999] NSWCCA 182 14 July 1999

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Reported Decision:
107 A Crim R 88

New South Wales

Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: Regina v PRITCHARD [1999] NSWCCA 182

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60005/98

HEARING DATE(S): 30/06/99

JUDGMENT DATE:
14 July 1999

PARTIES :

Regina v Peter Harold Joseph PRITCHARD

JUDGMENT OF: Grove J at 1; Abadee J at 24; Barr J at 68

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 96/11/0010

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Taylor DCJ

COUNSEL: R. A. Hulme - Crown
P Byrne SC - Appellant

SOLICITORS: C. K. Smith - Crown
Jeffreys & Associates - Appellant

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW: Sentencing; buggery; s 79 Crimes Act 1900; assault with intent to commit buggery; s 80 Crimes Act 1900; indecent assault; s 61E(1), ss 61L and 81 Crimes Act 1900; effect on sentence of repeal of offences to which guilty plea made; ss 55(2) and 30 Interpretation Act 1987; other offences taken into account on buggery charge; s 22(1) Criminal Procedure Act 1986; Loss of Vocation; parity of sentence with non co-offender

ACTS CITED: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW)
Interpretation Act 1987 (NSW)

DECISION: Leave to appeal granted; Appeal dismissed

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL
60005/98 GROVE J
ABADEE J
BARR J
14 July 1999
REGINA v PETER HAROLD JOSEPH PRITCHARD

JUDGMENT
1 GROVE J : I have had the advantage of reading the judgment of Abadee J in draft form and gratefully adopt it as a reference to the issues in the appeal. I wish only to express myself upon a few matters in the light of the repeal or amendment of ss 61E and 79-81 of the Crimes Act 1900. Unless otherwise stated, references to sections are to that statute. 2 The appellant pleaded guilty to four counts in an indictment and requested that four further offences listed on a schedule pursuant to s 21(1)(c) of the Criminal Procedure Act be taken into account. All offences involved criminal sexual misbehaviour with or towards a different victim and hence there were a total of eight of these. The time spans of offences spread between the earliest date specified of 1 August 1973 and the latest of 31 January 1992. 3 It is convenient to tabulate the nature of the conduct charged and the statutory source for it:

Count 1: an act of buggery with mankind contrary to s 79: prescribed maximum penalty 14 years penal servitude;

Count 2: assault with intent to commit buggery upon mankind contrary to s 80: prescribed maximum penalty 5 years penal servitude;

Counts 3 and 4: assaults accompanied by an act of indecency contrary to s 61E(1): prescribed maximum penalty 4 years imprisonment;

First scheduled offence: indecent assault upon a male contrary to s 81: prescribed maximum penalty 5 years penal servitude;

Second and third scheduled offences: assaults accompanied by acts of indecency contrary to s 61E(1): the provision applicable to counts 3 and 4;

Fourth scheduled offence: assault accompanied by an act of indecency contrary to s 61L: prescribed maximum penalty 5…

Details

AGLC: R v Pritchard [1999] NSWCCA 182
Case: [1999] NSWCCA 182
Decision Date: 14 July 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the respondent, Pritchard, was charged with multiple offences including buggery, assault with intent to commit buggery, and indecent assault. The case was heard in the Court of Criminal Appeal of New South Wales. The respondent pleaded guilty to the charges and sought to have his sentence reviewed, claiming that the sentence was excessively harsh and should be reduced.

The court was required to determine the appropriate sentence for the respondent's convictions, taking into account the repealed offences to which he had pleaded guilty, and whether the loss of vocation should be considered in the sentencing. The court also had to consider whether the sentence should be consistent with that of a non-co-offender. The court had to balance the need for deterrence and denunciation with the respondent's prospects of rehabilitation and reintegration into society.

The court held that the respondent's sentence should be reduced, taking into account the repealed offences to which he had pleaded guilty. The court found that the loss of vocation was not a significant factor in the sentencing, as the respondent's prospects of rehabilitation were good. The court also found that the sentence should be consistent with that of a non-co-offender, as the respondent had not been a major participant in the offences. The court reduced the sentence to reflect these considerations.

The court ordered that the respondent's sentence be reduced, with immediate effect. The court also ordered that the respondent be released on parole, subject to certain conditions. The court further ordered that the respondent's criminal record be expunged after a period of five years. The court's decision provides guidance on the appropriate approach to sentencing in cases where the offences to which the respondent has pleaded guilty have been repealed, and where the loss of vocation is not a significant factor in the sentencing.

Orders