R v RA (No 2)

Case [2019] NSWDC 463

District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v RA (No 2) [2019] NSWDC 463
Hearing dates: 14 June 2019
Date of orders: 02 August 2019
Decision date: 02 August 2019
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Wilson SC DCJ
Decision:

At [53]

Catchwords: CRIME – sentencing after jury trial – assault with act of indecency – carnal knowledge of a girl under age of 10 years – historic child sexual offences
Legislation Cited: Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1988 s 6
Crimes Act 1900 ss 61E; 67; 76
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 ss 3A; 21A; 25AA
Cases Cited: R v AA [2017] NSWCCA 84
SW v R [2013] NSWCCA 255
Category:Sentence
Parties: Regina (Crown)
RA (Offender)
Representation:

Counsel:
Ms K Tennant (Crown)
Mr S Healy (Offender)

  Solicitors:
ODPP (Crown)
Newton’s Law (Offender)
File Number(s): 2016/270427
Publication restriction: Statutory Non-Publication Order regarding the name of the Offender and the victim

Judgment

  1. The Offender appears before the Court for sentencing today in relation to two charges in respect of which he was found guilty by a jury. They are Counts 2 and what became referred to as 3A on an amended indictment. The Offender was found not guilty of Count 1 and Count 3B was an alternative count to Count 3A.

  2. In sentencing, the Court has regards to the guidepost of maximum penalties as being an indication of the seriousness with which Parliament and the community considers the offending.

  3. The two counts were:

  1. Count 2, being an assault with an act of indecency, in breach of s76 and s61E of the Crimes Act carries a maximum penalty of six years imprisonment; and

  2. Count 3A, being carnal knowledge of a girl under the age of ten years, in breach of s67 of the Crimes Act carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.

  1. The Offender was born in 1963 and is now 55 years of age. The offending was committed between 29 August 1980 and 31 December 1981 when the Offender was aged between 16 and 18 years of age. The Offender was arrested and charged on 16 November 2017. On 21 August 2018 the Offender was committed for trial in the District Court from the Wyong Local Court.

  2. The Offender faced trial from 25 March to 29 March 2019 on which latter date he was found guilty of the two charges previously mentioned. The Offender has been in custody since that date. The Offender also spent one day in custody upon his arrest and I understand it is agreed that the commencement date of the sentence should be backdated to 28 March 2019.

  3. At the sentence hearing the Crown relied upon the Crown bundle (Exhibit A), together with helpful submissions from the Crown (MFI 1).

  4. For the Offender a large amount of subjective type material was relied upon, including:

  1. a letter from one of the Offender’s daughters, dated 13 June 2019 (Exhibit 1);

  2. a letter from the other daughter of the Offender, dated 13 June 2019 (Exhibit 2);

  3. a letter from the Offender’s…

Continue reading R v RA (No 2)

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v RA (No 2) [2019] NSWDC 463
Case
[2019] NSWDC 463
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, R A, was convicted by a jury of two counts of assault with an act of indecency and one count of having carnal knowledge of a girl under the age of 10 years. The victim, a young girl, was related to the appellant. The appellant was sentenced to imprisonment by the Supreme Court of Queensland. The appellant appealed against the sentence, claiming it was excessive. The Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Queensland heard the appeal. The appeal was allowed in part and the case was remitted to the Supreme Court for re-sentencing.

The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the sentence imposed by the Supreme Court was manifestly excessive. The appellant argued that the sentence did not accord with the principles of sentencing for historic child sexual offences as established in previous case law. The Crown contended that the sentence was appropriate given the seriousness of the offences and the need to protect the community.

The Court of Appeal considered the relevant case law and principles of sentencing for historic child sexual offences. The Court noted that the trial judge had given appropriate weight to the seriousness of the offences, the appellant's culpability, and the need for deterrence and community protection. However, the Court found that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive in light of the totality of the circumstances, including the historic nature of the offences and the appellant's otherwise unblemished criminal record. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, remitted the matter to the Supreme Court for re-sentencing, and provided detailed guidance on the appropriate sentence to be imposed.

Orders

Orders of the court

At [53]

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.