R v Radoll - [2025] NSWDC 408

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Radoll [2025] NSWDC 408
Hearing dates: 8 October 2025
Date of orders: 15 October 2025
Decision date: 15 October 2025
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Priestley SC DCJ
Decision:
(1) Of the offence of sexual intercourse without consent the offender is convicted.
(2) The offender is sentenced to a term of imprisonment to date from 25 May 2025 and with a non-parole period expiring today 15 October 2025 and with a balance of term expiring on 24 May 2026.

Catchwords:
CRIME - sexual offences - SENTENCING - relevant factors on sentence - plea of guilty - form 1 - subjective considerations on sentence - special circumstances

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

Cases Cited:
Attorney General’s Application under s37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 No 1 of 2002 (2002) 56 NSWLR
R v De La Rosa [2010] NSWCCA 194
R v Livas [2015] ACTSC 50

Category: Sentence
Parties: Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Samuel John Radoll (Offender)
Representation:
Counsel:
Ms C. Akthar for the Offender
Solicitors:
Director of Public Prosecutions for the Crown
Hamilton Janke Lawyers for the Offender

File Number(s): 2024/232370

JUDGMENT

Samuel Radoll appears for sentence in respect of an offence of sexual intercourse without consent as provided for by section 61I of the Crimes Act 1900. The maximum sentence for that offence is 14 years imprisonment and there is a standard non-parole period of 7 years. The maximum penalty and the standard non-parole period are legislative guideposts indicating the legislature’s view of the seriousness of the offence so as to assist in arriving at the appropriate sentence. Additionally there is a second offence under section 61I on a Form 1, that is to be taken into account in sentencing for the primary offence in the manner the Form 1 procedure allows.
As the summary of the facts that follow will show, a feature of this matter is that to make out the required element of the offence that the victim did not consent to the sexual intercourse, the Crown relies on section 61HJ(1)(k). That section provides:

(1) A person does not consent to a sexual activity if--
(k) the person participates in the sexual activity because of a fraudulent inducement.
"fraudulent inducement" does not include a misrepresentation about a person's income, wealth or feelings.

The facts

Within exhibit A which is the Crown tender bundle is a statement of agreed facts. The whole of those agreed facts are therefore in evidence and the following is a summary of them. The offence occurred on 9 August 2023. In the lead up to that date the offender and victim had first met on 8 July 2023. On that occasion the offender contacted the victim and an arrangement was made whereby he paid a sum of money in advance of meeting the victim, he then met the victim at her location and they engaged in sexual intercourse. That same process occurred on 18 July 2023. The…

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 Radoll

Details

AGLC: R v Radoll [2025] NSWDC 408
Case: [2025] NSWDC 408
Decision Date: 15 October 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Radoll involved the defendant, Radoll, charged with the offence of sexual intercourse without consent. The matter was heard in a relevant Australian court where the defendant pleaded guilty to the offence. The court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence in light of the plea of guilty and the specific circumstances surrounding the offence. In sentencing, the court considered various factors, including the nature of the offence, the plea of guilty, and any special circumstances that might influence the sentence.

The primary legal issue before the court was the determination of an appropriate sentence for the offence of sexual intercourse without consent, taking into account the defendant's plea of guilty and any relevant mitigating or aggravating factors. The court had to balance the objective considerations of the offence, such as its seriousness and impact on the victim, with the subjective considerations pertinent to the defendant’s personal circumstances and any special circumstances that might apply. The court also needed to ensure the sentence reflected the principles of justice and deterrence, while considering the objective of rehabilitation.

In reaching its decision, the court first acknowledged the gravity of the offence and its impact on the victim. It noted the defendant's plea of guilty as a mitigating factor, which often results in a reduced sentence. The court also considered the subjective factors, including the defendant's background, character, and any personal circumstances that might influence the sentence. Special circumstances, if any, were also weighed. After carefully considering all these factors, the court determined a sentence that it deemed appropriate, balancing the need for punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation. The court imposed a term of imprisonment with specific commencement and non-parole periods, reflecting its assessment of the offence's severity and the defendant's plea.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) Of the offence of sexual intercourse without consent the offender is convicted.

(2) The offender is sentenced to a term of imprisonment to date from 25 May 2025 and with a non-parole period expiring today 15 October 2025 and with a balance of term expiring on 24 May 2026.

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 Radoll [2025] NSWDC 408
Hearing dates:	8 October 2025
Date of orders:	15 October 2025
Decision date:	15 October 2025
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Priestley SC DCJ
Decision:	(1) Of the offence of sexual intercourse without consent the offender is convicted. (2) The offender is sentenced to a term of imprisonment to date from 25 May 2025 and with a non-parole period expiring today 15 October 2025 and with a balance of term expiring on 24 May 2026.
Catchwords:	CRIME - sexual offences - SENTENCING - relevant factors on sentence - plea of guilty - form 1 - subjective considerations on sentence - special circumstances
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Cases Cited:	Attorney General’s Application under s37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 No 1 of 2002 (2002) 56 NSWLR R v De La Rosa [2010] NSWCCA 194 R v Livas [2015] ACTSC 50
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Samuel John Radoll (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel: Ms C. Akthar for the Offender Solicitors: Director of Public Prosecutions for the Crown Hamilton Janke Lawyers for the Offender
File Number(s):	2024/232370