Solicitors: Ms M McFarlane (for the Crown) Ms J Carroll (for the offender)
File Number(s):
2019/360214
Publication restriction:
The court reminds all concerned that the relevant legislation provides that there must be no publication of the name of the victim or anything that might tend to identify them.
REMARKS ON SENTENCE
The offender appeared at the Wagga Wagga Local Court on 1 April 2020 and pleaded guilty to one charge, namely:
“That (he) (on or about) 27 February 2010 at [a town] in the State of New South Wales did have sexual intercourse with MC, who was at that time under the age of ten years, (namely) of the age of 5 years”.
The plea of guilty was adhered to at the sentence hearing at the Wagga Wagga District Court on 4 June 2020 and accordingly the offender is entitled to the full 25% discount for the utilitarian value of the plea of guilty. There is an additional matter which in 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 RB
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v RB [2020] NSWDC 328
Case
[2020] NSWDC 328
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of R v RB, the appellant faced charges relating to sexual intercourse with a child under the age of ten. The appellant, who was 14 years and one week old at the time of the offence, engaged in digital penetration of the child. The case was heard by the Supreme Court of Victoria. The central issue before the court was the appropriate sentence for a juvenile offender who had engaged in such a serious offence. The court had to consider the appellant's age, the nature of the offence, and the delay in reporting the incident. Additionally, the court needed to balance the principles of rehabilitation and deterrence in determining the sentence.
The court recognised that the appellant's age was a significant mitigating factor, given that he was a juvenile at the time of the offence. However, the court also emphasised the gravity of the crime, which involved a young victim and constituted a serious breach of trust. The delay in reporting the incident was considered, but it was noted that this did not mitigate the severity of the offence. The court further considered the assistance provided by the appellant in the investigation, which was deemed a positive factor in the sentencing process.
After weighing these factors, the court determined that a community-based sentence was appropriate. The court imposed a Community Correction Order for a period of 30 months, with a requirement for the appellant to complete 235 hours of community work. This decision reflected the court's intent to prioritise rehabilitation and reintegration into society while also ensuring public safety and deterrence. The sentence also took into account the appellant's age and the potential for reform. The court's decision balanced the need for accountability with the opportunity for the appellant to make amends and contribute positively to the community.
Orders
Orders of the court
Sentenced to Community Correction Order for 30 months with 235 hours of community work.