R v RB

In the case of R v RB, the appellant faced charges related to the persistent sexual abuse of a child. The dispute centred on the appropriate sentence that should be imposed given the nature and circumstances of the offence. The matter was heard in the Court of Appeal, where the appellant contested the sentence handed down by the sentencing judge.

The court was required to determine whether the sentencing judge erred by imposing a sentence on the most favourable basis available to the offender. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the sentencing judge was correct in finding that the unlawful sexual relationship was maintained, given that there was no unanimous jury finding on the underlying acts that constituted the relationship. The court also had to consider the impact of recent legislative reforms that shifted significant questions of criminal culpability from the jury to the sentencing judge.

The Court of Appeal found that the sentencing judge had erred by making factual findings on uncertain evidence without a unanimous jury finding. The court held that the sentencing judge was bound to make their own factual findings in such circumstances, and that the error established necessitated the matter be remitted to the District Court for re-sentencing. The court emphasised the importance of adhering to the correct legal principles when imposing sentences in cases involving persistent sexual abuse of a child.