R v RDT (a pseudonym) - [2019] NSWDC 596

District Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v RDT (a pseudonym) [2019] NSWDC 596
Hearing dates: 30 August 2019
Date of orders: 20 September 2019
Decision date: 20 September 2019
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Buscombe DCJ
Decision:
Sentenced to an aggregate sentence of 20 years imprisonment with an aggregate non-parole period of 15 years.

Catchwords: CRIME — Child sex offences — Disseminate child abuse material
CRIME — Child sex offences — Conspiracy to have sexual intercourse with child <10 — Procuring or grooming child for unlawful sexual activity — Sexual intercourse with child <10
Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act
Cases Cited: Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120
R v Egan [2016] NSWCCA 285
Category: Sentence
Parties: Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
RDT (Offender)
Representation:
Counsel:
S Sloane (Crown)
S Loomes (Offender)
Solicitors:
C Hurford (Crown)
M Stidwill (Offender)

File Number(s): 2015/00310471, 2016/00262074
Publication restriction: Statutory non-publication order applies to the identity of victims.

SENTENCE

HIS HONOUR: The offender is to be sentenced in relation to a number of offences which I will set out shortly. The facts concerning the offending are very distressing and I consider it appropriate to make mention of that fact because it will be necessary for me to read onto the record the facts. The members of the public in the courtroom should understand that they will hear a recitation of them in my remarks.
The offender is to be sentenced having pleaded guilty to the following offences: That between 18 August 2015 and 12 October 2015 at Schofields he conspired with JF to have sexual intercourse with RF, a child then under the age of ten years, namely, six to eight months of age. That is an offence under the common law, so effectively the maximum penalty is at large. However, the maximum penalty for the substantive offence under s 66A(1) of the Crimes Act at the relevant time was life imprisonment. The substantive offence had an applicable standard non-parole period of 15 years’ imprisonment. I have used the maximum penalty and the standard non-parole period as a guide for the imposition of sentence on that count.
The second 2015 offence, as I will call them, is that between 12 October 2015 and 22 October 2015 at Schofields he intentionally attempted to procure a child under 14 years, namely eight months of age, for unlawful sexual activity. That is an offence under s 66EB(2) of the Crimes Act and has a maximum penalty of 15 years’ imprisonment with an applicable standard non-parole period of six years.
The third of the 2015 offences is that between 24 August 2015 and 30 September 2015 he disseminated child abuse material. That is an offence under s 91H(2) of the Crimes Act and has a maximum penalty of ten years’ imprisonment, and there is no applicable standard non-parole period.
The fourth and final 2015 offence is that between the same dates and at the same place as the last offence he disseminated child…

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 RDT (a pseudonym)

Details

AGLC: R v RDT (a pseudonym) [2019] NSWDC 596
Case: [2019] NSWDC 596
Decision Date: 20 September 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved RDT, who was charged with various child sex offences, including conspiracy to engage in sexual activities with a child and the dissemination of child abuse material. The proceedings were heard in the Supreme Court of the relevant jurisdiction. RDT pleaded guilty to multiple counts related to these charges.

The legal issues the court needed to address included the appropriate sentencing principles to apply, given the severity and nature of the offences, and how to balance the need for punishment with the possibility of rehabilitation. The court had to consider the impact of the offences on the victims, the degree of RDT's culpability, and the principles of deterrence and denunciation. Additionally, the court needed to determine an appropriate aggregate sentence that reflected the cumulative seriousness of the charges.

In its judgment, the court emphasised the heinous nature of the crimes committed by RDT. It noted the significant harm caused to the victims, who were children, and the community's interest in protecting children from such exploitation and abuse. The court considered various sentencing principles, including the need for specific and general deterrence, and the necessity to ensure that RDT does not pose a future risk to children. It also took into account RDT's guilty plea and remorse. Ultimately, the court sentenced RDT to an aggregate sentence of 20 years imprisonment, with an aggregate non-parole period of 15 years.

Orders

Orders of the court

Sentenced to an aggregate sentence of 20 years imprisonment with an aggregate non-parole period of 15 years.

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 RDT (a pseudonym) [2019] NSWDC 596
Hearing dates:	30 August 2019
Date of orders:	20 September 2019
Decision date:	20 September 2019
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Buscombe DCJ
Decision:	Sentenced to an aggregate sentence of 20 years imprisonment with an aggregate non-parole period of 15 years.
Catchwords:	CRIME — Child sex offences — Disseminate child abuse material CRIME — Child sex offences — Conspiracy to have sexual intercourse with child <10 — Procuring or grooming child for unlawful sexual activity — Sexual intercourse with child <10
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act
Cases Cited:	Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120 R v Egan [2016] NSWCCA 285
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) RDT (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel: S Sloane (Crown) S Loomes (Offender) Solicitors: C Hurford (Crown) M Stidwill (Offender)
File Number(s):	2015/00310471, 2016/00262074
Publication restriction:	Statutory non-publication order applies to the identity of victims.