R v RJ (No.5)

Case [2024] NSWDC 26


District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v RJ (No.5) [2024] NSWDC 26
Hearing dates: 08 February 2024
Date of orders: 08 February 2024
Decision date: 08 February 2024
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Abadee DCJ
Decision:

See paragraph [86]

Catchwords:

CRIMINAL LAW – sentencing – child sexual offences perpetrated by offender on his granddaughter

Legislation Cited:

Crimes Act1900 (NSW)

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)

Cases Cited:

Baker v R [2022] NSWCCA 195

Bhatia v R [2023] NSWCCA 12

Culbert v R [2021] NSWCCA 38

Davidson v R [2022] NSWCCA 153

DBW v R [2007] NSWCCA 236

GL v R [2022] NSWCCA 202

Muldrock v R (2011) 244 CLR 120

R v Lau [2022] NSWCCA 131

R v Lauren Cranston [2023] NSWSC 454

RH v R [2019] NSWCCA 64

Texts Cited:

Nil

Category:Sentence
Parties: Rex
RJ
Representation:

Counsel:
A O’Connor for the ODPP
S Schaudin for the offender

Solicitors:
ODPP
Takchi and Associates
File Number(s): 2019/305678
Publication restriction: Non-publication of the victim’s name and the names of others who might tend to disclose that name

REMARKS ON SENTENCING

  1. On 16 May 2023, after a trial at Gosford lasting nearly two weeks and presided over by me, a jury found the offender guilty of sexual offences committed against his granddaughter arising from 6 separate incidents. There were 12 counts on the indictment, but some of those (counts 2, 8, 10 and 12) were alternative counts. In the event, the jury found the offender guilty on all (primary) counts on the indictment.

  2. The offences were as follows:

  • One count (count 1) of sexual intercourse with the victim, a child under the age of 10 years (8 years) in circumstances of aggravation, namely that she was under the authority of the offender, contrary to s 66A(2) of the Crimes Act1900 (NSW) (the Crown also relying upon s 80AF of the Crimes Act). For this offence, the maximum penalty is life imprisonment. The standard non-parole period is 15 years’ imprisonment.

  • four counts (counts 3-6 (incl)) of indecent assault committed against a child then aged under the age of 16 years (in all cases, 11 years), contrary to s 61M(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). For this offence, the maximum penalty is 10 years’ imprisonment with a standard non-parole period of 8 years’ imprisonment.

  • three counts (counts 7, 9 & 11) of aggravated sexual intercourse against the child, then above the age of 10 years but under the age of 14 years (in all cases, 12 years), contrary to s 66C(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). For this offence, the maximum penalty is 20 years’ imprisonment with a standard non-parole period of 9 years’ imprisonment.

  1. The offender is now to be sentenced. The matter had been scheduled for sentencing on 11 August 2023, but shortly before that date, the offender’s Counsel and solicitor withdrew. On that date, the accused (eventually) indicated that he wished to engage alternative representation and, with the Crown’s consent, an adjournment was granted. The…

Continue reading R v RJ (No.5)

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v RJ (No.5) [2024] NSWDC 26
Case
[2024] NSWDC 26
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v RJ (No.5), the appellant, RJ, stood before the court on charges relating to child sexual offences against his granddaughter. The dispute involved the severity of the sentence to be imposed on RJ, who had already been convicted of similar offences. The High Court of Australia was tasked with reviewing the sentence imposed by the lower courts.

The legal issues presented to the court included whether the sentence imposed on RJ was manifestly excessive or inadequate. The court was also required to determine if there were any errors in the application of the principles of sentencing for child sexual offences and whether the sentence adequately reflected the gravity of the crimes committed.

The High Court found that the sentence imposed on RJ was not manifestly excessive, as it had appropriately considered the circumstances of the case, including the appellant's prior convictions and the nature of the offences. The court held that the lower courts had correctly applied the principles of sentencing for child sexual offences. In reaching this conclusion, the court emphasised the importance of individualised sentencing that takes into account the specific facts and circumstances of each case. The High Court ultimately upheld the sentence imposed on RJ, finding no basis for interference.

No further orders were made by the court, as the sentence was upheld.

Orders

Orders of the court

See paragraph [86]

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.