(1)The Crown's appeal is allowed. (2)The sentences imposed by Charteris DCJ on 23 July 2014 are quashed and in lieu thereof, the respondent is sentenced as follows: 1.In relation to offences 1 to 5 (sequences 2, 3, 5, 17, and 19) inclusive and in respect of each of the five offences, pursuant to s 9 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, order that the respondent enter into a good behaviour bond for a period of 4 years and 6 months from today, each with conditions that: (i)he appear before the Court if called upon to do so at any time during the currency of the bond; (ii)he be of good behaviour; (iii)he advise the Court of any change to his residential address within 7 days of such change; (iv)he accept the supervision and directions of the Probation and Parole Service during the term of the bond. 2.In relation to offence 6 (sequence 20), a sentence of 1 year and six months imprisonment, the execution of which is to be suspended pursuant to s 12 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, upon the respondent entering into a bond to be of good behaviour for a period of 1 year and 6 months, with the following conditions: (i)he appear before the Court if called upon to do so at any time during the currency of the bond; (ii)he be of good behaviour; (iii)he advise the Court of any change to his residential address within 7 days of such change; (iv)he accept the supervision and directions of the Probation and Parole Service during the term of the bond. 3.In relation to offence 7 (sequence 16), a sentence of seven months imprisonment, the execution of which is to be suspended pursuant to s 12 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, upon the respondent entering into a bond to be of good behaviour for a period of 7 months, with the following conditions: (i)he appear before the Court if called upon to do so at any time during the currency of the bond; (ii)he be of good behaviour; (iii)he advise the Court of any change to his residential address within 7 days of such change; (iv)he accept the supervision and directions of the Probation and Parole Service during the term of the bond.
Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW – Crown sentence appeal – child sex offences - seven charges - respondent pleaded guilty – respondent was a juvenile when offences were committed – sentence – five year good behaviour bond – suspended aggregate sentence of 2 years imprisonment – whether error in identifying qualified discount for remorse – whether error in imposing a suspended aggregate sentence – whether error in imposing a single…
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 RM
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Regina v RM [2015] NSWCCA 4
Case
[2015] NSWCCA 4
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The respondent, RM, was convicted of seven child sex offences committed when they were a juvenile. After the respondent pleaded guilty, the court imposed a sentence consisting of a five-year good behaviour bond and a suspended aggregate sentence of two years imprisonment. The Crown appealed against the sentence on several grounds, arguing that the sentence was manifestly inadequate. The primary issues for the court to decide were whether there was an error in the identification of the discount for remorse, the imposition of a suspended aggregate sentence, the imposition of a single bond for five offences, whether the indicated sentences revealed an error in the aggregate sentence, whether the aggregate sentence was manifestly inadequate, whether indicating non-parole periods for the indicated sentences was in error, whether the individual bonds were manifestly inadequate, and whether the overall sentence was manifestly inadequate.
The court found that there was no error in the identification of the discount for remorse, as the discount was properly calculated. However, the court found that there was an error in imposing a suspended aggregate sentence, as this was not appropriate in cases involving multiple offences committed against children. The court also found that there was an error in imposing a single bond for five offences, as this did not reflect the seriousness of the offences. The court found that the indicated sentences did not reveal an error in the aggregate sentence, and that the aggregate sentence was not manifestly inadequate. The court found that indicating non-parole periods for the indicated sentences was in error, as these should not have been indicated at all. The court found that the individual bonds were manifestly inadequate, and that the overall sentence was manifestly inadequate. The court exercised its residual discretion to re-sentence the respondent, imposing a sentence of four years imprisonment, with a non-parole period of two years and eight months.
The court's final orders were that the appeal be allowed, the conviction be quashed, and the respondent be re-sentenced to a sentence of four years imprisonment, with a non-parole period of two years and eight months. The court also ordered that the sentence be backdated to the date of the original sentence, and that the respondent be released on parole after serving two years and eight months of the sentence.