R v RM (No.7)

Case [2024] NSWDC 577


District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v RM (No.7) [2024] NSWDC 577
Hearing dates: 4 December 2024
Date of orders: 4 December 2024
Decision date: 04 December 2024
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Abadee DCJ
Decision:

See paragraphs [30]-[31]

Catchwords:

CRIMINAL LAW – sentencing – re-sentence of offender following remitter from the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal – remitter followed that Court’s setting aside of a conviction for one count and substituted conviction on a statutory alternative count – further information supplied affecting rehabilitation prospects and reduction in ratio for non-parole period

Legislation Cited:

Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss, 66C(2), (4)

Cases Cited:

Crane v R [2024] NSWCCA 87

R v RM (No.6) [2023] NSWDC 305

RM v R [2024] NSWCCA 148

Texts Cited:

Nil

Category:Sentence
Parties: Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP)
RM (the Offender)
Representation:

Counsel:
Mr C Reynolds for the ODPP
Ms K Hogan for the Offender

Solicitors:
ODPP
AJA Associates
File Number(s): 2020/00213495; 2020/00251096
Publication restriction: Non-publication of the identity of the offender and the victim

REMARKS ON SENTENCE

Introduction

  1. On 11 August 2023, I sentenced the offender to a term of imprisonment of 12 years, with a non-parole period of 8 years and 5 months, following his conviction for 11 sexual offences committed against his daughter, the victim, in a period spanning 1 June 2011 to 19 July 2020. My remarks on sentence were published on Caselaw[1] . I will refer to these as ‘My Earlier Remarks’. These sentencing remarks should be read with My Earlier Remarks.

    1. R v RM (No.6) [2023] NSWDC 305

  2. The offender appealed all of those convictions (although not the severity of sentence) and on 7 August 2024, and with the exception of his conviction on count 5 of the indictment, his appeals against all of his convictions were dismissed.

  3. Count 5 was the offence of his having sexual intercourse with the victim, being a person above the age of 10 years and under the age of 14 years (namely, 13 years) in circumstances of aggravation, that the victim was under the offender’s authority, contrary to s 66C(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). That particular offence carried a maximum penalty of 20 years’ imprisonment; with a standard non-parole period of 9 years.

  4. On 7 August 2024, the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal allowed the offender’s appeal against conviction on count 5, determining that the guilty verdict was unreasonable; and, instead, convicted the offender on the statutory alternative charge of unlawful sexual intercourse with a person above the age of 14 years and under the age of 16 years in circumstances of aggravation, namely that the complainant was under the applicant’s authority, contrary to s 66C(4) of the Crimes Act1900 (NSW) [2] .

    2. RM v R [2024] NSWCCA 148

  5. This alternative offence under 66C(4) carried a maximum penalty of 12 years’ imprisonment. At the time of the offending, there was no standard non-parole period [3] .

    3. Currently…

Continue reading R v RM (No.7)

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v RM (No.7) [2024] NSWDC 577
Case
[2024] NSWDC 577
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Crown versus RM (No.7), the defendant was brought before the court for a re-sentencing hearing following a remitter from the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal. The remitter arose after the Court of Criminal Appeal had set aside the defendant's conviction on one count and substituted it with a conviction on a statutory alternative count. This substitution had significant implications for the defendant's sentencing. The defendant's legal team sought a review of the original sentence in light of new information provided that potentially affected the defendant's rehabilitation prospects and the calculation of the non-parole period ratio.

The primary legal issue before the court was to determine an appropriate sentence for the defendant considering the remitter and the new information presented. The court needed to balance the seriousness of the offence, the circumstances of the offence, the defendant's background, and the prospects for rehabilitation. The court was also required to calculate the non-parole period ratio in accordance with statutory guidelines, taking into account the new information.

The court meticulously reviewed the evidence, the legal framework, and the mitigating and aggravating factors. The court recognised that the new information provided a more accurate understanding of the defendant's circumstances, which could positively impact the rehabilitation prospects. After careful consideration, the court determined that the new information warranted a reduction in the non-parole period ratio. The court then re-sentenced the defendant, setting a new non-parole period that reflected the revised ratio and the totality of the circumstances.

The court made specific orders regarding the new sentence, ensuring that the re-sentencing accurately reflected the current legal and factual context. These orders included a detailed specification of the non-parole period, taking into account the statutory guidelines and the mitigating factors presented.

Orders

Orders of the court

See paragraphs [30]-[31]

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.