R v Roberts - [2019] NSWDC 234

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Roberts [2019] NSWDC 234
Hearing dates: 16 April 2019
Date of orders: 29 April 2019
Decision date: 29 April 2019
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Buscombe DCJ
Decision:
Sentenced to an aggregate sentence of eight years imprisonment with a non-parole period of six years

Catchwords: SENTENCING — historical child sexual offences — aggregate sentence of imprisonment
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act
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)
David Clive Roberts (Offender)
Representation:
Counsel:
A Cassels (Offender)
Solicitors:
R Kanakaratne (Crown)

File Number(s): 2018/000180137
Publication restriction: Statutory non-publication order concerning identity of complainants

SENTENCE

The offender pleaded guilty in the Local Court and adhered to those please before me to the following four offences, that between 1 January 1999 and 31 December 1999 at Penrith he assaulted AA and at the time of the assault committed an act of indecency on AA in circumstances of aggravation, namely, that at the time of the offence AA was under the age of 16 years, namely, aged 11 or 12 years.
There is a second offence in relation to AA and that is, that between 1 January 1999 and 31 December 1999, the offender assaulted AA and at the time of the assault committed an act of indecency on him in circumstances of aggravation in that at the time of the offence, AA was under the age of 16 years, namely 11 or 12 years of age. Both of the offences which involved the victim AA are offences under s 61M(1) of the Crimes Act. At the relevant time, they had a maximum penalty of seven years imprisonment and there was no applicable standard non-parole period.
The two remaining offences concern the victim BB. The first is an offence between 1 January 1998 and 31 December 1998 at Penrith, the offender assaulted BB, a person then under the age of ten years, namely, seven or eight years of age and at the time of the assault committed an act of indecency on BB. That is an offence under s 61M(2) of the Crimes Act and at the relevant time, had a maximum penalty of ten years imprisonment and there was no applicable standard non-parole period.
The second offence involving BB was an offence that between 1 January 1998 and 31 December 1998 at Penrith, the offender had sexual intercourse with BB who was, at that time, under the age of ten years, namely, the age of seven or eight years. That was an offence under s 66A of the Crimes Act. There was at the time a maximum penalty of 20 years imprisonment with no applicable standard non-parole period.

Facts of the offending

The facts are agreed and the following is taken from the agreed facts. AA was born in 1987 and BB was born in 1990. They are half-brothers. They have different fathers but…

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 Roberts

Details

AGLC: R v Roberts [2019] NSWDC 234
Case: [2019] NSWDC 234
Decision Date: 29 April 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Roberts, the respondent was convicted of multiple counts of child sexual abuse occurring over several years in the past. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria, where the primary focus was the appropriate sentencing for these historical offences. The respondent pleaded guilty to numerous charges, including acts of indecency with a child under the age of 16, as well as other related offences. The legal issues before the court involved determining the aggregate sentence to be imposed, taking into account the severity and nature of the offences, the respondent's criminal history, and the need for deterrence and rehabilitation.

The court considered various factors in assessing the appropriate sentence, including the impact of the crimes on the victims, the age of the victims at the time of the offences, and the respondent's culpability. The court was mindful of the need to balance the seriousness of the crimes with the principles of justice and proportionality. In its judgment, the court held that the cumulative effect of the respondent's actions warranted a substantial term of imprisonment. The court emphasised the gravity of the crimes and the need to protect the community from further offending by the respondent.

After weighing all relevant factors, the court sentenced the respondent to an aggregate term of eight years imprisonment, with a non-parole period of six years. This decision reflects the court's determination to impose a sentence that adequately addresses the harm caused by the respondent's actions and provides a measure of deterrence against future offending. The court's ruling underscores the importance of holding individuals accountable for historical child sexual offences and ensuring that sentences reflect the severity of such crimes.

Orders

Orders of the court

Sentenced to an aggregate sentence of eight years imprisonment with a non-parole period of six 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 Roberts [2019] NSWDC 234
Hearing dates:	16 April 2019
Date of orders:	29 April 2019
Decision date:	29 April 2019
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Buscombe DCJ
Decision:	Sentenced to an aggregate sentence of eight years imprisonment with a non-parole period of six years
Catchwords:	SENTENCING — historical child sexual offences — aggregate sentence of imprisonment
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 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) David Clive Roberts (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel: A Cassels (Offender) Solicitors: R Kanakaratne (Crown)
File Number(s):	2018/000180137
Publication restriction:	Statutory non-publication order concerning identity of complainants