There must be no publication of the names of the victims or anything that might tend to identify them. There must be no publication of the name of the offender or anything that might tend to identify him.
REMARKS ON SENTENCE
There must be no publication of the names of the victims or anything that might tend to identify them. There must be no publication of the name of the offender or anything that might tend to identify him.
The young person appeared at the Wagga Wagga Children's Court on 7 April 2021 and pleaded guilty to four charges, namely that
H75897415 Sequence 1:
(He) on 11 August 2020 at Ashmont in the State of New South Wales did have sexual intercourse with JL a child then under the age of ten years namely seven years, contrary to s 66A(1) of the Crimes Act, 1900, and further:
Sequence 2:
(He) on 11 August 2020 at Ashmont in the State of New South Wales did have sexual intercourse with SL a child then under the age of ten years namely six years, contrary to s 66A(1) of the Crimes Act, and further:
Sequence 3:
(He) on 11 August 2020 at Ashmont in the State of New South Wales did…
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 ROK
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v ROK [2021] NSWDC 448
Case
[2021] NSWDC 448
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The matter of R v ROK came before the court where the respondent was charged with sexual intercourse with a child under 10 years of age and inciting a child to sexually touch another. The dispute centred on the appropriate sentence for the respondent, who was a young offender with a mild intellectual disability, who had pleaded guilty to the charges. The court was tasked with considering the principles in dealing with juvenile offenders, including the Bugmy principles, the impact on the victim, and the need for an aggregate sentence that appropriately balances punishment and rehabilitation.
The court identified several key legal issues. It had to consider the respondent's age, his plea of guilty, his intellectual disability, and the principles in sentencing juvenile offenders. Additionally, the court needed to consider the victim impact statement and whether an aggregate sentence was appropriate, taking into account the Bugmy principles. The court also needed to decide on an appropriate non-parole period.
The court found that the respondent's age, plea of guilty, and intellectual disability warranted a reduced sentence. It considered the Bugmy principles, which emphasise the importance of rehabilitation and the need to consider the best interests of the child. The court also took into account the victim impact statement, which detailed the profound impact on the victim and her family. The court concluded that an aggregate sentence was appropriate to ensure the respondent received necessary rehabilitation and to deter future offending. After considering all factors, the court sentenced the respondent to an aggregate sentence of 4 years with a non-parole period of 2 years, to be served in a juvenile justice institution.
Orders
Orders of the court
The young person is sentenced to an aggregate sentence of 4 years with a non-parole period of 2 years, to be served in a juvenile justice institution.