Term of imprisonment for a period of 15 years. Non-parole period of 9 years : at [133] – [135]
Catchwords:
CRIME — Child sex offences — Persistent sexual abuse of a child — Unlawful sexual relationship with a child — Carnal knowledge — Maximum penalty of life imprisonment
Counsel: Mr B Campbell (Crown) Mr P Davies (Offender)
Solicitors: Solicitors for Public Prosecutions (Crown) Pollack Greening & Hampshire Solicitors and Conveyancers (Offender)
File Number(s):
2020/00311244
sentence
The offender, Colin Rose, entered a plea of not guilty to the principal count in the indictment presented at Grafton District Court on 15 February 2022, namely a charge of maintaining an unlawful sexual relationship with a child contrary to the provisions of s 66EA(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). The indictment also contained three alternative counts which were particularised charges of unlawful carnal knowledge. The offender entered a plea of guilty to count 4 which was one of the charges of unlawful carnal knowledge pleaded as an alternative to the principal count of maintaining a sexual relationship with a child.
The matter proceeded to trial and on 22 February 2022 the jury returned a verdict of guilty with respect to count 1, the charge of maintaining an unlawful sexual relationship with a child. It was unnecessary in that circumstance for the jury to return verdicts with respect to the alternative counts.
The offence under s 66EA(1) carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. There is no standard non-parole period. The maximum penalty was increased from 25 years to life imprisonment in…
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 Rose
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Rose [2022] NSWDC 705
Case
[2022] NSWDC 705
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of R v Rose involved a defendant accused of multiple counts of persistent sexual abuse of a child, including unlawful sexual relationship with a child and carnal knowledge. The trial was conducted in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The prosecution alleged that the defendant had engaged in a series of sexual offences against a child over a prolonged period, and the maximum penalty for these offences was life imprisonment.
The primary legal issues for the court to decide included whether the prosecution had proved the charges beyond reasonable doubt, the appropriate weight to be given to the evidence provided by the victim and other witnesses, and the appropriate sentence if the defendant was found guilty. The court had to consider the credibility of the victim and the corroboration of her testimony by other evidence, as well as the principles of sentencing for serious sexual offences against children.
The court found the defendant guilty on all counts, accepting the evidence of the victim and other witnesses as credible and reliable. In determining the sentence, the court considered the gravity of the offences, the vulnerability of the victim, and the need for deterrence and protection of the community. The court ultimately sentenced the defendant to a term of imprisonment for a period of 15 years, with a non-parole period of 9 years, reflecting the seriousness of the crimes committed.
The final orders of the court were that the defendant be imprisoned for 15 years, with a non-parole period of 9 years, as detailed in the reasons for judgment.
Orders
Orders of the court
Term of imprisonment for a period of 15 years. Non-parole period of 9 years : at [133] – [135]