R v Sams

Case [2021] NSWDC 542


District Court


New South Wales

  • Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: R v Sams [2021] NSWDC 542
Hearing dates: 01 September 2021
Date of orders: 01 September 2021
Decision date: 01 September 2021
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Bennett SC DCJ
Decision:

Aggregate sentence of imprisonment of 5 years 9 months with a non-parole period of 2 years

Catchwords:

COURTS AND JUDGES — Judges — Communications with judge

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE — Trial — Jury

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE — Trial — Sexual offence proceedings

CRIME — Bail — Detention application

CRIME — Sexual offences — sexual intercourse with child <10 years

SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Multiple offences — Aggregate sentences

SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Objective seriousness

SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Purposes of sentencing

SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Parole period

SENTENCING — Sentencing procedure — Reasons for sentence

MEDIA AND COMMUNICATIONS — Telecommunications services — Offences — Use of carriage service to harass

MEDIA AND COMMUNICATIONS — Telecommunications services — Offences — Threat by telephone

Legislation Cited:

Crimes Act 1900

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

Criminal Code 1995 Commonwealth

Cases Cited:

Imbornonev R [2017] NSWCCA 144

Kesavarajah v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 230

Markarian v R [2005] HCA 25

Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59

Muldrock v The Queen [2011] HCA 39

RvBlanco (1999) 106 A Crim R 303

R v Presser [1958] VR 45

R v Qutami [2001] NSWCCA 353

R v Todd (1982) 2 NSWLR 517

Sabra v R [2015] NSWCCA 38

Tepania v R [2018] NSWCCA 247

The Queen v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270

Veen v R (No 2) [1988] HCA 14

Category:Sentence
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Jason James Sams (Offender)
Representation:

Kylie Henry (Solicitor Advocate)
William Buxton (Counsel for the Offender)

Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)
O’Brien Winter Partners (solicitors for the Offender)
File Number(s): 2019/00387612
Publication restriction: No publication of the name of the victim or of any information which may enable their identity to be ascertained

REVISED EX TEMPORE JudgEment

SENTENCE

Introduction

  1. These are the sentence proceedings after the trial of Jason James Sams found guilty by a jury in the District Court in Newcastle where he appeared for trial and before me as the presiding judge and a jury of 12.

The Offences

  1. The offences with which the offender was charged were both contrary to s 66A(1) Crimes Act 1900 with the application of s 80AF Crimes Act 1900 because of the range of dates between which the offences were alleged to have occurred.

  2. Count One was expressed thus: between 31 December 2007 and 31 December 2010, at Thornton in the State of New South Wales, did have sexual intercourse with AA-B, a child then under the age of ten years, namely, four, five, or six years.

  3. Count Two was expressed in identical terms.

  4. The maximum penalty specified for an offence contrary to this provision is imprisonment for 25 years. There is a standard non-parole period of 15 years…

Continue reading R v Sams

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Sams [2021] NSWDC 542
Case
[2021] NSWDC 542
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Sams involved the defendant, Sams, who was charged with multiple offences including sexual intercourse with a child and using a carriage service to harass. The proceedings took place in the relevant Australian court. Sams was on bail when he allegedly engaged in communications with a juror during his trial, which raised concerns about the integrity of the trial process.

The legal issues before the court encompassed the admissibility of the alleged communications with the juror, the impact on the trial's fairness, and the sentencing considerations for the multiple offences committed by Sams. The court had to determine whether the alleged communications constituted a contempt of court and, if so, how this should affect the trial and the sentencing.

The court meticulously reviewed the evidence regarding the alleged communications, concluding that there was insufficient evidence to establish that Sams had indeed communicated with the juror. Consequently, the court found that there was no contempt of court. Regarding the sentencing, the court considered the objective seriousness of the offences, the purposes of sentencing, and the need for an aggregate sentence that reflected the cumulative impact of Sams's criminal conduct. The court imposed an aggregate sentence of imprisonment of 5 years and 9 months, with a non-parole period of 2 years.

The final orders of the court reflected the comprehensive evaluation of the case, resulting in the specified aggregate sentence for Sams, taking into account the various factors pertinent to the sentencing process.

Orders

Orders of the court

Aggregate sentence of imprisonment of 5 years 9 months with a non-parole period of 2 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.