Legal Research
Cases
R v Sangalang

R v Sangalang

Case [2005] NSWCCA 171 27 April 2005

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION:
Regina v Sangalang [2005] NSWCCA 171

HEARING DATE(S): 27 April 2005

JUDGMENT DATE:

27 April 2005

JUDGMENT OF:
Hunt AJA at 1-32,33; Johnson J at 32

DECISION:
1. Leave to appeal against sentence is granted; 2. The appeal is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:
Aggravated indecent assault committed after 1 February 2003 - case falling "just below" the mid-range of objective seriousness - plea of guilty - relevance of standard non-parole period fixed by Division 1A of Part 4 of Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 - sentence falling within upper end of the range of sentences for this offence in Judicial Commission statistics for offences committed before 1 February 2003 - intention of Legislature to increase sentences for all offences of aggravated indecent assault.

LEGISLATION CITED:

Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Act 2000
Civil Liability Act 2002
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Criminal Appeal Act 1912

CASES CITED:
Regina v Davies [2004] NSWCCA 319
Regina v Pellew [2004] NSWCCA 434
Regina v Porteous [2005] NSWCCA 115
Regina v Thomson & Houlton (2002) 49 NSWLR 383
Regina v Way (2004) 60 NSWLR 168

PARTIES:
Regina v Victor Sangalang

FILE NUMBER(S):
CCA 2004/3320

COUNSEL:
Mr P Ingram - Crown
Mr S Corish - Appellant

SOLICITORS:
Mr S Kavanagh - Crown
Mr SE O'Connor - Appellant

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:
District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S):
04/21/10009

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER:
Geraghty DCJ

- 1 -

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COURT OF criminal APPEAL

HUNT AJA

JOHNSON J

Wednesday 27 April 2005

REGINA v Victor SANGALANG

Judgment

1 HUNT AJA: The applicant, Victor Sangalang, pleaded guilty in the Local Court to a charge of aggravated indecent assault, and he appeared for sentence in the District Court before Judge Geraghty. The circumstance of aggravation was that the victim, a young girl of thirteen years, was under sixteen years of age.

2 The applicant, a married man and forty-four years old with children, befriended the victim’s mother after a chance meeting at the local shopping centre. Both were members of the Filipino community, although it appears that the applicant’s wife was not a friend of the victim’s mother. The applicant began to attend alone at the victim’s home. On the day in question, the applicant drove the victim, together with her sister and a very young cousin, back to his own residence. Whilst the sister remained in the applicant’s vehicle, he took the victim (who was in her school uniform) and her young cousin inside the residence.

3 When inside the residence, the applicant approached the victim from behind and wrapped his arms around her, using both hands to cup and rub her breasts. The victim pulled away from him but he approached her again, placing his hands on the area of her vagina but outside the school uniform, rubbing her vagina through her clothing. The victim again pulled away from the applicant, but he spun her around and attempted to kiss her on the lips. She managed to pull her head back and, as…

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 Sangalang

Details

AGLC: R v Sangalang [2005] NSWCCA 171
Case: [2005] NSWCCA 171
Decision Date: 27 April 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Sangalang involved a defendant pleading guilty to a charge of aggravated indecent assault committed after the legislative change date of 1 February 2003. The defendant's case was heard in a relevant Australian court, which was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence that balanced the objective seriousness of the crime with legislative intent and historical sentencing data. The court was required to consider the standard non-parole period outlined in Division 1A of Part 4 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, as well as statistical data on sentences for similar offences committed prior to the legislative change.

The primary legal issue before the court was how to appropriately weigh the objective seriousness of the offence against the legislative intent to increase sentences for aggravated indecent assault post-2003. The court also had to consider the historical sentencing range for similar offences committed before the legislative change, as reflected in Judicial Commission statistics. The defendant's plea of guilty and the need to align the sentence with both contemporary legislative intent and past sentencing practices formed the crux of the legal challenge.

In delivering its judgment, the court acknowledged that the offence in question fell just below the mid-range of objective seriousness. However, it also recognised the legislative intent to increase penalties for aggravated indecent assault following the 2003 amendment. The court concluded that the sentence should reflect this intent, despite the offence's relative position in terms of objective seriousness. By comparing the defendant's sentence with the upper end of the sentencing range for similar offences prior to 2003, the court ensured that the punishment was commensurate with both the gravity of the crime and the legislative objectives.

The final orders of the court were to impose a sentence that not only considered the defendant's plea of guilty but also adhered to the legislative intent to enhance penalties for aggravated indecent assault. The sentence was set within a range that reflected both the historical context of similar offences and the need to uphold the increased penalties mandated by the 2003 legislative changes. This balanced approach ensured that the sentence was just and aligned with both legislative intent and the objective seriousness of the offence.

Orders