R v Saville

Case [2018] NSWDC 448

District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Saville [2018] NSWDC 448
Hearing dates: 28 June 2018, 23 August 2018
Date of orders: 28 September 2018
Decision date: 28 September 2018
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Wilson SC DCJ
Decision:

See [110]-[112]

Catchwords: CRIME – SENTENCE – guilty plea – using carriage service to groom – possess child abuse material
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Criminal Code 1995 (Cth)
Cases Cited: R v Asplund [2010] NSWCCA 316
R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346
R v Valentini (1989) 46 A Crim R 23
Category:Sentence
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Darren Saville (Offender)
Representation: Solicitors:
CDPP (Crown)
Metro Lawyers (Offender)
File Number(s): 2016/62618
Publication restriction: None

REMARKS ON SENTENCE

INTRODUCTION

  1. The Offender appears before the Court for sentencing after pleading guilty to the charges on the Commonwealth Crown Sentence Summary.

charges for sentence

  1. The first charge relates to a period between 4 January 2016 and about 25 February 2016. The charge is that the offender, in contravention of s 474.27(1) of the Criminal Code1995 (Cth), used a carriage service to groom a person under the age of 16 for sexual activity. That carries a maximum penalty of 12 years’ imprisonment.

  2. The second charge to which the offender has pleaded guilty is a State offence, namely possess child abuse material in contravention of s 91H(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 which carries a maximum penalty of ten years’ imprisonment.

GUIDEPOSTS

  1. The maximum penalty represents the respective legislatures’ assessment of the seriousness of the offending. In the sentencing discretion, the Court must always arrive at an outcome that is just in the circumstances. I have had regard to the maximum sentence in determining the appropriate sentence in respect of this particular matter.

procedural history

  1. The offending was committed on between 4 January 2016 and 25 February 2016.

  2. The Offender was arrested and charged on 26 February 2016.

  3. On 14 March 2017, the Offender was committed for sentence in the District Court.

  4. The Offender pleaded guilty to the charges on 14 March 2017. This was at a relatively early stage of these proceedings which will be taken into account in assessing the utilitarian value of the guilty plea.

  5. Apart from an initial period in custody, which spanned a weekend, the offender has been on bail since the offending.

the evidence on sentence

  1. The Crown relied upon the Crown Sentence Summary and the documents attached thereto which included carefully drafted written submissions on behalf of the Crown, together with a schedule of cases said to be similar to the present case (Exhibit A).

  2. The Offender relied upon the following material:

  1. the Offender’s Bundle (Exhibit 1);

  2. psychologist report of Dr Ian Nisbet dated 1 September 2017 (Exhibit 2);

  3. psychiatrist report of Dr Tanveer Ahmed dated 20 July 2018 (Exhibit 3);

  4. two sets of the Offender’s Submissions (MFI 1 and MFI 2).

the agreed facts

  1. The Statement of Agreed Facts provides as follows:

  2. Between 4 January 2016 and 26 January…

Continue reading R v Saville

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Saville [2018] NSWDC 448
Case
[2018] NSWDC 448
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Saville, the defendant, Saville, faced sentencing in the Supreme Court of Victoria following his conviction for using a carriage service to groom a child and possessing child abuse material. The charges stemmed from Saville's online interactions with a minor, where he engaged in inappropriate conduct and subsequently obtained and possessed material depicting child abuse. The case presented complex sentencing issues, particularly in relation to the gravity of the offences and the need for deterrence and rehabilitation.

The court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence that reflected the severity of Saville's crimes, his culpability, and the need to protect the community. Key considerations included the nature and circumstances of the offences, Saville's background and offending history, and the principles of sentencing as outlined in the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic). The court had to balance the need for punishment with the potential for rehabilitation, given Saville's otherwise unremarkable background and his early guilty plea.

In its judgment, the court meticulously analysed the aggravating and mitigating factors of the case. It emphasised the heinous nature of the offences, highlighting the profound impact on the victim and the community's need for protection. The court also considered Saville's remorse and his cooperation with authorities. Ultimately, the court determined that an imprisonment sentence was necessary, with specific emphasis on the need for rehabilitation and deterrence. The final orders reflected this, with Saville being sentenced to a term of imprisonment, along with additional orders for supervision and treatment post-release.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [110]-[112]

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.