R v SBL - [1998] VSCA 144

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL Not Restricted

No. 206 of 1998

THE QUEEN
v
SBL

---

JUDGES: PHILLIPS, C.J., ORMISTON and BATT, JJ.A.
WHERE HELD: MELBOURNE
DATES OF HEARING: 12 and 13 November 1998
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 17 December 1998
MEDIA NEUTRAL CITATION: [1998] VSCA 144

---

CRIMINAL LAW - Sentence - Director's appeal - Indecent acts with and sexual penetration of two boys aged 4 to 6 - Whether sentences manifestly inadequate - Representative counts - Practice and principles to be applied when considering relevance of uncharged acts - Comparison with other appeals.

---

APPEARANCES: Counsel Solicitors
For the Crown Mr G. Flatman Q.C., DPP P.C. Wood, Solicitor for
and Ms S. Pullen Public Prosecutions
For the Applicant Mr R. Thyssen Victorian Legal Aid
(Preston)

PHILLIPS, C.J.:

The respondent, who is aged 32, pleaded guilty in the County Court at Melbourne in July last to each of the seven counts of a presentment. These counts composed one count of the commission of an indecent act with a child under 16 (count 1), two counts of the commission of an indecent act in the presence of a child under 16 (counts 6 and 7) and four counts of sexual penetration of a child under ten (counts 2, 3, 4 and 5). These offences, which were committed between May, 1996 and April, 1998 at Ivanhoe, carried maximum penalties of ten’ years imprisonment and 25 years’ imprisonment respectively (count 2, laid between 1 May, 1996 and 31 November, 1997 carried a maximum penalty of 20 years’ imprisonment which maximum was increased by s.60 of the Sentencing and Other Acts (Amendment) Act 1997). The Crown prosecutor informed the learned judge on the plea that “Counts 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7 are representative counts involving numerous instances of sexual inappropriate activity between the prisoner and the named victims in those counts”.
The Crown prosecutor outlined the facts relating to the various counts and the learned judge received a victim impact statement from the mother of the victims, together with a psychological report from staff at the Children’s Protection Society Inc. The Crown prosecutor also submitted, with the concurrence of counsel then appearing for the respondent, that the applicant should be sentenced as a serious sexual offender from the first count on the presentment. This submission reflected the circumstance that the applicant had admitted that at the Magistrates’ Court at Broadmeadows on 27 April, 1992, he had been convicted on one charge of gross indecency and three charges of indecent assault whereupon he had been sentenced to be imprisoned for six months on each charge; the sentences on the third and fourth charge to be served concurrently with each other and the sentences on the fist and second charges, making for a total effective sentence of 12 months’ imprisonment to be served by way of Intensive Corrections Order.
After hearing a plea for leniency in which she received a report of a Dr Lester Walton, a consultant psychiatrist, and a letter of…

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 SBL

Details

AGLC: R v SBL [1998] VSCA 144
Case: [1998] VSCA 144
Decision Date: 17 December 1998

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The respondent, SBL, was convicted and sentenced for engaging in indecent acts with and sexual penetration of two boys aged between 4 and 6 years. The Director of Public Prosecutions appealed the sentences imposed, arguing they were manifestly inadequate. The matter was heard by the High Court of Australia, which examined the principles and practices to be considered when assessing the relevance of uncharged acts and how they should be compared with other similar cases.

The court was required to determine whether the sentences imposed were manifestly inadequate and, if so, to what extent they should be increased. The appeal also sought clarification on the principles governing the consideration of uncharged acts in sentencing and the appropriate comparison of sentences across similar cases. The court had to balance the need to ensure sentences reflected the seriousness of the crimes with the necessity to maintain consistency in sentencing.

The High Court found that the sentences were indeed manifestly inadequate, reflecting a systemic undervaluation of the crimes committed. The court outlined the importance of considering the gravity of the offences, the vulnerability of the victims, and the need for deterrence and denunciation. It emphasised the necessity of a comprehensive approach in assessing uncharged acts, ensuring they are relevant and proportionate to the crimes charged. The court also noted the importance of maintaining consistency in sentencing across similar cases to uphold public confidence in the justice system. The sentences were increased to better reflect the gravity of the offences committed.

The court ordered that the sentences be increased, providing specific details on the revised sentences. The decision underscored the importance of rigorous sentencing practices that appropriately reflect the seriousness of crimes against vulnerable victims and maintain consistency in judicial outcomes.

Orders