R v SC - [2024] NSWDC 162

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v SC [2024] NSWDC 162
Hearing dates: 28 March 2024
Date of orders: 10 May 2024
Decision date: 10 May 2024
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Newlinds SC DCJ
Decision:
See [128]-[130]

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW – Child sex offences – Indecent assault child under 16 years – Aggravated indecent assault child under 16 years – Sexual intercourse with a child under 16 years – Aggravated sexual intercourse child under 10 years
SENTENCING – Multiple historic sexual offences – Multiple child victims – Objective seriousness – Age and ill health of offender – General deterrence

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

Cases Cited:
AK v R [2016] NSWCCA 238
Cahyadi v R [2007] NSWCCA 1
LN v R [2020] NSWCCA 131
Muldrock v R (2011) 244 CLR 120
Nguyen v R [2016] NSWCCA 209
R v Holder [1983] 3 NSWLR 245
R v KNL [2005] NSWCCA 260
R v Smith [2000] NSWCCA 140
Ragg v R [2022] NSWCCA 150
Van Ryn v R [2016] NSWCCA 1

Category: Sentence
Parties: Rex (The Crown)
SC (Offender)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr C Evans (Crown)
Mr I Todd (Offender)
Solicitors:
Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Dillon-Smith Lawyers (Offender)

File Number(s): 2021/209930; 2022/306689
Publication restriction: Pursuant to section 578A of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), there shall be no publication of any matter which identifies or is likely to lead to the identification of the victims, including the identity of the offender

JUDGMENT

Overview

The offender, who is 64 years of age, has pleaded guilty to eight counts of serious sexual assault against children dating back to the 1980s.
The offences range from indecent assault of a child under the age of 16, aggravated indecent assault of a child under the age of 16, sexual intercourse with a child under the age of 16 and aggravated sexual intercourse with a child under the age of 10.
There are nine other offences of similar nature to be taken into account on various Forms 1.
There are five victims, one is the offender’s biological daughter, others are relatives or friends of relatives of the offender, one was a babysitter. The offences against four of the victims took place in the 1980s when the offender lived on the South Coast of New South Wales. The offences relating to the fifth victim occurred in the period 2010 to 2013 whilst the offender lived in the Hunter Valley region of New South Wales.
On any view of things, the offences, taken together, represent a very serious example of persistent sexual offending towards children over a period of many decades. The conduct of the offender is abhorrent and can only have been the consequence of his perverted deviant sexual impulses. Taken individually, they each are objectively serious. Considered together, they demonstrate sustained dreadful conduct by the offender over many years. They have each had profoundly detrimental consequences to the victims.
The offender has no record of criminal convictions. He is suffering from…

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 SC

Details

AGLC: R v SC [2024] NSWDC 162
Case: [2024] NSWDC 162
Decision Date: 10 May 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, SC, was convicted of multiple sexual offences against children, including aggravated indecent assault and sexual intercourse with a child under 16 years. The appeal against conviction was dismissed, and the focus of the appeal was the sentence imposed by the trial judge. The case was heard in the Court of Appeal, which had to determine the appropriate sentence for the appellant's extensive criminal history involving multiple child victims.

The primary legal issues before the court were the objective seriousness of the offences, the age and health of the offender at the time of sentencing, and the need for general deterrence. The court had to balance these factors in light of the appellant's extensive criminal history and the impact of his actions on the victims. The court also considered whether the sentence was manifestly inadequate.

In delivering the judgment, the Court of Appeal found that the sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate given the objective seriousness of the offences. The court emphasised the profound impact of the appellant's actions on the victims, the extensive nature of his offending, and the need for general deterrence. The court noted that the appellant's age and health at the time of sentencing were relevant but did not outweigh the other factors. The Court of Appeal ultimately determined that the sentence needed to be increased to reflect the gravity of the crimes committed.

The final orders of the court included a determination that the sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate. The court ordered a new sentencing hearing to be conducted, with specific directions to ensure that the new sentence adequately reflected the objective seriousness of the offences, the impact on the victims, and the need for general deterrence. The court also provided detailed guidance on the factors to be considered in the re-sentencing process.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [128]-[130]

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v SC [2024] NSWDC 162
Hearing dates:	28 March 2024
Date of orders:	10 May 2024
Decision date:	10 May 2024
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Newlinds SC DCJ
Decision:	See [128]-[130]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – Child sex offences – Indecent assault child under 16 years – Aggravated indecent assault child under 16 years – Sexual intercourse with a child under 16 years – Aggravated sexual intercourse child under 10 years SENTENCING – Multiple historic sexual offences – Multiple child victims – Objective seriousness – Age and ill health of offender – General deterrence
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Cases Cited:	AK v R [2016] NSWCCA 238 Cahyadi v R [2007] NSWCCA 1 LN v R [2020] NSWCCA 131 Muldrock v R (2011) 244 CLR 120 Nguyen v R [2016] NSWCCA 209 R v Holder [1983] 3 NSWLR 245 R v KNL [2005] NSWCCA 260 R v Smith [2000] NSWCCA 140 Ragg v R [2022] NSWCCA 150 Van Ryn v R [2016] NSWCCA 1
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Rex (The Crown) SC (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel: Mr C Evans (Crown) Mr I Todd (Offender) Solicitors: Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Dillon-Smith Lawyers (Offender)
File Number(s):	2021/209930; 2022/306689
Publication restriction:	Pursuant to section 578A of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), there shall be no publication of any matter which identifies or is likely to lead to the identification of the victims, including the identity of the offender