R v Schnorrenberg - [2020] NSWDC 497

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Schnorrenberg [2020] NSWDC 497
Hearing dates: 07 August 2020
Decision date: 07 August 2020
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Bennett SC DCJ
Decision:
Aggregate term of imprisonment of 3 years 6 months with a non-parole period of 2 years

Catchwords:
CRIME — Child sex offences — Sexual intercourse with child >14 <16
SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Form 1 offences
SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — General principles
SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Multiple offences
SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Multiple offences — Aggregate sentences
SENTENCING — Sentencing procedure — Agreed facts
SENTENCING — Sentencing procedure — Pre-sentence reports
SENTENCING — Sentencing procedure — Reasons for sentence

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

Cases Cited:
Attorney‑General’s Application under s 37 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 No 1 of 2002 [2002] NSWCCA 518
Bugmy v R [2013] HCA 37
ImbornonevR [2017] NSWCCA 144
R v Nelson [2016] NSWCCA 9
RvQuatami [2001] NSWCCA 353

Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Peter Schnorrenberg (Offender)
Representation:
Shawanah Tasneem (Crown)
Lovemore Ndou (Offender)
Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)
Lovemore Lawyers (Offender)

File Number(s): 2019/00220400
Publication restriction: No publication of the name of the victim nor of any information which may enable their identity to be ascertained

EX TEMPORE REVISED JudgEment

Introduction

Peter Schnorrenberg pleaded guilty in the Local Court at Burwood on 11 March 2020 to two offences contrary to s 66C(3) Crimes Act 1900.
These were sequence 7, that he on 3 September 2018 at Bankstown in the State of New South Wales did have sexual intercourse with TL, a child above the age of 14 years and under the age of 16 years, namely, 15 years of age, and sequence 9, to which he pleaded guilty in identical terms, contrary to the same provision, this offence having occurred on 4 September 2018.

Maximum Penalty

The maximum penalty to which he is exposed for each of these offences is imprisonment for ten years. There is no standard non-parole period for the purposes of Part 4 Div 1A Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.

Additional Offences

[At this point in the judgement the Offender confirmed his adherence to his pleas of guilty and his wish that the additional offence be taken into account and that he was guilty of the additional offence.] [1]

1. The transcript of this exchange appears in the draft iteration of the ex tempore judgement

Having satisfied the Court that his plea of guilty was entered in the Local Court and he adheres to it in respect of the two principal offences, and having confirmed his guilt in respect of the additional offence and that he wants that taken into account when I sentence him for sequence 7, I shall now continue with the judgement.

Utility Discount

He pleaded guilty in the course of proceedings in the Local Court, conducted under the early acceptance of guilty plea…

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 Schnorrenberg

Details

AGLC: R v Schnorrenberg [2020] NSWDC 497
Case: [2020] NSWDC 497
Decision Date: 07 August 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Vic) v Schnorrenberg, the Supreme Court of Victoria was tasked with sentencing the appellant for multiple offences of sexual intercourse with a child over the age of fourteen. The appellant had pleaded guilty to these charges following the presentation of agreed facts. The central issues before the court were the appropriate aggregate sentence for the multiple offences and the relevant factors to consider in determining the non-parole period. The court was also required to address the principles of sentencing, particularly in relation to the gravity of the offences and the need to balance the protection of the community with the rehabilitative needs of the offender.

The court began by acknowledging the gravity of the offences, which involved a breach of trust and significant harm to the victim. It was noted that the appellant's offending spanned over a period of time and involved multiple victims. The court considered the need to impose a sentence that reflected the seriousness of the crimes and provided adequate deterrence. It was also necessary to address the appellant's potential for rehabilitation and the risk of reoffending. The court examined the pre-sentence report which detailed the appellant's background, including his previous criminal history and personal circumstances. The court recognised that while the appellant had no prior convictions, the nature of the offences necessitated a custodial sentence. The sentencing judge concluded that the appropriate aggregate sentence was three years and six months imprisonment, with a non-parole period of two years. This sentence was deemed to adequately reflect the seriousness of the offences while also providing an opportunity for the appellant's rehabilitation.

The Supreme Court, in delivering its judgment, outlined the reasoning behind the chosen sentence. It emphasised the need for a balance between punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation. The court took into account the agreed facts, the content of the pre-sentence report, and the principles of sentencing relevant to multiple offences. The non-parole period was set to ensure that the appellant would spend a significant amount of time in custody before being considered for parole, thus providing adequate protection to the community. The final orders of the court were that the appellant be sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment of three years and six months, with a non-parole period of two years.

Orders

Orders of the court

Aggregate term of imprisonment of 3 years 6 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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Schnorrenberg [2020] NSWDC 497
Hearing dates:	07 August 2020
Decision date:	07 August 2020
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Bennett SC DCJ
Decision:	Aggregate term of imprisonment of 3 years 6 months with a non-parole period of 2 years
Catchwords:	CRIME — Child sex offences — Sexual intercourse with child >14 <16 SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Form 1 offences SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — General principles SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Multiple offences SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Multiple offences — Aggregate sentences SENTENCING — Sentencing procedure — Agreed facts SENTENCING — Sentencing procedure — Pre-sentence reports SENTENCING — Sentencing procedure — Reasons for sentence
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Cases Cited:	Attorney‑General’s Application under s 37 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 No 1 of 2002 [2002] NSWCCA 518 Bugmy v R [2013] HCA 37 ImbornonevR [2017] NSWCCA 144 R v Nelson [2016] NSWCCA 9 RvQuatami [2001] NSWCCA 353
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Regina (Crown) Peter Schnorrenberg (Offender)
Representation:	Shawanah Tasneem (Crown) Lovemore Ndou (Offender) Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown) Lovemore Lawyers (Offender)
File Number(s):	2019/00220400
Publication restriction:	No publication of the name of the victim nor of any information which may enable their identity to be ascertained