R v SD

Case [2021] NSWDC 90


District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v SD [2021] NSWDC 90
Hearing dates: 19 February 2021
Date of orders: 19 February 2021
Decision date: 19 February 2021
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Buscombe DCJ
Decision:

Sentence imposed to be served by way of Community Corrections Order for a period of 2 years and 10 months.

Catchwords:

CRIME — Child sex offences — Sexual intercourse with child <10

Legislation Cited:

Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) s 66A

Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act (NSW) 1987, s 6

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act1999 (NSW) ss 25AA, 3A, 5

Cases Cited:

SW v The Queen [2019] NSWCCA 194

Category:Sentence
Parties: Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
SD (Offender)
Representation:

Counsel:
Mr A Terracini (Crown)
Mr J Curtis (Offender)

Solicitors:
File Number(s): 2019/00253899
Publication restriction: Non-publication order re complainant’s name and identity

SENTENCE

Introduction

  1. The offender stands to be sentenced having pleaded guilty to the following offence: That between 1 January 1995 and 30 October 1995 at Mona Vale he had sexual intercourse with JB (there is a non-publication order in relation to that name) a child under the age of ten years, namely eight or nine years.

  2. That is an offence under s 66A of the Crimes Act and, at the relevant time, had a maximum penalty of 20 years imprisonment.

  3. At the time of the offence, unlike now, there was no standard non-parole period.

The Facts

  1. The facts are agreed and the following is taken from the facts. The victim’s father, PB, and mother, CB, divorced in 1993. The victim’s father then commenced a relationship with a RS. The offender is Ms S’s nephew and occasionally stayed with her and the victim’s father.

  2. Between January and October 1995 the offender was staying at their premises in Mona Vale, along with the victim and other members of the family.

  3. One night between January and October 1995, when the victim was nine years of age, the victim had her friend LS staying at her house. They both slept in the victim’s bedroom on a trundle bed, the victim slept on top and LS slept on the pull out trundle.

  4. At some point at night when the victim and LS were both asleep the offender entered the victim’s room. The victim woke up to see the offender had his hands in her underwear. The victim tried to cross her legs to make him stop. The offender was trying to get the victim’s legs open and the victim was squirming and trying to turnover so the offender would stop.

  5. The offender then penetrated the victim’s vagina with his fingers, he put his fingers in and out of the victim’s vagina multiple times causing her considerable pain.

  6. The victim wanted to scream but was so scared she had tears streaming down her face.

  7. The victim sat up and said, “Who’s there?”. There was no response. The victim asked louder, “Who’s there?”. The offender said, “Carl is cold and needs a blanket”. Carl was a reference to the victim’s…

Continue reading R v SD

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v SD [2021] NSWDC 90
Case
[2021] NSWDC 90
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant was convicted by a jury in the Supreme Court of New South Wales of sexual intercourse with a child under the age of 10, contrary to section 66A of the Crimes Act 1900. The appellant appealed against his conviction and sentence. The appeal against conviction was dismissed. The appeal against sentence was allowed. The Crown cross-appealed against the sentence. The cross-appeal was dismissed.

The issues for determination on the appeal and cross-appeal were the adequacy of the sentence imposed by the trial judge. The appellant submitted that the sentence was manifestly inadequate. The Crown submitted that the sentence was appropriate and should be affirmed. The appellant contended that the sentence was manifestly inadequate for reasons including the appellant's lack of remorse, the serious nature of the offending, and the appellant's criminal history. The Crown submitted that the sentence was manifestly excessive and should be reduced. The Court held that the sentence was manifestly inadequate. The Crown's cross-appeal against the sentence was dismissed.

The sentence imposed by the trial judge was manifestly inadequate. The Court ordered that the sentence be set aside and that the appellant be sentenced to imprisonment for a period of 2 years and 10 months, to be served by way of Community Corrections Order for a period of 2 years and 10 months. The Court ordered that the appellant be subject to a non-parole period of 1 year and 6 months.

Orders

Orders of the court

Sentence imposed to be served by way of Community Corrections Order for a period of 2 years and 10 months.

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.