District Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: R v Simon BRANDT [2022] NSWDC 469 Hearing dates: 22 March 2022 Date of orders: 20 May 2022 Decision date: 20 May 2022 Jurisdiction: Criminal Before: Buscombe DCJ Decision: Sentence imposed of two years and two months imprisonment, consisting of a non-parole period of 14 months and a balance of term of 12 months.
Catchwords: CRIME – Sexual offences – Sexual assault - Consent
Legislation Cited: S 61I Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa [2010] NSWCCA 194
Category: Sentence Parties: Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Australian Criminal Law Group (Offender)File Number(s): 2019/00344328 Publication restriction: Statutory non-publication order re identity of complainant
Judgment
Introduction
-
The offender, Simon Brandt, stood trial before me and a jury at Newcastle between 23 January and 2 February this year on an indictment containing a single count that, on 1 January 2019 at Belmont, he had sexual intercourse with JF without her consent, knowing that she had not consented to the sexual intercourse. On 2 February the jury returned a verdict of guilty. The offence is an offence under s 61I of the Crimes Act 1900 and carries a maximum penalty of 14 years’ imprisonment and there is a standard non‑parole period of seven years’ imprisonment.
The facts
-
These are sentence proceedings after trial and I am required to find the facts, consistent with the jury’s verdict. To the extent that a finding of fact is made adverse to the offender, then I must be satisfied of that fact beyond reasonable doubt. I find the following facts for the purposes of sentencing, consistent with the jury’s verdict, which is an indication the jury found the victim to be an honest and reliable witness, having clearly rejected the offender’s evidence that when the complainant said stop during their sexual encounter, he desisted in any sexual activity with her.
-
The victim, JF, in the latter half of 2018 was a sole parent residing with her two young children in Warners Bay and was 31 years of age. The offender and the victim commenced communicating online through a Facebook group. As at October 2018, the offender was aged 39 years of age, resided in Victoria, but travelled to see his two young sons in the Lake Macquarie area every month. Prior to meeting in person, the offender and the victim communicated regularly over Facebook Messenger. A number of their online exchanges were of an explicit sexual nature, some in which digital penetration of the victim’s anus and vagina were referred to.
-
Through the Facebook group I referred to earlier, the victim received an invitation to a camping trip at Nine Mile Beach to celebrate New Year’s Eve, and the victim extended that invitation to the offender. On 30 December 2018, other members of the Facebook group, which included Luke Parkinson, Tracey Nolan-Petigree and Sylvia Kuijpers, who were friends of the victim, were at the site.…
Continue reading R v Simon Brandt
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Simon Brandt [2022] NSWDC 469
- Case
- [2022] NSWDC 469
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was tasked with determining the legal standard of consent in sexual offences, particularly focusing on whether the complainant's level of intoxication negated her ability to give informed consent. The court also needed to assess the defendant's knowledge of the complainant's condition and whether this impacted his culpability. The interpretation of relevant statutory provisions and case law on consent in the context of sexual offences was central to the court's deliberations.
After careful consideration of the evidence, the court found that the complainant was too intoxicated to provide informed consent and that the defendant was aware of this state. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring that consent in sexual contexts is freely given and informed, especially where the condition of one party might impair their decision-making ability. The defendant was found guilty of sexual assault and sentenced to two years and two months imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 14 months. The sentencing reflected the gravity of the offence and the need to uphold the principles of justice and deterrence.
Orders
Orders of the court
Sentence imposed of two years and two months imprisonment, consisting of a non-parole period of 14 months and a balance of term of 12 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.