R v Slater - [2003] NSWCCA 178

Reported Decision:
142 A Crim R 322

New South Wales

Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: Regina v Roger SLATER [2003] NSWCCA 178 revised - 15/07/2003

HEARING DATE(S): 01/07/03

JUDGMENT DATE:
1 July 2003

JUDGMENT OF: Grove J at 57; Shaw J at 1

DECISION: (1) Leave to appeal granted; (2) Appeal dismissed.

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - appeal against sentence - range of sentences at time of commission of offences - delay - no question of principle

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900;
Crimes (Child Assault) Amendment Act 1985;

CASES CITED: De Simoni v The Queen (1981) 147 CLR 383;
Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610;
R v DJS [2001] NSWCCA 189;
R v Hudson (Unreported, NSWCCA, 30 July 1998);
R v Maclay (1990) 46 A Crim R 340;
R v MJR (2002) 54 NSWLR 368;
R v Moon (2000) 117 A Crim R 497;
R v Shore (1992) 66 A Crim R 37;
R v Watson [1999] NSWCCA 227;

PARTIES :

Regina (NSW)
v
Roger SLATER

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60097/03

COUNSEL: G Bashir - Appellant
D Howard - Crown

SOLICITORS: S O'Connor - Crown

LOWER COURTJURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S):

LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER : Sorby DCJ

60097 of 2003

Grove J
Shaw J
1 July 2003

Regina v Roger SLATER

Judgment

1 Shaw J: This is an application for leave to appeal against the severity of a sentence imposed on the applicant (Roger Slater) as a result of a plea of guilty, by Sorby DCJ, on 20 September 2002.

2 The plea was in relation to two charges pursuant to s 61D of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). The first count raised an allegation that the applicant, between 5 December 1981 and 25 February 1982, had sexual intercourse with his daughter without her consent, when she was 12 years of age.

3 The second count alleged that between 20 February 1991 and 16 March 1991 the applicant had sexual intercourse with his daughter without her consent.

4 The sentencing judge was also asked to take into account four additional, similar offences specified on the form 1.

5 The applicant’s abusive and reprehensible behaviour in relation to his daughter began when she was 12 years of age and the last of the six incidents that were dealt with occurred when she was 21. As the Crown submitted, the unlawful conduct thus spanned the entire period of the complainant’s adolescence, although it was not characterised as a course of conduct.

6 On any analysis these were very serious offences and, according to the victim impact statement placed before the sentencing judge, resulted in significant psychological consequences for the complainant over a long period of time.

7 The sentencing judge provided detailed and considered remarks on sentence which resulted in a determination that the applicant serve, in relation to count 1, and taking into account the matters on the form 1, imprisonment for four years commencing on 20 September 2003…

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 Slater

Details

AGLC: R v Slater [2003] NSWCCA 178
Case: [2003] NSWCCA 178
Decision Date: 1 July 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Slater involved an appeal against the sentence handed down to the appellant by the Supreme Court of Queensland. The appellant had been found guilty of various criminal offences and was sentenced to a term of imprisonment. The appeal centred around the appropriate range of sentences that should have been applied, taking into account the time at which the offences were committed and the subsequent delay in sentencing. The High Court of Australia was tasked with determining whether the trial judge had correctly applied the relevant legal principles in imposing the sentence.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the delay in sentencing affected the appropriate range of sentences and whether the trial judge had erred in their application of the law. The appellant argued that the delay in sentencing meant that a more lenient sentence should have been imposed, while the respondent maintained that the delay did not impact the sentencing range and that the trial judge had correctly exercised their discretion. The court needed to consider the principles governing sentencing delays and the appropriate range of sentences for the offences committed.

In delivering its judgment, the court considered the relevant case law and statutory provisions regarding sentencing and delays. The court found that there was no principle of law that required a different sentence to be imposed due to the delay. The trial judge had correctly considered the principles of sentencing and had exercised their discretion appropriately in imposing the sentence. The court further found that the sentence imposed was within the range of sentences that could be lawfully imposed for the offences committed. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.

No further orders were made by the court beyond the dismissal of the appeal and the affirmation of the original sentence. The court emphasised that the delay in sentencing did not necessitate a different sentence and that the trial judge had correctly applied the relevant legal principles in determining the appropriate punishment for the appellant's crimes.

Orders