Legal Research
Cases
R v Smith

R v Smith

Case [2025] NSWDC 374 27 June 2025

Sentencing

Child Sex Offences

Possess Child Abuse Material

Sexual Intercourse with Child >14

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Smith [2025] NSWDC 374
Hearing dates: 22 May 2025
Date of orders: 27 June 2025
Decision date: 27 June 2025
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Sutherland SC DCJ
Decision:
Aggregate sentence of 8 years with a non-parole period of 6 years, at [139].

Catchwords:
SENTENCING – Child sex offences – Possess child abuse material – Sexual intercourse with child >14 <16 – Procure child for unlawful sexual activity – Form 1 offences and uncharged acts
SENTENCING – Offender on conditional liberty at time of offending – On parole for similar offences – Present offending an escalation in behaviour – Breach of Child Protection (Offenders Registration) obligations – Lack of insight into offending
CRIME – Met child via encrypted social media and communications application – Sent child abuse material and pornography to child – Offered to purchase items for child – Arranged to meet child in person before school – Provided child with methylamphetamine immediately prior to assault – Sexual intercourse in public park toilet block – Filmed assault – Child in school uniform at time of assault

Legislation Cited:
Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Act 2000 ss 9, 11, 17,
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 ss 5, 21A, 53A
Crimes Act 1900 ss 66C, 66EB, 91H
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 s 166
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 s 10

Cases Cited:
Attorney General’s Application under s 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 No 1 of 2002 (2002) 56 NSWLR 146
Brown v R [2023] NSWCCA 330
Callaghan v R [2006] NSWCCA 58
EG v R [2015] NSWCCA 21
Milliner v R [2019] NSWCCA 127
Minehan v R [2010] NSWCCA 140
R v Baker [2020] NSWDC 615
R v Cassell [2022] NSWDC 471
R v Danielle Pana (a pseudonym) [2021] NSWDC 798
R v De Simoni (1981) 147 CLR 383; [1981] HCA 31
R v Dee Leeuw [2015] NSWCCA 183
R v DW [2012] NSWCCA 66
R v Lovas [2024] NSWDC 44
R v Smith [2016] NSWCCA 75
R v Till [2024] NSWDC 298
R v Wilkinson [2020] NSWDC 914
Tector v R [2008] NSWCCA 151
ZA v R [2018] NSWCCA 116

Category: Sentence
Parties: Rex (Crown)
William Henry Smith (Offender)
Representation:
Counsel:
J Sfinas (Crown)
A Radojev (Offender)
Solicitors:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)
Paul Reynolds General and Criminal Law Practice (Offender)

File Number(s): 2023/00274190
Publication restriction:
Pursuant to section 15A of the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 and section 578A of the Crimes Act 1900, publication of the name of, or any matter which could identify, the victim is prohibited.
This judgment has been redacted to exclude any reference to locations at which the child was met or any geographical information which might identify where she went to school.

JUDGMENT

William Henry Smith appears for sentence in respect of 5 substantive offences relating to the sexual abuse of children. The offending took place between 24 and 28 August 2023. The offender was arrested and…

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 Smith

Details

AGLC: R v Smith [2025] NSWDC 374
Case: [2025] NSWDC 374
Decision Date: 27 June 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Smith involved the sentencing of the defendant, Smith, who had been found guilty of multiple serious child sex offences. Smith had met a child through an encrypted social media application, communicated with the child, and sent them child abuse material and pornography. He further arranged to meet the child in person, provided them with methylamphetamine, and engaged in sexual intercourse in a public park toilet block. The child was in school uniform at the time of the assault, and Smith filmed the incident. Smith had previously been convicted of similar offences and was on parole at the time of the current offending. He was also in breach of his Child Protection (Offenders Registration) obligations and showed a lack of insight into his offending.

The primary legal issues before the court were the appropriate sentence for the multiple offences committed by Smith, and whether the sentences should be concurrent or consecutive. The court also had to consider the circumstances of the offending, including Smith’s previous history of similar offences, his lack of insight, and his breach of parole conditions and Child Protection (Offenders Registration) obligations. The court was required to balance the need for punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation in determining the appropriate sentence.

The court acknowledged the gravity of Smith’s offending and the serious harm caused to the child victim. It noted that the offending represented an escalation in Smith’s behaviour, given his previous convictions and parole conditions. The court found that Smith’s offending demonstrated a high degree of premeditation and a significant breach of the trust placed in him as a member of the community. Despite Smith’s previous rehabilitation efforts, the court found that his lack of insight into his offending and his failure to comply with his obligations indicated a substantial risk of reoffending. The court determined that an aggregate sentence of 8 years with a non-parole period of 6 years was appropriate, with the sentences to run concurrently to ensure the safety of the community and to provide Smith with an opportunity for rehabilitation.

The court ordered that Smith be sentenced to an aggregate term of 8 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 6 years. The sentences were to run concurrently, reflecting the court’s consideration of the need to balance punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation. The court emphasised the importance of protecting the community and providing Smith with an opportunity for rehabilitation, despite his history of offending and lack of insight.

Orders

Orders of the court

Aggregate sentence of 8 years with a non-parole period of 6 years, at [139].

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.

Citations

AGLC Citation

R v Smith [2025] NSWDC 374

Cases citing this decision · 0 of 0 shown

No citing cases yet.

Cases cited in this decision · 18 of 18 shown

R v Till
[2024] NSWDC 298 Para 117

…R v Till [2024] NSWDC 298 was an aggregate sentence imposed by Judge Haesler SC with respect to sexual offending between a 26-year-old male and a 14–15-year-old child.…
R v Lovas
[2024] NSWDC 44 Para 114

…R v Lovas [2024] NSWDC 44 was a sentence imposed by Scotting DCJ with respect to four counts of sexual assault of a child between 10 and 16 years of age contrary to s 66C(3) of the Crimes Act 1900 . The maximum penalty for each offence was 10 years imprisonment. The offender was 19 years of age. He commenced a rel…
Brown v The King
[2023] NSWCCA 330 Para 122

…In Brown v R [2023] NSWCCA 330 the offender appealed against an aggregate sentence of 4 years and 9 months with a non-parole period of 3 years in respect of two offences of sexual intercourse with a child between the ages of 14 and 16 contrary to s 66C(3) of the Crimes Act 1900 . The offender was 54 and exchanged me…
R v Cassell
[2022] NSWDC 471 Para 109

…In R v Cassell [2022] NSWDC 471 Judge Haesler SC sentenced an offender for offences of having sexual intercourse with a child aged 14 to 16, inciting a child aged 14 to 16 to sexually touch, and stalk or intimidate.…
R v Danielle Pana (a pseudonym)
[2021] NSWDC 798 Para 105

…In R v Danielle Pana (a pseudonym) [2021] NSWDC 798 an offender was sentenced for offences of grooming a child for unlawful sexual activity, using a child under 14 to produce child abuse material, sexually touching a child under 10, disseminating child abuse material, and sexual intercourse with a child under 10. T…
R v Wilkinson
[2020] NSWDC 914 Para 100

…In R v Wilkinson [2020] NSWDC 914 Judge Wilson SC sentenced the offender with respect to a charge of procuring a child under 14 years for unlawful sexual activity, failing to comply with reporting obligations under the Child Protection Register, and for a breach of a call-up in relation to a charge of possessing ch…
R v Baker
[2020] NSWDC 615 Para 98

…R v Baker [2020] NSWDC 615 involved a difficult sentencing exercise before Judge Bennett SC in the District Court. The offender had been a registered psychologist practicing in Coffs Harbour from January 2015 to May 2017. A number of child complainants brought allegations regarding sexual acts committed upon them b…
Milliner v R
[2019] NSWCCA 127 Para 88

…Milliner v R [2019] NSWCCA 127 was an appeal against the severity of an aggregate sentence which had been imposed by Scotting DCJ in the District Court.…
Za v R
[2018] NSWCCA 116 Para 94

…ZA v R [2018] NSWCCA 116 was an application for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence. ZA was the father of the victim who was 12 years of age. He had been convicted by Sweeney DCJ, as her Honour then was, after a judge-alone trial in which he was found guilty of intentionally procuring a child under 14 fo…
R v Jarad Smith
[2016] NSWCCA 75 Para 87

…ide some measure of the types of sentences passed in similar matters and act as a touchstone for comparison of a contemplated sentence (see R v Smith [2016] NSWCCA 75 at [73]).…
R v De Leeuw
[2015] NSWCCA 183 Para 92

…iple that offences involving sexually predatory conduct towards children have general deterrence as a primary sentencing consideration: R v Dee Leeuw [2015] NSWCCA 183 at [72]. Her Honour also repeated the principle that the nature of the sexual activity proposed or intended was a relevant consideration in the asses…
EG v R
[2015] NSWCCA 21 Para 135

…expression of principle abound, it is sufficient to be reminded of the observations of Hoeben CJ at CL (Harrison and RA Hulme JJ agreeing) in EG v R [2015] NSWCCA 21 at [42] where his Honour said:…
R v DW
[2012] NSWCCA 66 Para 131

…oled during the course of the balance of term for the previous offence, in accordance with the principle in Callaghan v R [2006] NSWCCA 58 and R v DW [2012] NSWCCA 66. I propose to allow a period of approximately 2 and a half months of the period served as the balance of term in an exercise of that discretion.…
Minehan v R
[2010] NSWCCA 140 Para 135

…With respect to the possession of child abuse material, I have had regard to the judgement of RA Hulme J in Minehan v R [2010] NSWCCA 140. With respect to the child sexual assault matters, I bear in mind the significance of general deterrence which has been repeatedly emphasised by the Court of Criminal Appeal. Whil…
Tector v R
[2008] NSWCCA 151 Para 92

…re of the sexual activity proposed or intended was a relevant consideration in the assessment of the objective seriousness of the offence: Tector v R [2008] NSWCCA 151.…
Callaghan v R
[2006] NSWCCA 58 Para 131

…ender could have been re-paroled during the course of the balance of term for the previous offence, in accordance with the principle in Callaghan v R [2006] NSWCCA 58 and R v DW [2012] NSWCCA 66. I propose to allow a period of approximately 2 and a half months of the period served as the balance of term in an exerc…
Re Attorney-General's Application (No 1 of 2002) (NSW)
[2002] NSWCCA 518 Para 6

…o account in accordance with the principles in Attorney General’s Application under s 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 No 1 of 2002 (2002) 56 NSWLR 146.…
R v De Simoni
[1981] HCA 31 Para 31

…served simply to increase the objective seriousness of the offending generally. I remind myself of the principle in R v De Simoni (1981) 147 CLR 383; [1981] HCA 31 that I must not “ take into account circumstances of aggravation which would have warranted a conviction for a more serious offence .”…

Legislation cited in this decision · 6

Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Act 2000 (NSW)
11, 17, 9 4 mentions (from Para 3)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
21A, 5, 53A 4 mentions (from Para 6)
Crimes Act 1900 (ACT)
66C, 66EB, 91H 4 mentions (from Para 2)
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW)
166 2 mentions (from Para 3)
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW)
10 2 mentions (from Para 7)
Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW)
1 mention

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Smith [2025] NSWDC 374
Hearing dates:	22 May 2025
Date of orders:	27 June 2025
Decision date:	27 June 2025
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Sutherland SC DCJ
Decision:	Aggregate sentence of 8 years with a non-parole period of 6 years, at [139].
Catchwords:	SENTENCING – Child sex offences – Possess child abuse material – Sexual intercourse with child >14 <16 – Procure child for unlawful sexual activity – Form 1 offences and uncharged acts SENTENCING – Offender on conditional liberty at time of offending – On parole for similar offences – Present offending an escalation in behaviour – Breach of Child Protection (Offenders Registration) obligations – Lack of insight into offending CRIME – Met child via encrypted social media and communications application – Sent child abuse material and pornography to child – Offered to purchase items for child – Arranged to meet child in person before school – Provided child with methylamphetamine immediately prior to assault – Sexual intercourse in public park toilet block – Filmed assault – Child in school uniform at time of assault
Legislation Cited:	Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Act 2000 ss 9, 11, 17, Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 ss 5, 21A, 53A Crimes Act 1900 ss 66C, 66EB, 91H Criminal Procedure Act 1986 s 166 Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 s 10
Cases Cited:	Attorney General’s Application under s 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 No 1 of 2002 (2002) 56 NSWLR 146 Brown v R [2023] NSWCCA 330 Callaghan v R [2006] NSWCCA 58 EG v R [2015] NSWCCA 21 Milliner v R [2019] NSWCCA 127 Minehan v R [2010] NSWCCA 140 R v Baker [2020] NSWDC 615 R v Cassell [2022] NSWDC 471 R v Danielle Pana (a pseudonym) [2021] NSWDC 798 R v De Simoni (1981) 147 CLR 383; [1981] HCA 31 R v Dee Leeuw [2015] NSWCCA 183 R v DW [2012] NSWCCA 66 R v Lovas [2024] NSWDC 44 R v Smith [2016] NSWCCA 75 R v Till [2024] NSWDC 298 R v Wilkinson [2020] NSWDC 914 Tector v R [2008] NSWCCA 151 ZA v R [2018] NSWCCA 116
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Rex (Crown) William Henry Smith (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel: J Sfinas (Crown) A Radojev (Offender) Solicitors: Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown) Paul Reynolds General and Criminal Law Practice (Offender)
File Number(s):	2023/00274190
Publication restriction:	Pursuant to section 15A of the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 and section 578A of the Crimes Act 1900, publication of the name of, or any matter which could identify, the victim is prohibited. This judgment has been redacted to exclude any reference to locations at which the child was met or any geographical information which might identify where she went to school.