R v Stokes - [2024] NSWDC 405

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Stokes [2024] NSWDC 405
Hearing dates: 2 May 2024, 18 June 2024.
Date of orders: 14 August 2024
Decision date: 14 August 2024
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Bennett SC ADCJ
Decision:
See [167]

Catchwords:
Crime – Sentencing – Aggregate Sentence – Guilty Plea – Act of indecency on underage person – Dance Teacher.

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

Cases Cited:
Tepania v R [2018] NSWCCA 247
Muldrock v The Queen [2011] HCA 39
Markarian v R [2005] HCA 25, (2005) 228 CLR 357
Cheung v R [2001] 209 CLR 1
R v Olbrich (1999) 119 CLR 162
Savvas v The Queen (1995) 183 CLR1
R v Issacs (1997) 41 NSWLR 374
Milliner v R [2019] NSWCCA 127

Category: Sentence
Parties: Benjamin Jay Stokes (Defendant)
The Crown (Prosecution)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr. Hooper (Defence)
Solicitors:
Shirin Razi (Defence)
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions

File Number(s): 2021/289945, 2021/342968, 2022/260382
Publication restriction: Suppression order re identity of complainants. Non-publication order re identity of complainants.

JUDGMENT

Benjamin Jay Stokes was presented for trial by jury upon an indictment alleging the following offences.

Counts One and Two
Between 1 January 2012 and 20 September 2012 at Mount Annan in the State of New South Wales did assault DW and at the time of the assault committed an act of indecency on DW and at the time of the offence DW was under the age of 16 years, namely nine or ten years.
S 61M(2) Crimes Act 1900.
Counts Three, Four, Five and Six
Between 1 May 2013 and 31 December 2013 at Elderslie in the State of New South Wales, being an adult engaged in conduct that exposed indecent material to DM, being a child under the age of 14, namely 12 years of age, with the intention of making it easier to procure DM for unlawful sexual activity with Benjamin Stokes.
S 66EB(3) Crimes Act 1900.
Count Seven
Between 1 May 2013 and 31 December 2013 at Elderslie in the State of New South Wales did intentionally meet with a child, namely DM, who Benjamin Stokes had groomed with the intention of procuring DM for unlawful sexual activity.
S 66EB(2)(a) Crimes Act 1900.
Count Eight
Between 1 May 2013 and 31 December 2013 at Elderslie in the State of New South Wales did assault DM and at the time of the assault committed an act of indecency on DM and at the time of the offence DM was under the age of 16 years, namely 12 years of age.
S 61M(2) Crimes Act 1900.
Counts Nine and Ten
Between 31 May 2014 and 31 December 2014 at Mount Annan and elsewhere in the State of New South Wales, being an adult engaged in conduct that exposed indecent material to JK being a child under the age of 14, namely 13 years of age with the intention of making it easier to procure DM for unlawful sexual activity with Benjamin…

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 Stokes

Details

AGLC: R v Stokes [2024] NSWDC 405
Case: [2024] NSWDC 405
Decision Date: 14 August 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Queensland, the defendant, Mr. Stokes, faced sentencing following a guilty plea to charges of indecent acts committed against an underage person, a student of his, while he was working as a dance teacher. The acts in question occurred over a period of time and resulted in the victim suffering significant emotional harm. The Crown sought a sentence that would reflect the gravity of the offences and provide adequate deterrence and protection to the community.

The central legal issue before the Court was the determination of an appropriate aggregate sentence for Mr. Stokes, given his guilty plea and the cumulative nature of the offences. The Court was required to consider various sentencing principles, including the culpability of the offender, the harm caused to the victim, and the need for general deterrence. Additionally, the Court needed to weigh the impact of the offences on the victim's life against the possibility of rehabilitation for the offender.

In delivering the judgment, the Court emphasised the profound impact of the offences on the victim, noting the significant emotional harm inflicted. The Court acknowledged Mr. Stokes' guilty plea as a mitigating factor but underscored the need for a sentence that would appropriately reflect the severity of the crimes. After considering the relevant principles and circumstances, the Court determined that an aggregate sentence was necessary to achieve the objectives of punishment, deterrence, and protection of the community. The Court ultimately decided on a sentence that balanced these considerations, ensuring it was commensurate with the nature and impact of the offences.

The final orders, detailed in the judgment, mandated that Mr. Stokes be sentenced to a total term of imprisonment, with specific conditions regarding parole eligibility and supervision post-release, aimed at safeguarding the community and supporting the rehabilitation of the offender.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [167]

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 Stokes [2024] NSWDC 405
Hearing dates:	2 May 2024, 18 June 2024.
Date of orders:	14 August 2024
Decision date:	14 August 2024
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Bennett SC ADCJ
Decision:	See [167]
Catchwords:	Crime – Sentencing – Aggregate Sentence – Guilty Plea – Act of indecency on underage person – Dance Teacher.
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Cases Cited:	Tepania v R [2018] NSWCCA 247 Muldrock v The Queen [2011] HCA 39 Markarian v R [2005] HCA 25, (2005) 228 CLR 357 Cheung v R [2001] 209 CLR 1 R v Olbrich (1999) 119 CLR 162 Savvas v The Queen (1995) 183 CLR1 R v Issacs (1997) 41 NSWLR 374 Milliner v R [2019] NSWCCA 127
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Benjamin Jay Stokes (Defendant) The Crown (Prosecution)
Representation:	Counsel: Mr. Hooper (Defence) Solicitors: Shirin Razi (Defence) Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions
File Number(s):	2021/289945, 2021/342968, 2022/260382
Publication restriction:	Suppression order re identity of complainants. Non-publication order re identity of complainants.