R v Taane - [2014] NSWCCA 330

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Taane [2014] NSWCCA 330
Hearing dates: 1 December 2014
Decision date: 01 December 2014
Before: Leeming JA at [1];
McCallum J at [2];
R A Hulme J at [3]
Decision:
Order made 1 December 2014:
Crown appeal dismissed

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - Crown appeal against sentence - sexual intercourse with child between 14 and 16 - breach of suspended sentence good behaviour bonds - incorrect approach adopted in dealing with breach of bonds - sentencing judge entitled to have regard to earlier offences in order to assess totality - multiple errors made by sentencing judge - sentences not manifestly inadequate
Legislation Cited: Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Act 2002 (NSW)
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW)
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Regina (Applicant)
Kyle Robert Taane (Respondent)
Representation: Counsel:
Ms V Lydiard (Crown
Ms R Burgess (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
Legal Aid NSW

File Number(s): 2013/145014
Decision under appeal

Jurisdiction:

9101

Before:

Christie QC DCJ

File Number(s):

2013/145014

Judgment

LEEMING JA: I agree with R A Hulme J.

McCALLUM J: I agree with R A Hulme J's reasons for dismissing the Crown appeal.

R A HULME J: The Crown appealed pursuant to s 5D(1) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW) in respect of sentences imposed upon Kyle Robert Taane (the respondent) by Christie ADCJ in the District Court at Campbelltown on 25 June and 23 July 2014.

The appeal was heard on 1 December 2014. At the conclusion of the submissions for the Crown the Court ordered that the appeal be dismissed. The following are my reasons for joining in the making of that order.

Offences and sentences

The respondent was dealt with for four offences of having sexual intercourse with a child above the age of 14 years and under the age of 16 years contrary to s 66C(3) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). The maximum penalty prescribed for such an offence is imprisonment for 10 years. The respondent had pleaded guilty to two of the offences and asked for a further two such offences to be taken into account on a Form 1 document pursuant to Pt 3 Div 3 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW).

For the first offence and taking into account the Form 1 offences, his Honour imposed a sentence of 3 years 4 months with a non-parole period of 2 years dating from 7 February 2014. For the second offence he imposed a sentence of 3 years 1 month with a non-parole period of 2 years dating from 7 May 2014.

The respondent had previously been dealt with in respect of two similar offences committed against the same complainant by his Honour Judge Armitage on 22 June 2012. For those offences Armitage DCJ imposed suspended sentences of imprisonment for 2 years and 18 months respectively. The respondent had breached certain conditions of the suspended sentence good behaviour…

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 Taane

Details

AGLC: R v Taane [2014] NSWCCA 330
Case: [2014] NSWCCA 330
Decision Date: 01 December 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Taane, was convicted of sexual intercourse with a child aged between 14 and 16 years, as well as a breach of good behaviour bonds. The Crown appealed the sentence imposed by the sentencing judge, arguing it was manifestly inadequate. The court had to determine whether the sentence was manifestly inadequate and whether the sentencing judge erred in their approach to sentencing.

The legal issues before the court were whether the sentencing judge erred in their approach to sentencing and whether the sentence was manifestly inadequate. The Crown argued that the sentencing judge did not have regard to the totality of the offending and failed to adequately address the breach of the good behaviour bonds. The court examined the sentencing principles and the judge's approach to determining the appropriate sentence.

The court found that the sentencing judge had made multiple errors in their approach to sentencing, including failing to adequately consider the totality of the offending and the breach of the good behaviour bonds. The court held that the sentencing judge was entitled to have regard to earlier offences in order to assess the totality of the offending. However, the court found that the sentences imposed were not manifestly inadequate, and the appeal was dismissed.

The court did not make any orders as the appeal was dismissed. The original sentence imposed by the sentencing judge remained in place.

Orders