R v Turtur

This matter came before the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia on appeal from a sentence imposed on the appellant, R v Turtur. The appeal concerned the severity of the sentence, with the appellant arguing that the total term of imprisonment was manifestly excessive. The offences involved serious sexual abuse of two child victims, V1 and V2, over many years.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the sentencing judge had given sufficient weight to mitigating factors when determining the total sentence. These factors included the appellant's remorse and contrition demonstrated by his guilty pleas, his limited intellectual capacity, the potential for rehabilitation, his personal circumstances, and the principle of totality. A significant aspect of the argument was the appellant's age at the potential date of release, which would be 79 years if he served the entire non-parole period.

The court acknowledged the extreme gravity and depravity of the offences, which included multiple counts of unlawful sexual intercourse with a person under 12 and indecent assault against V1, and persistent sexual exploitation and unlawful sexual intercourse against V2. The sentencing judge had taken into account the horrific consequences for the victims and their families, as well as the appellant's background and intellectual functioning, which was assessed as significantly sub-average with an IQ of approximately 70. Despite these considerations, the court found that the sentencing judge had properly balanced the need for punishment and deterrence with the mitigating factors presented.

The appeal was dismissed. The court concluded that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive, and that the sentencing judge had adequately considered all relevant factors in reaching their decision.