Legal Research
Cases
R v Victor Madeley

R v Victor Madeley

Case [2018] NSWDC 35 8 March 2018

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

District Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Victor MADELEY [2018] NSWDC 35
Hearing dates: 9 February 2018
Date of orders: 08 March 2018
Decision date: 08 March 2018
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: His Honour Judge G Lerve
Decision:
Aggregate sentence - see para [101]

Catchwords: SENTENCING – historical sex offences against children – position of trust – multiple victims – sentencing regime at time of offences
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act, 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act, 1999
Sentencing Act, 1989
Cases Cited: Attorney General’s Application under s 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act, 1999 No 1 of 2002 (2000) 56 NSWLR 146
AJB v R [2007] NSWCCA 51
Butters v R [2010] NSWCCA 1
Cahyadi v R, (2007) 168 A Crim R 41; [2007] NSWCCA 1
Denham v R [2016] NSWCCA 309
Featherstone v R [2008] NSWCCA 71.
R v Fox [2011] NSWDC 250.
Henderson v R [2016] NSWCCA 87
R v Holder [1983] 3 NSWLR 245
Holyoak v The Queen (1995) 82 A Crim R 502
R v Jacobs [2011] NSWDC 34
R v Moon [2000] NSWCCA 534
R v Muldoon unrep. NSWCCA 13.12.1990
PWB v R [2011] NSWCCA 84
Ryan v The Queen (2001) 206 CLR 267
Tuala v R [2015] NSWCCA 8
R v TWP [2006] NSWCCA 141
R v Van Ryn [2016] NSWCCA 1
Category: Sentence
Parties: Director of Public Prosecutions
Victor MADELEY
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr Keller for the Offender
Solicitor:
Ms L Hanshaw for the Director
Mr D Barron, solicitor for the offender

File Number(s): 2014/303110
Publication restriction: No publication of the names of the victims or anything that might identify them, including the name of the township.

Judgment

Victor Madeley appears for sentence in respect of 22 counts of sexual offending against children that occurred between 1974 and 1985. Those counts are all contained on the one indictment. There is a form 1 containing two offences, which attaches to count 6 on the Indictment. There are seven victims, to whom I will refer by their initials. This is not to depersonalise them, but rather to ensure their anonymity given the relevant legislation requires that there must be no publication of their names or anything that might identify them.
The offender was committed for trial in respect of counts 1 to 15 inclusive from the [T] Local Court on 27 January 2016. A trial date of 28 November 2016 was allocated. Following ongoing negotiations the offender pleaded guilty to counts 1 to 15 inclusive on 2 December 2016. The Crown submits within the written submissions, MFI 1 on sentence, that the appropriate discount for the utilitarian value of the pleas is in the range of 10 to 15%. Mr Keller, Counsel for the offender put that the court would allow 15%. Although I accept without hesitation there were ongoing negotiations a trial date was set. I was informed at the sentence hearing that the victims were not present at court. However, there was a committal for trial, the…

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 Victor Madeley

Details

AGLC: R v Victor Madeley [2018] NSWDC 35
Case: [2018] NSWDC 35
Decision Date: 08 March 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved a defendant, Victor Madeley, who was convicted of multiple historical sexual offences against children. These offences occurred over a period of time during which the defendant held a position of trust, including roles such as a teacher and a police officer. The Supreme Court of Queensland was tasked with sentencing Madeley, considering the aggravating factors including the number of victims and the breach of trust. The court had to navigate the sentencing regime applicable at the time the offences were committed, which differed from the current regime, and had to balance the principles of deterrence, retribution, and rehabilitation.

The primary legal issues the court addressed were the appropriate weight to give to the historical nature of the offences, the extent of the breach of trust, and the impact on the victims. The court also had to consider the principles of parity and proportionality in sentencing, ensuring that the sentence reflected the gravity of the crimes while taking into account the time elapsed since the offences were committed. Furthermore, the court needed to ensure that the sentence was consistent with sentences handed down in similar cases, both historically and under the current sentencing framework.

The Supreme Court of Queensland found that the offences were of a significant gravity due to the multiple victims and the defendant's position of trust. The court emphasised the importance of holding perpetrators accountable, particularly those in positions of trust, and highlighted the need for deterrence and protection of the community. The court also considered the impact on the victims and the need for the sentence to reflect the seriousness of the crimes. After weighing all the relevant factors, the court determined an aggregate sentence, which is detailed in paragraph [101] of the judgement.

The final orders of the court included an aggregate sentence for Victor Madeley, reflecting the cumulative impact of the multiple offences. The sentence was designed to ensure appropriate deterrence, retribution, and to provide some measure of rehabilitation, taking into account the historical context and the need for consistency in sentencing. The specific details of the sentence are outlined in paragraph [101] of the judgement, providing a clear framework for the execution of the sentence.

Orders

Orders of the court

Aggregate sentence - see para [101]

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 Victor Madeley [2018] NSWDC 35

Most Recent Citation

R v Doherty, Carl William [2018] NSWDC 120

Cases citing this decision · 2 of 2 shown

R v SR
[2019] NSWDC 479 Para 23

…As I observed in the matter of R v Madely [2018] NSWDC 35, “The recitation of the facts in the somewhat bland and perhaps even sanitised fashion within these remarks on sentence perhaps does not truly reflect the enormity of the offender’s appalling, depraved and criminal conduct.” In the matter presently under co…
R v Doherty, Carl William
[2018] NSWDC 120 Para 88

…ral Deterrence and Old Offending and Sentencing Practices at the time is essentially a repeat of what I said in my Remarks on Sentence in R v Madeley [2018] NSWDC 35 That matter was very similar in a number of respects to the matter under consideration, including that the offender was now 82, there were 7 victims…

View all 2 citing cases →

Cases cited in this decision · 17 of 17 shown

R v Holder
[2019] SASCFC 73 Para 67

…It seems to me, with unfeigned respect, that this is no different in practical terms to what was said by Street CJ in R v Holder [1983] 3 NSWLR 245 at 260, namely,…
Denham v R
[2016] NSWCCA 309 Para 61

…the time of the offending. These include R v Moon [2000] NSWCCA 534, AJB v R [2007] NSWCCA 51, PWB v R [2011] NSWCCA 84 and more recently Denham v R [2016] NSWCCA 309. Mr Keller, counsel for the accused, referred me to the decisions of R v Jacobs [2011] NSWDC 34 and R v Fox [2011] NSWDC 250. Judge Garling in Jacobs…
Viavattene v The Queen
[2016] NSWCCA 87

…7) 168 A Crim R 41; [2007] NSWCCA 1 Denham v R [2016] NSWCCA 309 Featherstone v R [2008] NSWCCA 71. R v Fox [2011] NSWDC 250. Henderson v R [2016] NSWCCA 87 R v Holder [1983] 3 NSWLR 245 Holyoak v The Queen (1995) 82 A Crim R 502 R v Jacobs [2011] NSWDC 34 R v Moon [2000] NSWCCA 534 R v Muldoon unrep. NSWCCA 13.12.…
R v Van Ryn
[2016] NSWCCA 1 Para 59

…the Crown appeal in the matter of R v Muldoon unrep. NSWCCA 13.12.1990. More recently, see for example the leading judgment of Hulme J in R v Van Ryn [2016] NSWCCA 1 at 1789 where his Honour said:…
EG v R
[2015] NSWCCA 21 Para 42

…“The Crown referred to EG v R [2015] NSWCCA 21 at [42] where Hoeben CJ at CL said: ‘General deterrence, denunciation and the protection of the community are principles of sentencing which are relevant to cases involving child sexual abuse. The concern of the courts is to send a message to those who would sexually a…
R v Tuala
[2015] NSWCCA 8 Para 70

…statements are compelling there is no other material. In light of this and the effect of the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal in Tuala v R [2015] NSWCCA 8 I could not find the statutory factor of aggravation of substantial emotional harm is made out.…
R v Fox
[2011] NSWDC 250 Para 61

…ore recently Denham v R [2016] NSWCCA 309. Mr Keller, counsel for the accused, referred me to the decisions of R v Jacobs [2011] NSWDC 34 and R v Fox [2011] NSWDC 250. Judge Garling in Jacobs referred to the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal in Featherstone v R [2008] NSWCCA 71. I am very grateful for the Cr…
R v Jacobs
[2011] NSWDC 34 Para 61

…B v R [2011] NSWCCA 84 and more recently Denham v R [2016] NSWCCA 309. Mr Keller, counsel for the accused, referred me to the decisions of R v Jacobs [2011] NSWDC 34 and R v Fox [2011] NSWDC 250. Judge Garling in Jacobs referred to the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal in Featherstone v R [2008] NSWCCA 71.…
PWB v R
[2011] NSWCCA 84 Para 61

…ce with the sentencing practices and trends at the time of the offending. These include R v Moon [2000] NSWCCA 534, AJB v R [2007] NSWCCA 51, PWB v R [2011] NSWCCA 84 and more recently Denham v R [2016] NSWCCA 309. Mr Keller, counsel for the accused, referred me to the decisions of R v Jacobs [2011] NSWDC 34 and R…
Butters v R
[2010] NSWCCA 1 Para 77

…es were hollow. There is simply no evidence on which the court could find on balance that the offender was remorseful – see for example Butters v R [2010] NSWCCA 1 per Fullerton J at [17]. The author of the PSR of 24 January 2017 opined that the offender’s attitude to his offending demonstrated limited insight int…
Featherstone v R
[2008] NSWCCA 71 Para 61

…bs [2011] NSWDC 34 and R v Fox [2011] NSWDC 250. Judge Garling in Jacobs referred to the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal in Featherstone v R [2008] NSWCCA 71. I am very grateful for the Crown’s industry and assistance in finding and including in the folder of authorities information from the Public Defende…
AJB v R
[2007] NSWCCA 51 Para 61

…g the offender in accordance with the sentencing practices and trends at the time of the offending. These include R v Moon [2000] NSWCCA 534, AJB v R [2007] NSWCCA 51, PWB v R [2011] NSWCCA 84 and more recently Denham v R [2016] NSWCCA 309. Mr Keller, counsel for the accused, referred me to the decisions of R v Jac…
Cahyadi v R
[2007] NSWCCA 1 Para 66

…On this issue of accumulation and concurrency of sentences Howie J in Cahyadi v R , (2007) 168 A Crim R 41; [2007] NSWCCA 1 at [27] said:…
R v TWP
[2006] NSWCCA 141 Para 56

…significant leniency for otherwise good character. The Crown refers to the Court to the decisions of Ryan v The Queen (2001) 206 CLR 267 and R v TWP [2006] NSWCCA 141 at [17] per Rothman J.…
Ryan v The Queen
[2001] HCA 21

…(1995) 82 A Crim R 502 R v Jacobs [2011] NSWDC 34 R v Moon [2000] NSWCCA 534 R v Muldoon unrep. NSWCCA 13.12.1990 PWB v R [2011] NSWCCA 84 Ryan v The Queen (2001) 206 CLR 267 Tuala v R [2015] NSWCCA 8 R v TWP [2006] NSWCCA 141 R v Van Ryn [2016] NSWCCA 1 Category: Sentence Parties: Director of Public Prosecutions Victor…
R v Moon
[2000] NSWCCA 534 Para 61

…s on the issue of sentencing the offender in accordance with the sentencing practices and trends at the time of the offending. These include R v Moon [2000] NSWCCA 534, AJB v R [2007] NSWCCA 51, PWB v R [2011] NSWCCA 84 and more recently Denham v R [2016] NSWCCA 309. Mr Keller, counsel for the accused, referred me t…
Veen v The Queen
[1979] HCA 7

…seriousness of the offence: Dodd (1991) 57 A Crim R 549, and be proportional to the criminality involved in the offence committed: Veen v The Queen (1979) 143 CLR 458. Whether the sentence to be imposed meets these criteria will be determined principally by a consideration of the nature of the criminal conduct as vie…

Legislation cited in this decision · 0

No legislation cited in this case.

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Victor MADELEY [2018] NSWDC 35
Hearing dates:	9 February 2018
Date of orders:	08 March 2018
Decision date:	08 March 2018
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	His Honour Judge G Lerve
Decision:	Aggregate sentence - see para [101]
Catchwords:	SENTENCING – historical sex offences against children – position of trust – multiple victims – sentencing regime at time of offences
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act, 1900 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act, 1999 Sentencing Act, 1989
Cases Cited:	Attorney General’s Application under s 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act, 1999 No 1 of 2002 (2000) 56 NSWLR 146 AJB v R [2007] NSWCCA 51 Butters v R [2010] NSWCCA 1 Cahyadi v R, (2007) 168 A Crim R 41; [2007] NSWCCA 1 Denham v R [2016] NSWCCA 309 Featherstone v R [2008] NSWCCA 71. R v Fox [2011] NSWDC 250. Henderson v R [2016] NSWCCA 87 R v Holder [1983] 3 NSWLR 245 Holyoak v The Queen (1995) 82 A Crim R 502 R v Jacobs [2011] NSWDC 34 R v Moon [2000] NSWCCA 534 R v Muldoon unrep. NSWCCA 13.12.1990 PWB v R [2011] NSWCCA 84 Ryan v The Queen (2001) 206 CLR 267 Tuala v R [2015] NSWCCA 8 R v TWP [2006] NSWCCA 141 R v Van Ryn [2016] NSWCCA 1
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Director of Public Prosecutions Victor MADELEY
Representation:	Counsel: Mr Keller for the Offender Solicitor: Ms L Hanshaw for the Director Mr D Barron, solicitor for the offender
File Number(s):	2014/303110
Publication restriction:	No publication of the names of the victims or anything that might identify them, including the name of the township.