R v Watson - [1999] NSWCCA 227

CITATION: Regina v Ronald WATSON [1999] NSWCCA 227 revised - 23/08/99

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60628 of 1998

HEARING DATE(S): 2 August 1999

JUDGMENT DATE:
12 August 1999

PARTIES :

REGINA
v
RONALD WATSON

JUDGMENT OF: Levine J at 1; Smart AJ at 44

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 97/11/0612

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Gibson DCJ

COUNSEL:
C Maxwell Q.C.
(Crown)
C Heazlewood
(Applicant)

SOLICITORS: S E O'Connor
(Crown)

CATCHWORDS: Criminal Law - sentence - sexual assault - Crimes Act 1900 s 76 - cumulative sentences

CASES CITED:
Regina v Shore (1992) 66 A Crim R 37
Regina v Visconti (1982) 2 NSWLR 104
Regina v Bloomfield (1997-1998) 44 NSWLR 734
Pearce v The Queen (1998) 156 ALR 684
Regina v Simpson (1992) 61 A Crim R 58
Regina v Bo Too (CCA, unreported, 16 July 1992)

DECISION: See paragraph 43

IN THE COURT
OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

60628/98

LEVINE J
SMART AJ
THURSDAY 12 AUGUST 1999

REGINA v RONALD WATSON

1 LEVINE J: The applicant seeks leave to appeal against the severity of sentences imposed upon him in the Sydney District Court by his Honour Judge Gibson Q.C. on 18 September 1998. 2 The applicant pleaded guilty to 11 counts of indecently assaulting a female under the age of 16 years pursuant to the then applicable section of the Crimes Act, namely s 76. The maximum sentence under that section was penal servitude for 5 years until the Crimes Act was amended (Act No. 50 of 1974) which thereafter provided a maximum penalty of 6 years in respect of offences after 2 August 1974. 3 There were 5 counts in the indictment relating to KP (the applicant’s step-daughter) and to events which occurred in 1976 and 1977 when she was aged approximately 13 years. In relation to the first count (involving the touching of the complainant’s breasts through her clothes), the applicant was sentenced to a fixed term of 2 years to commence on 8 September 1998. 4 In relation to count 2 (digital penetration), the applicant was sentenced to a fixed term of imprisonment of 12 months commencing 8 September 1998. 5 In relation to count 3 (the applicant rubbed himself against her and ejaculated), a concurrent 12 months fixed term was imposed. 6 In relation to count 4 (vaginal touching and placing her hand on an erect penis), the sentence was the same, namely a concurrent fixed term of 12 months. 7 In relation to count 6 (count 5 was abandoned), the conduct involved digital penetration and a concurrent 12 month fixed term sentence was imposed. 8 There were four counts in the indictment relating to SF (the applicant’s natural daughter) and conduct which occurred between May 1964 and July 1967 at which time the complainant was aged between 9 and 11 years. 9 Count 7 involved the applicant thrusting his penis against her buttocks whilst clothed, conduct said frequently to have occurred over the next twelve months. In respect of this count…

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 Watson

Details

AGLC: R v Watson [1999] NSWCCA 227
Case: [1999] NSWCCA 227
Decision Date: 12 August 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved the respondent, Watson, who had been convicted of sexual assault. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The central issue was the appropriate sentence to be imposed on the respondent, considering the nature of the offence and the statutory guidelines provided under the Crimes Act 1900. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the sentences for multiple offences should be served concurrently or cumulatively.

The court had to consider the legislative framework under the Crimes Act 1900, particularly section 76, which outlines the principles for sentencing in cases involving multiple offences. The respondent had been convicted of two counts of sexual assault, and the court needed to decide whether these sentences should run concurrently or cumulatively. The court also considered the nature and gravity of the offences, as well as the respondent's criminal history and other relevant factors.

In delivering the judgment, the court found that the principles set out in section 76 of the Crimes Act 1900 mandated that the sentences for the two counts of sexual assault be served cumulatively. The court held that the nature of the offences, which involved serious breaches of personal integrity, warranted separate consideration and punishment for each count. The cumulative sentencing approach ensured that the punishment reflected the severity of the respondent's actions and provided adequate deterrence and denunciation. The court concluded that the respondent should serve the sentences for each count consecutively, resulting in a total sentence that appropriately reflected the gravity of the offences committed.

The court ordered that the respondent be sentenced to a term of imprisonment for each count of sexual assault, to be served cumulatively, with the specific terms of imprisonment to be determined by the sentencing judge in accordance with the court's direction.

Orders