R v WC

Case [2013] NSWDC 197


District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v WC [2013] NSWDC 197
Hearing dates:14 January 2013, 8 March 2013, 28 March 2013
Decision date: 15 April 2013
Before: Letherbarrow SC DCJ
Decision:

Sentenced to a total term of imprisonment of five years and six months with an effective non-parole period of three years and six months.

Catchwords: CRIME - Sentencing - aggravated sexual assault - relevance of statistics - offender's physical and mental health - protective custody - objective seriousness post Muldrock - relevance of good character in child sex cases
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900, s61M(2)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, s44(2)
Crimes Amendment (Sexual Offences) Act 2008
Cases Cited: R v AEM and others (2002) NSWCCA58
RWNB v R (2010) 202 ACrimR 209
Muldrock v the Queen [2011] 244CLR120
Stewart v R [2012] NSWCCA183
Bondwick v R [2010] NSWCCA 177
R v Rule (unreported) 25 November 1995 NSWCCA
R v PVM (2008) 187 ACrimR 29
Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357
Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610
Category:Sentence
Parties: Director of Public Prosecutions - Crown
WC - Offender
Representation: Director of Public Prosecutions
Ms K Stares
Director of Public Prosecutions
Mr A Reetov - Legal Aid NSW
File Number(s):2011/00268820
Publication restriction:Non-publication order as to names of complainant and accused

Judgment

Introduction

  1. On 8 November 2012 the offender was found guilty at his trial before a jury at Parramatta District Court in relation to the three counts in the indictment presented against him. All three counts were offences of aggravated indecent assault laid pursuant to s 61M(2) of the Crimes Act for which the maximum penalty is ten years imprisonment. The legislation also provides for a standard non-parole period of eight years. These offences were committed by the offender on his stepdaughter, the complainant, in August 2011. The circumstance of aggravation in relation to each count was that the complainant was then aged under sixteen years of age, namely, twelve years. The offender was then aged thirty-nine.

The Sentence Hearing

  1. Upon being found guilty I revoked the offender's bail and stood over his sentence hearing until 14 January 2013 at Sydney. On that date the offender became unwell after arriving at court but before the sentence hearing began and was taken to hospital. As a result, the sentence hearing was adjourned to Parramatta on 8 March last. On that occasion, the offender was represented, as he was at trial, by Ms Stares of counsel. The Crown Prosecutor who ran the trial was then unavailable and Ms Jeffery appeared in her place.

  1. At the outset of the sentence hearing, the complainant read a victims impact statement, a copy of which became exhibit A. The Crown also tendered a copy of the offender's criminal and custodial histories which became exhibits B and C. On behalf of the offender a psychological report from Ms Rima Nasr, dated 21 December 2012 and a report from Dr Calvin Hsieh, cardiologist, dated 20 February 2013,…

Continue reading R v WC

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v WC [2013] NSWDC 197
Case
[2013] NSWDC 197
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant, WC, faced the Supreme Court of [State] charged with aggravated sexual assault. The victim was a child under the age of 16. The court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence for the offence, taking into account various mitigating and aggravating factors, including the defendant's physical and mental health, the need for protective custody, and the relevance of good character in child sex cases.

The legal issues before the court involved assessing the objective seriousness of the offence in light of the established principles, and determining the appropriate term and non-parole period for the defendant's imprisonment. The court had to balance the severity of the crime against the defendant's health issues and the possibility of rehabilitation, while also considering the need to protect the defendant from potential harm within the prison system.

In delivering the judgment, the court noted the significant trauma experienced by the victim and the severe breach of trust inherent in the offence. Despite acknowledging the defendant's good character and health issues, the court found that these factors did not sufficiently mitigate the gravity of the crime. The court emphasised the importance of deterrence and the need to protect the community from further harm. Ultimately, the court sentenced the defendant to a total term of imprisonment of five years and six months, with an effective non-parole period of three years and six months. This sentence reflects the court's consideration of both the aggravating and mitigating factors present in the case.

Orders

Orders of the court

Sentenced to a total term of imprisonment of five years and six months with an effective non-parole period of three years and six months.

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.