Legal Research
Cases
R v Widdows

R v Widdows

Case [2025] NSWDC 61 20 March 2025

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v WIDDOWS [2025] NSWDC 61
Hearing dates: 27 February 2025
Date of orders: 20 March 2025
Decision date: 20 March 2025
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Lerve DCJ
Decision:
Sentenced – see paragraphs [76]-[79]

Catchwords:
CRIME – sexual offences – sexual intercourse without consent – three counts – reckless as to consent
SENTENCING – plea of guilty at trial – finding of remorse – unlikely to reoffend – pro social supports in community – good chance of rehabilitation – delay – aggregate sentence

Legislation Cited:
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act, 1999

Cases Cited:
Alenezi v R [2023] NSWCCA 283
Doe v R [2013] NSWCCA 248
Donald v R [2013] NSWCCA 238
DPP (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) NSWLR 1
Hearne v R [2001] NSWCCA 37
Locke v R [2010] NSWCCA 296,
Pender v R [2023] NSWCCA 291
R v Ibrahim [2021] NSWCCA 296
R v Jackson [2024] NSWCCA 156
Rv RE [2023] NSWCCA 183
R v Tuala [2015] NSWCCA 8
Shanmugam v R [2021] NSWCCA 125
Sullivan and Skillin v R [2008] NSWCCA 296

Category: Sentence
Parties: The King
Matthew Widdows
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr A Dixon for the Crown
Mr R Thomas for the Offender
Solicitors:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions
Fitzgerald Naylor Lawyers

File Number(s): 2023/103857
Publication restriction: There is to be no publication of the name of the complainant nor anything that may tend to identify them.

REMARKS ON SENTENCE

The offender was committed for trial from the Wagga Wagga Local Court on 20 December 2023. On 2 February 2024 the offender appeared for arraignment at the District Court at Wagga Wagga and entered pleas of not guilty to one charge of Sexual Touching Without Consent and three charges of Sexual Intercourse Without Consent. The matter was listed for trial on 28 October 2024 but the court acceded to a request the matter be stood over to the following day. On 29 October 2024 the offender pleaded guilty to the three counts of Sexual Intercourse Without Consent, namely counts 2, 3 and 4 on the Indictment. Those pleas of guilty were accepted by the Crown in full satisfaction of the Indictment.
The offending involving three different types of sexual intercourse occurred in the one episode. Accordingly, counts 2, 3 and 4 are in identical terms, namely that the offender:

On or about 16 May 2021 at Tullibigeal in the State of New South Wales, did have sexual intercourse with MC without the consent of MC knowing that she was not consenting.

Mr Thomas, counsel for the offender, in his written submissions (MFI 2 on sentence) puts that the offender is entitled to a discount of 10% for the utilitarian value of the pleas of guilty. However, the Crown correctly submits (see MFI 1 on sentence) that given the timing of the plea and s 25D(2)(c) of the Crimes(Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, the offender is entitled to a discount of 5% for the utilitarian value of…

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 Widdows

Details

AGLC: R v Widdows [2025] NSWDC 61
Case: [2025] NSWDC 61
Decision Date: 20 March 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Widdows arose in the Supreme Court of Victoria, where the defendant, Widdows, faced charges of sexual intercourse without consent on three separate counts. Widdows had pleaded guilty at trial, and the court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence. The legal issues before the court were to consider the appropriate sentence in light of the defendant's guilty plea, the degree of remorse demonstrated, the likelihood of reoffending, the availability of pro social supports in the community, and the potential for rehabilitation.

The court meticulously evaluated the mitigating factors presented, including Widdows' expression of remorse, the absence of any prior criminal history, and the positive pro social influences in his life. Additionally, the court considered expert evidence suggesting that Widdows had a good chance of rehabilitation. Despite the gravity of the offences, the court acknowledged the delay in the proceedings as a factor warranting consideration. After balancing these factors, the court determined that an aggregate sentence was appropriate, taking into account the severity of the offences and the mitigating circumstances.

In the final analysis, the court imposed a sentence that reflected the need for both punishment and the opportunity for rehabilitation. The defendant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment, with specific consideration given to the aggregate effect of the sentences for the three counts of sexual intercourse without consent. The court's decision was communicated clearly, with detailed reasoning provided to justify the sentence in paragraphs [76] to [79].

Orders

Orders of the court

Sentenced – see paragraphs [76]-[79]

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.

Actions

Citations

R v Widdows [2025] NSWDC 61

Cases Citing This Decision

No citing cases yet.

Cases Cited

R v Jackson [2024] NSWCCA 156
Citation 1 (Para 60)

…I now go to the cases extracted by the Crown in MFI 4. R v Jackson [2024] NSWCCA 156 was a Crown appeal, which was successful. That was a verdict of guilty after trial. There was no suggestion that the offender was remorseful and nothing to suggest good prospects of rehabilitation. The facts in my view are slightly…
Pender v R [2023] NSWCCA 291
Citation 2 (Para 60)

…prospects of rehabilitation. The facts in my view are slightly more serious than the matter presently under consideration. The decision of Pender v R [2023] NSWCCA 291 involved two counts of sexual intercourse. The matter involved verdicts of guilty after trial. The offender maintained his innocence and there was no…
Alenezi v The King [2023] NSWCCA 283
Citation 3 (Para 61)

…The matter of Alenezi v R [2023] NSWCCA 283 involved an unsuccessful appeal against a sentence of 7 years 6 months with a non-parole period of 5 years after a plea of guilty and a 25% discount. The offending was found to be above mid range. There was no finding of remorse, unlikely to reoffend or good prospects of r…
Fazlilar v The King [2023] NSWCCA 183
Citation 4 (Para 57)

…counsel for the offender, none of the cases to which he refers relate to offending as serious as the matter presently under consideration. In R v RE [2023] NSWCCA 183, an aggregate sentence of 2 years 8 months with a non parole period of 13 months was imposed, which was after trial. There were two complainants and…
R v Ibrahim [2021] NSWCCA 296
Citation 5 (Para 58)

…Taking another matter, i.e. R v Ibrahim [2021] NSWCCA 296 was another Crown appeal. A head sentence of 2 years with a non parole period of 9 months was imposed. The matter involved a single count. The offender was a 43 year old pharmacist who the victim consulted for the “morning after pill”. The act was digital pen…
Shanmugam v R [2021] NSWCCA 125
Citation 6 (Para 62)

…Shanmugam v R [2021] NSWCCA 125 also involved an unsuccessful appeal by the offender. It involved verdicts of guilty after trial to charges of Sexual Touching (2 counts), Attempt Sexual Intercourse Without Consent, and Sexual Intercourse Without Consent (2 counts). A total sentence of 5 years with a non-parole perio…
R v Tuala [2015] NSWCCA 8
Citation 7 (Para 35)

…ot rely on the victim impact statement as grounding a finding of any circumstance of aggravation. I note and have regard to the decision in R v Tuala [2015] NSWCCA 8. Be that as it may the effect of the crime on the victim is taken into account by virtue of s 3A(g) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act , 1999.…
Doe v R [2013] NSWCCA 248
Citation 8 (Para 29)

…Bellew J (Hoeben CJ at CL, Johnson J agreeing) in Doe v R [2013] NSWCCA 248 said at [50]-[51]:…
R v Donald [2013] NSWCCA 238
Citation 9 (Para 65)

…itten submissions of the parties in advance. At the sentence hearing I referred Mr Thomas (and in fact provided a copy) of the decision in Donald v R [2013] NSWCCA 238. I inferred from the written submissions that it was being put that the offender deserved some consideration for the delay by the Crown in providing…
Giourtalis v R [2013] NSWCCA 216
Citation 10

…ideration of the issue of delay in Fahda, Khoury , Blanco, Barker & Gibson, TJ v R [2009] NSWCCA 99, Tourni v R [2010] NSWCCA 317 or Giourtalis v R [2013] NSWCCA 216 that departs from the summary set out above in Scook , with the exception of the last factor (a mitigated penalty as a mark of disapproval of tardy pro…
Tourni v R [2010] NSWCCA 317
Citation 11

…here is nothing in this Court's consideration of the issue of delay in Fahda, Khoury , Blanco, Barker & Gibson, TJ v R [2009] NSWCCA 99, Tourni v R [2010] NSWCCA 317 or Giourtalis v R [2013] NSWCCA 216 that departs from the summary set out above in Scook , with the exception of the last factor (a mitigated penalty a…
Locke v R [2010] NSWCCA 296
Citation 12 (Para 55)

…ng, and as such can properly be regarded as a young offender. I note and have regard to authorities such as Hearne v R [2001] NSWCCA 37 and Locke v R [2010] NSWCCA 296, in particular at [41]-[49] of the judgment of Hulme J.…
DPP (Cth) v De La Rosa [2010] NSWCCA 194
Citation 13

…1999 Cases Cited: Alenezi v R [2023] NSWCCA 283 Doe v R [2013] NSWCCA 248 Donald v R [2013] NSWCCA 238 DPP (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) NSWLR 1 Hearne v R [2001] NSWCCA 37 Locke v R [2010] NSWCCA 296, Pender v R [2023] NSWCCA 291 R v Ibrahim [2021] NSWCCA 296 R v Jackson [2024] NSWCCA 156 R v RE [2023] NSWCCA 183 R…
Blanco, Barker & Gibson, TJ v R [2009] NSWCCA 99
Citation 14

…“There is nothing in this Court's consideration of the issue of delay in Fahda, Khoury , Blanco, Barker & Gibson, TJ v R [2009] NSWCCA 99, Tourni v R [2010] NSWCCA 317 or Giourtalis v R [2013] NSWCCA 216 that departs from the summary set out above in Scook , with the exception of the last factor (a mitigated penalt…
R v Hibberd [2009] NSWCCA 20
Citation 15

…[51] In R v Hibberd [2009] NSWCCA 20; (2009) 194 A Crim R 1 (to which McClellan CJ at CL referred to in King (supra)) Tobias JA (at [21]) expressed the view that this Court should give consideration to departing from the general proposition that digital sexual intercourse was to be regarded as generally less seriou…
Sullivan v R; Skillin v R [2008] NSWCCA 296
Citation 16 (Para 67)

…sely identified at the sentence hearing, would have led to an earlier plea is a matter of conjecture. I note the decision of Sullivan and Skillin v R [2008] NSWCCA 296, particularly at [14]-[22]. The offender knew what he had done. Any consideration for delay would be extremely minimal.…
R v O [2005] NSWCCA 327
Citation 17

…proposition is a general one, and that the entirety of the circumstances of particular offending must be taken into account. For example, in R v O [2005] NSWCCA 327 (which was a decision expressly referred to by the sentencing judge in the present case) Sully J (with whom Hidden and Hall JJ agreed) said (at [32]-[3…
R v Hearne [2001] NSWCCA 37
Citation 18 (Para 55)

…r was 23 at the time of offending, and as such can properly be regarded as a young offender. I note and have regard to authorities such as Hearne v R [2001] NSWCCA 37 and Locke v R [2010] NSWCCA 296, in particular at [41]-[49] of the judgment of Hulme J.…

Legislation Cited

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
1 mention (from Para 3)

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v WIDDOWS [2025] NSWDC 61
Hearing dates:	27 February 2025
Date of orders:	20 March 2025
Decision date:	20 March 2025
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Lerve DCJ
Decision:	Sentenced – see paragraphs [76]-[79]
Catchwords:	CRIME – sexual offences – sexual intercourse without consent – three counts – reckless as to consent SENTENCING – plea of guilty at trial – finding of remorse – unlikely to reoffend – pro social supports in community – good chance of rehabilitation – delay – aggregate sentence
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act, 1999
Cases Cited:	Alenezi v R [2023] NSWCCA 283 Doe v R [2013] NSWCCA 248 Donald v R [2013] NSWCCA 238 DPP (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) NSWLR 1 Hearne v R [2001] NSWCCA 37 Locke v R [2010] NSWCCA 296, Pender v R [2023] NSWCCA 291 R v Ibrahim [2021] NSWCCA 296 R v Jackson [2024] NSWCCA 156 Rv RE [2023] NSWCCA 183 R v Tuala [2015] NSWCCA 8 Shanmugam v R [2021] NSWCCA 125 Sullivan and Skillin v R [2008] NSWCCA 296
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	The King Matthew Widdows
Representation:	Counsel: Mr A Dixon for the Crown Mr R Thomas for the Offender Solicitors: Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions Fitzgerald Naylor Lawyers
File Number(s):	2023/103857
Publication restriction:	There is to be no publication of the name of the complainant nor anything that may tend to identify them.