R v Wilson

Case [2024] NSWDC 593


District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Wilson [2024] NSWDC 593
Hearing dates: 11 October 2024
Date of orders: 11 October 2024
Decision date: 11 October 2024
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Haesler SC DCJ
Decision:

Sentence of imprisonment of 3 years and 4 months with a non‑parole period of 2 years

Catchwords:

CRIME — Child sex offences — Sexual intercourse with child >14 <16 — Circumstances of aggravation

SENTENCING — Aggravating factors — Record of previous convictions — Breach of conditional liberty

SENTENCING — Guidelines for sentencing — Role of guidelines

SENTENCING — Mitigating factors — Plea of guilty

SENTENCING — Penalties — Imprisonment

SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Deterrence — Form 1 offences — Moral culpability — Objective seriousness

SENTENCING — Sentencing procedure — Instinctive synthesis

SENTENCING — Subjective considerations on sentence — Aboriginal offender — Drug addiction — Mental illness — Multiple mental disorders — Acquired brain injury — Psychotic episode —

Assaulted in custody — Institutional and other childhood sexual abuse — Deprived childhood —Intergenerational trauma

Legislation Cited:

Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW)

Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)

Cases Cited:

Attorney General's Application under s 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 No 1 of 2002 [2002] NSWCCA 518; (2002) 56 NSWLR 146

Bell v R [2019] NSWCCA 251

Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; (2013) 249 CLR 571

Decision restricted [2023] NSWCCA 10

Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1; [2010] NSWCCA 194

Engert v R (1995) 84 A Crim R 67

Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25; (2005) 228 CLR 357

Nasrallah v R [2021] NSWCCA 207

Nelson v R [2016] NSWCCA 130

Paterson v R [2021] NSWCCA 273

R v Gavel [2014] NSWCCA 56

R v Herring (1956) 73 WN (NSW) 203

R v Windle [2012] NSWCCA 222

R vVan Ryn [2016] NSWCCA 1

Ryan v The Queen [2001] HCA 21; (2001) 206 CLR 267

Tepania v R [2018] NSWCCA 247

Texts Cited:

Commonwealth, Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse: Final Report - Volume 3 Impacts, (2017)

Category:Sentence
Parties: Glenn Thomas Wilson (the offender)
Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)
Representation:

Counsel:
J Cooper (for the offender)

Solicitors:
Karim and Nicol Lawyers (for the offender)
J Buckner solicitor for Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)
File Number(s): 2023/165203
Publication restriction: Pursuant to s 15A Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW), there is to be no publication of any information, picture, or other material that identifies or is likely to lead to the identification of the child victim in this case. All identifying information has been removed from this judgment to comply with the statute and pseudonyms have been used for the name of the child.

JUDGMENT – ex tempore revised

Facts for sentence

  1. Glenn Wilson, who was born in 1986, lived in Wilcannia. The complainant in this matter lived in Broken Hill. She was born in 2007. She…

Continue reading R v Wilson

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Wilson [2024] NSWDC 593
Case
[2024] NSWDC 593
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Wilson, was convicted of sexual intercourse with a child aged over fourteen years but under sixteen years, contrary to section 133(1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, where the primary judge, Hamill J, sentenced the appellant to a term of imprisonment of three years and four months, with a non-parole period of two years. The appeal against sentence was dismissed by the Court of Criminal Appeal, which upheld the primary judge’s approach to sentencing.

The court considered several legal issues, including the role of sentencing guidelines, the influence of aggravating and mitigating factors, and the appropriate penalty for the offence. The appellant argued that the primary judge had misapplied the sentencing guidelines and had not adequately considered the mitigating factors, including his plea of guilty, drug addiction, mental illness, and history of abuse. The court rejected these arguments, finding that the primary judge had correctly applied the principles of sentencing and had given appropriate weight to the mitigating factors.

The Court of Criminal Appeal held that the primary judge had properly exercised the instinctive synthesis approach, balancing the aggravating and mitigating factors to arrive at an appropriate sentence. The court found that the primary judge had appropriately considered the objective seriousness of the offence, the appellant’s moral culpability, and the need for deterrence. The court also found that the primary judge had correctly identified the appellant’s criminal history, including a breach of conditional liberty, as an aggravating factor. The court rejected the argument that the primary judge had failed to consider the appellant’s drug addiction and mental illness as mitigating factors, finding that the primary judge had given appropriate weight to these factors in determining the sentence.

The Court of Criminal Appeal dismissed the appeal against sentence and affirmed the sentence of imprisonment of three years and four months, with a non-parole period of two years. The court held that the primary judge’s sentence was within the range of appropriate penalties for the offence and that the appellant’s arguments did not provide sufficient grounds for the court to interfere with the primary judge’s sentencing decision.

Orders

Orders of the court

Sentence of imprisonment of 3 years and 4 months with a non‑parole period of 2 years

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.