Regina v Booth - [2000] NSWCCA 239

CITATION: REGINA v BOOTH [2000] NSWCCA 239

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60753/98

HEARING DATE(S): 29 May 2000

JUDGMENT DATE:
29 May 2000

PARTIES :

Regina v Rodric David Booth

JUDGMENT OF: Sully J at 18; Adams J at 1

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 98/21/0124

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Latham DCJ

COUNSEL : D C Frearson (Crown)
J S Andrews (Applicant)

SOLICITORS: S E O'Connor (Crown)
T A Murphy (Applicant)

LEGISLATION CITED: Criminal Appeal Act 1912
Sentencing Act 1989

CASES CITED:
Regina v AGR (unreported, NSWCCA, 24 July 1998)

DECISION: Leave to appeal granted; Substantive appeal dismissed

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

60753/98

SULLY J
ADAMS J

MONDAY 29 MAY 2000

REGINA v RODRIC DAVID BOOTH
JUDGMENT
1 ADAMS J: The appellant, who is fifty-four years of age, was sentenced in November 1998 in the District Court at Parramatta in respect of fifteen charges of inappropriate sexual relations with a boy who was aged nine when the offences started. 2 They occurred over a period of about seven years, relatively more frequently in the earlier years and becoming rarer as the boy got older and as he felt no longer willing to involve himself in the sexual activities and was able to intimate this to the appellant. The circumstances did not involve any violence or threat of any kind nor did the appellant ever attempt to frighten the complainant from exposing their behaviour. It was clear, however, in the circumstances that the complainant knew that he should not tell his parents what was happening and that subtly or otherwise this was due to the appellant. 3 I should state at the outset that I do not regard these crimes as any more heinous because the complainant was a boy. The law prohibits, and rightly so, sexual exploitation of the young, and it matters not whether those relations be heterosexual or homosexual. They are exploitive. They are, in a very real sense, oppressive and carry a substantial risk of permanent harm to the psycho-sexual development of persons who the community has a duty to protect. 4 It is unnecessary for present purposes to describe the sexual behaviour in detail. They involve the appellant placing hands on the complainant's private parts, attempts to have anal intercourse and oral sex. They occurred on occasions when pornographic material was provided to the complainant and over the years comprised a form of illegal, morally culpable and potentially very dangerous sexual education. 5 It appears that whilst the appellant must have known that these acts were criminal he did not, at least until after his arrest, see them as immoral. I have no doubt that there are some men in the community who still think the way this appellant did before his arrest. Insofar as the law is able to correct this view, it should do so and, accordingly, in cases of this kind, the element of general deterrence is substantially, if not overwhelmingly, the most significant aspect of sentencing.…

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 Regina v Booth

Details

AGLC: Regina v Booth [2000] NSWCCA 239
Case: [2000] NSWCCA 239
Decision Date: 29 May 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Regina v Booth, the appellant, Rodric David Booth, was sentenced in the District Court at Parramatta for fifteen charges of inappropriate sexual relations with a boy who was nine years old when the offences began. The sexual acts occurred over a period of seven years, with the frequency of the acts reducing as the boy grew older and expressed a lack of willingness to continue. The Court of Criminal Appeal considered whether the sentence imposed was excessive and if there were any errors in the sentencing process. The court examined the nature of the offences, the appellant's plea of guilty and his contrition, as well as the impact of the appellant's previous sexual abuse on his actions. The court concluded that despite some inaccuracies in the description of the frequency of the offences, the sentence imposed was appropriate given the severity of the crimes and the appellant's culpability.

The key legal issues before the Court of Criminal Appeal were whether the sentence was excessive, whether the sentencing judge erred in describing the nature of the offences, and if the sentencing judge appropriately considered the appellant's plea of guilty, contrition and history of sexual abuse. The court found that the sentencing judge had appropriately considered the appellant's guilty plea and contrition by imposing a reduced sentence, and that the nature of the offences warranted the sentences passed. The court also found that any errors in describing the frequency of the offences were not material to the overall sentence imposed. In addition, the court found that the sentencing judge had appropriately taken into account the appellant's need to serve his sentence in protection, which constitutes a considerable level of hardship.

Orders