Regina v DJH - [2016] NSWDC 211

District Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Regina v DJH [2016] NSWDC 211
Hearing dates: 9 June 2016
Date of orders: 13 September 2016
Decision date: 13 September 2016
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Lerve DCJ
Decision:
Sentenced to imprisonment

Catchwords: Criminal law – sentencing – child sexual assault – multiple complainants over twenty year period
Legislation Cited: Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Enforcement Act, 1995
Crimes Act, 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Cases Cited: The Attorney General’s Application Under section 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 No. 1 of 2002 (2002) 56 NSWLR 146
AH v The Queen [2015] NSWCCA 51
R v BJW (2000) 112 A Crim R 1
Brown v The Queen [2014] NSWCCA 215
R v Burchell (1987) 34 A Crim R 14
R v CMB [2014] NSWCCA 5 at [46]-[48]
R v MJR (2002) 130 A Crim R 481
R v Muldoon unrep. NSWCCA 13.12.1990
PWB v The Queen [2011] NSWCCA 84
R v Van Ryn [2016] NSWCCA 1
Veen v The Queen (No. 2) 164 CLR 465
Category: Sentence
Parties: Director of Public Prosecutions
DJH
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr L Shaw, Crown Prosecutor
Mr I Nash for and with offender
Solicitor:
Ms Kathryn White, DPP
Mr D Buchanan, Legal Aid Commission

File Number(s): 2014/179129, 2014/179142, 2014/179163, 2014/179170, 2014/233510, 2015/254793
Publication restriction: I direct that there be no publication of the name of any of the complainants or anything that might tend to identify them and given the familial relationship between them and the offender I direct that there be no publication of the name of the offender.

Remarks on Sentence

On 14 October 2015 the offender pleaded guilty before a Magistrate to numerous child sexual assault offences. The matter involves seven different complainants and offences that spanned approximately twenty years. Pleas of guilty were adhered to in the District Court and, accordingly, the offender is entitled to the full 25% discount for the utilitarian pleas of guilty.
In respect of a number of the complainants there is a Form 1 document relating to other offending involving that same complainant. In dealing with the Form 1 matters I acknowledge that I will need to apply and give proper effect to the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal in The Attorney General’s Application Under section 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 No 1 of 2002 (2002) 56 NSWLR 146 otherwise known as the Guideline Judgment on Form 1 matters. Given the nature of the offending to which the matters on the Form 1 documents relate is serious in itself, taken with the number of matters on the Form 1 documents, the matters on the Form 1 documents must have some meaningful impact on the sentence that is ultimately imposed.
A number of the offences on which I am passing sentence carry standard non-parole periods. I will set out the maximum penalties in respect of each offence when dealing individually with the seven victims. In the cases where a standard…

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 DJH

Details

AGLC: Regina v DJH [2016] NSWDC 211
Case: [2016] NSWDC 211
Decision Date: 13 September 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Regina v DJH, the defendant was convicted of multiple counts of child sexual assault involving numerous victims over a period of twenty years. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence for the defendant, who had committed these heinous crimes over a significant period of time.

The legal issues before the court included the gravity of the offences, the number of victims, and the impact of these crimes on each victim. The court had to consider whether the sentence should reflect the cumulative effect of the crimes and the need for general and specific deterrence. Additionally, the court needed to ensure that the sentence met the objectives of denunciation and retribution, while also considering the principles of proportionality and rehabilitation.

The court held that the crimes were of exceptional gravity, given the defendant's repeated offending over a long period, the vulnerability of the victims, and the severe psychological impact on them. The court emphasised the importance of deterrence and the need to send a strong message that such behaviour would not be tolerated. After carefully considering all relevant factors, the court determined that an imprisonment sentence was necessary. The court imposed a sentence that reflected the severity of the crimes and the need to protect the community.

Orders

Orders of the court

Sentenced to imprisonment

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	Regina v DJH [2016] NSWDC 211
Hearing dates:	9 June 2016
Date of orders:	13 September 2016
Decision date:	13 September 2016
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Lerve DCJ
Decision:	Sentenced to imprisonment
Catchwords:	Criminal law – sentencing – child sexual assault – multiple complainants over twenty year period
Legislation Cited:	Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Enforcement Act, 1995 Crimes Act, 1900 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Cases Cited:	The Attorney General’s Application Under section 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 No. 1 of 2002 (2002) 56 NSWLR 146 AH v The Queen [2015] NSWCCA 51 R v BJW (2000) 112 A Crim R 1 Brown v The Queen [2014] NSWCCA 215 R v Burchell (1987) 34 A Crim R 14 R v CMB [2014] NSWCCA 5 at [46]-[48] R v MJR (2002) 130 A Crim R 481 R v Muldoon unrep. NSWCCA 13.12.1990 PWB v The Queen [2011] NSWCCA 84 R v Van Ryn [2016] NSWCCA 1 Veen v The Queen (No. 2) 164 CLR 465
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Director of Public Prosecutions DJH
Representation:	Counsel: Mr L Shaw, Crown Prosecutor Mr I Nash for and with offender Solicitor: Ms Kathryn White, DPP Mr D Buchanan, Legal Aid Commission
File Number(s):	2014/179129, 2014/179142, 2014/179163, 2014/179170, 2014/233510, 2015/254793
Publication restriction:	I direct that there be no publication of the name of any of the complainants or anything that might tend to identify them and given the familial relationship between them and the offender I direct that there be no publication of the name of the offender.