Davies J at [1]; Lonergan J at [2]; Yehia J at [3].
Decision:
(1) Grant leave to appeal.
(2) Allow the appeal.
(3) Quash the sentence imposed on the applicant at Taree District Court on 17 October 2023.
(4) In lieu of the sentence imposed in the District Court, sentence the applicant to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 30 years to commence on 1 June 2022 and expire on 31 May 2052, with a non-parole period of 20 years. The earliest date upon which the applicant will be eligible for release on parole is 31 May 2042.
Catchwords:
Crime – Appeals – Appeal against sentence of 48 years’ imprisonment – Application for leave to appeal – multiple child sexual offences – sexual offending against biological daughters – offending that is “heinous, depraved and appalling” – asserted failure of sentencing judge to take into account the applicant’s own history of child sexual abuse –asserted error in finding the applicant’s mental health issues increase the need for specific deterrence and protection of the community – manifest excess – appeal allowed – applicant resentenced
Solicitors: Legal Aid NSW (Applicant) Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Respondent)
File…
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 RG v The King
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
RG v The King [2025] NSWCCA 36
Case
[2025] NSWCCA 36
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of RG v The King involved an appeal against a sentence of 48 years’ imprisonment imposed on the applicant, RG, for multiple child sexual offences committed against his biological daughters. The applicant, who had also experienced child sexual abuse, sought leave to appeal against the sentence imposed by the sentencing judge. The applicant argued that the sentencing judge failed to consider his history of child sexual abuse and that the judge erred in finding that his mental health issues increased the need for specific deterrence and protection of the community. The High Court of Australia was tasked with determining whether the sentence was manifestly excessive and whether the sentencing judge's failure to consider the applicant's history of child sexual abuse constituted a significant error.
The central legal issues in this appeal were whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive and whether the sentencing judge erred in failing to consider the applicant's history of child sexual abuse and in finding that his mental health issues increased the need for specific deterrence and protection of the community. The court had to consider whether the sentence imposed was so disproportionate as to shock the conscience of the community and whether the sentencing judge's failure to consider the applicant's history of child sexual abuse constituted a significant error that affected the overall fairness of the sentencing process.
The High Court found that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive and that the sentencing judge's failure to consider the applicant's history of child sexual abuse constituted a significant error. The court held that the sentence was so disproportionate as to shock the conscience of the community, and that the sentencing judge's failure to consider the applicant's history of child sexual abuse constituted a significant error that affected the overall fairness of the sentencing process. The court found that the sentencing judge's conclusion that the applicant's mental health issues increased the need for specific deterrence and protection of the community was also an error. The High Court allowed the appeal and remitted the matter to the sentencing court for resentencing.
The High Court's decision resulted in the applicant being resentenced by the sentencing court. The court was required to reconsider the sentence imposed, taking into account the factors identified by the High Court, including the applicant's history of child sexual abuse and the impact of his mental health issues on the need for specific deterrence and protection of the community. The court was also required to ensure that any new sentence imposed was proportionate to the seriousness of the offending and was not manifestly excessive.