RJA v R

The defendant, RJA, appealed against the sentence imposed by the District Court of New South Wales for a sexual assault of a child under 10 years of age. The court was required to determine whether the sentencing judge erred in imposing a greater sentence for a less serious offence. The defendant argued that the sentencing judge had failed to properly consider statutory mitigating factors and had double-counted the age of the victim as a statutory aggravating factor.

The court considered whether the sentencing judge had erred in imposing a greater sentence for the less serious offence. The court noted that the sentencing judge had taken into account the statutory aggravating factors, including the age of the victim, and the statutory mitigating factors, including the risk of re-offending. The court found that the sentencing judge had not erred in imposing a greater sentence for the less serious offence. The court held that the sentencing judge had properly considered the statutory mitigating factors and had not double-counted the age of the victim as a statutory aggravating factor.

The court further considered the standard non-parole period for the offence and held that the middle range of objective seriousness was appropriate, taking into account the degree of penetration. The court found that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive or inadequate.

The court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the sentence imposed by the District Court. The court held that the sentencing judge had properly considered all relevant factors and had not erred in imposing the sentence. The court noted that the sentence reflected the seriousness of the offence and the need to protect the community.