RJT v R

Case [2012] NSWCCA 280 14 December 2012

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: RJT v R [2012] NSWCCA 280
Hearing dates: 30 October 2012
Decision date: 14 December 2012
Before: Basten JA at [1]
Adams J at [13]
R A Hulme J at [14]
Decision:
(1) Grant leave to appeal.
(2) Allow the appeal.
(3) Quash the sentences imposed in the District Court on 29 July 2011.
(4) Sentence the applicant:
(a) On count 1, to imprisonment comprising a non-parole period of 4 years to date from 15 April 2011 with a balance of the term of the sentence of 2 years 3 months. The non-parole period expires on 14 April 2015. The total term of the sentence expires on 14 July 2017.
(b) On count 2, to imprisonment comprising a non-parole period of 4 years 10 months to date from 15 April 2012 with a balance of the term of the sentence of 3 years 2 months. The non-parole period expires on 14 February 2017 when the offender will become eligible for release on parole. The total term of the sentence is to expire on 14 April 2020.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - appeal against sentence - sexual assaults upon child - assistance to authorities - Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) s 23 - assistance by reporting historical child sexual assault offences of which offender was the victim - subsequent assistance in investigation and implicit undertaking to give evidence - assistance provided after commission of offender's own offences but before being charged - public policy rationale for reducing sentences on account of assistance - whether reduction of sentence available when offender assists as a victim of crime
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 NSW)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Amendment Act 2010 (NSW)
Criminal Legislation Amendment Act 1992 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Ballard v R [2011] NSWCCA 193
FS v R [2009] NSWCCA 301; (2009) 198 A Crim R 383
Isaac v R [2012] NSWCCA 195
R v Calderoni [2000] NSWCCA 511
R v Cartwright (1989) NSWLR 243
R v Downey (1997) 97 A Crim R 41
R v Fernando [2004] NSWCCA 147
R v Gallagher (1991) 23 NSWLR 220
R v Golding (1980) 24 SASR 161
R v James and Sharman (1913) 9 Cr App R 142
R v Lowe (1977) 66 Cr App R 122
R v Many (1990) 51 A Crim R 54
R v Perez-Vargas (1986) 8 NSWLR 559
R v Qutami [2001] NSWCCA 353; (2001) 127 A Crim R 369
R v Sinfield (1981) 3 Cr App R (S) 258
R v Sukkar [2006] NSWCCA 92; (2006) 172 A Crim R 151
Raad v R [2011] NSWCCA 138
Texts Cited: New South Wales Legislative Assembly, Second Reading, Crimes Amendment Bill (Hansard) 18 April 1991
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: RJT (Applicant)
Regina (Respondent)
Representation: Counsel:
Mr T Gartelmann (Applicant)
Ms H Wilson (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Legal Aid NSW
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

File Number(s): 2010/20313
Publication restriction: Nothing may be published that…

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 RJT v R

Details

AGLC: RJT v R [2012] NSWCCA 280
Case: [2012] NSWCCA 280
Decision Date: 14 December 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this matter, RJT was convicted of multiple sexual offences against a child and appealed against the sentence imposed by the District Court. The appeal was heard by the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal. The central issue before the court was whether the trial judge was correct to reduce the sentence of the appellant for providing assistance to the authorities in relation to historical child sexual assault offences of which the appellant was a victim. The appellant argued that the assistance provided should not have been taken into account under section 23 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), as it related to offences of which he was the victim, not the perpetrator.

The court considered the public policy rationale for reducing sentences on account of assistance. The court examined the legislative intent behind section 23, which provides for a reduction in sentence for offenders who assist the authorities in relation to an offence. The court noted that while the provision generally applies to offenders who assist in relation to offences of which they are the perpetrator, it does not expressly exclude victims of crime from eligibility. The court held that the public policy rationale for reducing sentences on account of assistance applies equally to victims who assist authorities, as such assistance promotes the discovery and prosecution of crime and encourages cooperation with law enforcement. The court found that the trial judge was correct to consider the appellant’s assistance in reducing his sentence.

The court affirmed the decision of the District Court and dismissed the appeal. The appellant's sentence was upheld, reflecting the trial judge's consideration of the appellant's substantial assistance to the authorities. The court's decision clarifies that victims of crime who assist authorities in the investigation or prosecution of offences may be eligible for a reduction in sentence under section 23 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW).

Orders