SAT v R

Case [2009] NSWCCA 172 30 June 2009

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

New South Wales
Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: SAT v R [2009] NSWCCA 172

HEARING DATE(S): 08/04/2009

JUDGMENT DATE:
30 June 2009

JUDGMENT OF: Grove J at 1; Howie J at 2; Buddin J at 3

DECISION: 1 Grant leave to appeal.
2 Allow the appeal.
3 Quash the sentences imposed in the District Court and in substitution therefore impose the following sentences:
(a) in respect of count 1, sentence the applicant to a fixed term of imprisonment of 2 years to commence on 11 December 2006 and to expire on 10 December 2008.
(b) in respect of count 5, sentence the applicant to a fixed term of imprisonment of 3 years to commence on 11 December 2007 and to expire on 10 December 2010.
(c) in respect of count 6, sentence the applicant to a fixed term of imprisonment of 3 years to commence on 11 December 2007 and to expire on 10 December 2010.
(d) in respect of count 7, sentence the applicant to a fixed term of 2 years 6 months to commence on 11 December 2007 and to expire on 10 June 2010.
(e) in respect of count 8, sentence the applicant to a fixed term of 2 years 6 months to commence on 11 December 2007 and to expire on 10 June 2010.
(f) in respect of count 3, sentence the applicant to a non-parole period of 6 years to commence on 11 December 2007 and to expire on 10 December 2013 with a total term of 9 years imprisonment to expire on 10 December 2016.
(g) in respect of count 4, sentence the applicant to a non-parole period of 6 years to commence on 11 December 2007 and to expire on 10 December 2013 with a total term of 9 years imprisonment to expire on 10 December 2016.
(h) in respect of count 2, and taking into account the matters on the Form 1 document, sentence the applicant to a non-parole period of 6 years to commence on 11 December 2007 and to expire on 10 December 2013 with a total term of imprisonment of 9 years 6 months to expire on 10 June 2017.
(i) The applicant will be eligible for release to parole on 10 December 2013. The total effective sentence consists of a non-parole period of 7 years with a total term of imprisonment of 10 years 6 months.

CATCHWORDS: Criminal law - sentencing - aiding and abetting sexual intercourse with a child under 10 (x3) - using a child under 14 for pornographic purposes (x3) - producing and disseminating child pornography - pleas of guilty and assistance to authorities - whether sentences manifestly excessive - relevance of standard non-parole for offences of aiding and abetting

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

CATEGORY: Principal judgment

CASES CITED: DAC v R [2006] NSWCCA 265
Diesing & Ors v R [2007] NSWCCA 326
DJB v R, R v DJB [2007] NSWCCA 209
GAS & SJK v The Queen (2004)…

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 SAT v R

Details

AGLC: SAT v The Queen [2009] NSWCCA 172
Case: [2009] NSWCCA 172
Decision Date: 30 June 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, SAT, was convicted for aiding and abetting sexual intercourse with a child under the age of 10 on three separate occasions, as well as for using a child under 14 for pornographic purposes on three separate occasions. SAT was also convicted for producing and disseminating child pornography. SAT entered pleas of guilty to all charges and provided significant assistance to the authorities. SAT's appeal against sentence was dismissed by the Court of Appeal, and SAT now seeks special leave to appeal to the High Court. The central issue for determination was whether the sentences imposed by the primary judge were manifestly excessive.

The Court noted that the primary judge had correctly identified the principles applicable to the sentencing of an offender who aids and abets the commission of a serious indictable offence. The Court held that the primary judge's approach to the sentencing of an offender who aids and abets the commission of a serious indictable offence was correct. The Court noted that the appellant's offending was of a serious and heinous nature, and that the appellant had provided significant assistance to the authorities. The Court held that the sentences imposed by the primary judge were not manifestly excessive. The Court further held that the primary judge had appropriately considered the standard non-parole periods for the offences of aiding and abetting. The Court held that the primary judge had not erred in law or failed to take into account relevant matters in imposing sentence.

The Court dismissed the appeal against sentence, finding that the primary judge's sentencing decision was sound and that the sentences imposed were not manifestly excessive. No special leave to appeal was granted.

Orders