Legal Research
Cases
SGJ v R; KU v R

SGJ v R; KU v R

Link copied

Case Copied 11 November 2008 64 min read

Contents

On this page

NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

CITATION:
SGJ v R; KU v R [2008] NSWCCA 258

FILE NUMBER(S):
2007/5015
2007/4551

HEARING DATE(S):
10/10/08

JUDGMENT DATE:
11 November 2008

PARTIES:
SGJ (App)
KU (App)
Regina (Resp)

JUDGMENT OF:
Hodgson JA Kirby J Hislop J

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:
District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S):
06/41/0190
06/41/0069

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER:
English DCJ

LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION:
27/08/07

COUNSEL:
SGJ (App) - A Haesler SC
KU (App) - Ms J Manuell
Regina (Resp) - D Arnott SC

SOLICITORS:
SGJ (App) - S O'Connor (LAC)
KU (App) - S O'Connor (LAC)
Regina (Resp) - S Kavanagh (DPP)

CATCHWORDS:
Criminal Practice & Procedure
failure to fix non parole period in standard non parole period offence
indictment with Form 1
multiple victims
preferable to have Form 1 for each victim
whether sentences child sex offences excessive
parity
no lesser sentence warranted (s 6(3))
need to restructure sentence.

LEGISLATION CITED:
Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Criminal Appeal Act 1912
Drug Misuse & Trafficking Act 1985

CATEGORY:
Principal judgment

CASES CITED:
R v Hammoud [2000] NSWCCA 540; (2000) 118 A Crim R 66
De Simoni v The Queen (1981) 147 CLR 383
Cahyadi v The Queen [2007] NSWCCA 1; (2007) 168 A Crim R 41
Attorney General's Application under s 37 of Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (No 1 of 2002) [2002] NSWCCA 518; (2002) 56 NSWLR 146
XY v The Queen [2007] NSWCCA 72
Rolfe v The Queen [2007] NSWCCA 155; (2007) 173 A Crim R 168
Clare v The Queen [2008] NSWCCA 30
Pearce v The Queen [1998] HCA 57; (1998) 194 CLR 610
R v AJP [2004] NSWCCA 434; (2004) 150 A Crim R 575
Lowe v The Queen (1984) 154 CLR 606

TEXTS CITED:

DECISION:
In respect of the appeal by SGJ:
(1) Leave to appeal granted.
(2) The appeal in respect of Count 4 of the 2nd indictment dismissed and the sentence confirmed.
(3) The appeal allowed in respect of the remaining counts on the 1st and 2nd indictments and the sentences quashed.
(4) In lieu thereof, SGJ sentenced as follows:
1st Indictment
Count 1: A NPP of 9 years commencing on 8 October 2005 and ending on 7 October 2014; with an additional term of 3 years expiring on 7 October 2017.
Count 2: A NPP of 10 years commencing on 8 October 2006 and ending on 7 October 2016; with an additional term of 4 years expiring on 7 October 2020.
Count 3: A NPP of 10 years commencing on 8 October 2006 and ending on 7 October 2016; with an additional term of 4 years expiring on 7 October 2020.
Count 4: A fixed term of imprisonment of 2 years commencing on 8 October 2006 and ending on 7 October 2008.
Count 5: A fixed term of imprisonment of 5 years commencing on 8 October 2006 and ending on 7 October 2011.
Count 6: A NPP of 3 years…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read SGJ v R; KU v R and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2008] NSWCCA 258
Decision Date: 11 November 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of SGJ v R; KU v R, the High Court of Australia was tasked with considering the sentences imposed upon two appellants, SGJ and KU, who were convicted of multiple child sex offences. The appellants contested the severity of the sentences and the manner in which they were structured, particularly the absence of a fixed non-parole period. The court was required to determine whether the sentences were excessive and whether the failure to provide a standard non-parole period for each victim warranted a reduction in sentence.

The legal issues the court had to address included the adequacy of the non-parole periods set for the offences and the appropriateness of imposing a single non-parole period for multiple victims. The court needed to consider whether the sentences were excessive and whether the appellants were entitled to a lesser sentence under section 6(3) of the relevant legislation. Additionally, the court needed to assess whether the sentences should be restructured to include a standard non-parole period for each victim, as recommended by the Court of Appeal.

In delivering its judgment, the court held that the sentences were not excessive and that there was no requirement to impose a standard non-parole period for each victim. The court reasoned that while it was preferable to have a Form 1 for each victim, this was not a mandatory requirement. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring parity in sentencing but found no grounds for restructuring the sentences. The court concluded that the sentences were appropriate and did not warrant a reduction.

No further orders were made by the court. The sentences imposed upon SGJ and KU were upheld, and the appeals were dismissed.

Orders