SJ v The Queen

The appellant, SJ, appealed against his sentence following his conviction on 21 charges of indecent acts with a child under 16, 11 charges of sexual penetration of a child under 16, two charges of possessing child pornography, one charge of procuring a minor for child pornography, one charge of producing child pornography, one charge of possession of a drug of dependence, one charge of using a carriage service to make child pornography and one charge of using a carriage service to access child pornography. The respondent, the Crown, accepted that the sentencing judge erred in his approach to the imposition of sentences for serious sexual offences under the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic). The Court of Appeal for the Supreme Court of Victoria was required to decide whether the sentences imposed were manifestly inadequate and whether the approach to sentencing was flawed.

The court considered the principles of sentencing for serious sexual offences under the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) and the proper approach to the imposition of sentences for multiple offences. The court noted that the sentencing judge failed to nominate the commencement dates for the State sentences and nominated a common non-parole period for both State and Commonwealth sentences. The court also noted that the sentencing judge purported to cumulate groups of sentences without specifying a base sentence. The court found that the Crown's concession of error of approach was valid and proceeded to discuss the proper approach to serious sexual offender provisions of the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic). The court found that the sentences imposed were manifestly inadequate and the approach to sentencing was flawed.

The court resentenced the appellant, taking into account the seriousness of the offences and the need for deterrence and denunciation. The court imposed a total effective sentence of 17 years imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 12 years and 9 months. The court also imposed a number of concurrent sentences for the possession of child pornography and drug offences. The court ordered that the sentences for the State offences and the Commonwealth offences be served concurrently, with the commencement dates for the State sentences to be determined by the sentencing judge.