Legal Research
Cases
ST v The Queen

ST v The Queen

Case [2017] NSWCCA 245 11 October 2017

Appeal

Aggravated & Exemplary Damages

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: ST v R [2017] NSWCCA 245
Hearing dates: 19 May 2017
Date of orders: 11 October 2017
Decision date: 11 October 2017
Before: Johnson J at [1]
Rothman J at [2]
Lonergan J at [3]
Decision:
1. Leave to appeal granted.
2. Appeal dismissed.

Catchwords: SENTENCE – appeal against sentence – aggravated sexual assault of victim under authority – aggravated sexual intercourse with person older than 14 years but under 16 years – indecent assault on person under 16 years – whether the sentence proceedings miscarried as the indictment not properly presented – whether sentencing judge double counted as an aggravating factor an element of the offence – whether manifestly excessive
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) ss 61J(1), 61M(2), 66C(4)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) s 21A(2), 32, 53A(2)
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW) s 20
Cases Cited: AG v R [2016] NSWCCA 102
Dinsdale v The Queen (2000) 202 CLR 321; 115 A Crim R 558; [2000] HCA 54
Hili v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520; 204 A Crim R 434; [2010] HCA 45
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40
Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665; [1999] HCA 29
Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357; [2005] HCA 25
McDonald v R [2015] NSWCCA 280
Power v The Queen (1974) 131 CLR 623; [1974] HCA 26
Pham v R [2014] NSWCCA 115
R v Cramp [2014] NSWCCA 264
R v Janceski (2005) 64 NSWLR 10; [2005] NSWCCA 281
R v Reilly [2012] NSWCCA 166
R v Simpson (2001) 53 NSWLR 704; (2001) 126 A Crim R 525; [2001] NSWCCA 534
Swansson v R (2007) 69 NSWLR 406; 168 A Crim R 263; [2007] NSWCCA 67
Wong v The Queen (2001) 207 CLR 584; [2001] HCA 64
Vandeventer v The Queen [2013] NSWCCA 33
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: ST (Applicant)
Regina (Crown)
Representation:
Counsel:
K Stares (Applicant)
S Hughes (Crown)
Solicitors:
Legal Aid NSW (Applicant)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Crown)

File Number(s): 2014/177242
Publication restriction: Non-publication order in relation to the name of the victim and the witness ET and anything that might identify them
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court of New South Wales

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Date of Decision:

28 September 2015

Before:

Farmer SC DCJ

File Number(s):

2014/177242

Judgment

JOHNSON J: I agree with Lonergan J.
ROTHMAN J: I agree with Lonergan J.
LONERGAN J: The Applicant sought leave to appeal against the aggregate sentence imposed upon him by his Honour Judge Farmer SC on 28 September 2015 in the District Court at Parramatta.
The Applicant was sentenced in relation to a series of sexual offences committed between 2012 and June 2014 involving his step-daughter. At the time, she was aged between 13 and 15 years and the Applicant was aged between 49 and 51 years.
The Applicant pleaded guilty…

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 ST v The Queen

Details

AGLC: ST v The Queen [2017] NSWCCA 245
Case: [2017] NSWCCA 245
Decision Date: 11 October 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of ST v The Queen, the appellant appealed against his sentence for aggravated sexual assault of a victim under his authority, as well as aggravated sexual intercourse and indecent assault on a person under the age of 16. The appeal was heard in the High Court of Australia. The appellant argued that the sentence proceedings miscarried due to the indictment not being properly presented and that the sentencing judge had double counted an aggravating factor that was already an element of the offence. Additionally, the appellant argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive.

The legal issues before the court were whether the sentence proceedings were flawed due to the indictment not being properly presented and whether the sentencing judge had double counted an aggravating factor. The court also considered whether the sentence was manifestly excessive. The appellant's argument regarding the indictment was rejected, as the court found that the indictment was sufficient to inform the appellant of the charges against him. The court also found that the sentencing judge had not double counted an aggravating factor, as the factor was not an element of the offence. Finally, the court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, as it was within the range of sentences that could be imposed for the offences committed.

The court's reasoning was that the indictment was sufficient to inform the appellant of the charges against him, and that the sentencing judge had not double counted an aggravating factor. The court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, as it was within the range of sentences that could be imposed for the offences committed. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal against sentence was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld. The appellant was required to serve his sentence as originally imposed.

Orders