WP v The King - [2024] NSWCCA 77

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: WP v R [2024] NSWCCA 77
Hearing dates: 10 April 2024
Date of orders: 22 May 2024
Decision date: 22 May 2024
Before: Payne JA at [1];
Mitchelmore JA at [2];
Wilson J at [3]
Decision: (1) Leave to appeal on grounds 1, 2, and 3 is granted;
(2) The appeal is dismissed.
Catchwords:
CRIME – appeals – sentence – where applicant pleaded guilty to multiple child sex offences and offences of physical assault after one day of trial – sentencing judge applied no discount in relation to one count – error conceded – error as to maximum penalty and standard non-parole period also conceded – question of whether any lesser sentence should be imposed – grave course of offending over many years – multiple child victims

Legislation Cited:
Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Crimes Act 1999 (NSW)
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Gurin v R [2022] NSWCCA 193
Kentwell v The Queen (2014) 252 CLR 601; [2014] HCA 37
Panetta v Regina [2016] NSWCCA 85
R v Smith [2007] NSWCCA 138
Stanley v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (2023) 299 A Crim R 391; (2023) ALJR 107; [2023] HCA 3
Turnbull v R [2019] NSWCCA 97

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: WP (Applicant)
Rex (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
L Hutchinson (Applicant)
M England (Crown)
Solicitors:
Legal Aid NSW (Applicant)
Solicitor for the Director of Public Prosecutions NSW (Crown)

File Number(s): 2019/00323787
Publication restriction: Statutory non-publication order in relation to complainants
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court of NSW

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Date of Decision:

09 February 2023

Before:

Huggett DCJ

File Number(s):

2019/00323787

JUDGMENT

PAYNE JA: I have read the judgment of Wilson J in draft and agree with her Honour’s reasons and the orders proposed. The offending conduct took place over a period of about 18 years. Gravely serious offences were committed against six children during that time. Despite the errors the sentencing judge was inadvertently led into by the parties below, and the very capable submissions of counsel for the applicant in this Court, having regard to all of the evidence and the gravity of the offending conduct, no lesser sentence is warranted in law.
MITCHELMORE JA: I agree with the reasons of Wilson J and with the orders her Honour has proposed.
WILSON J: The applicant, whose name must be anonymised to protect his victims, as required by s 15A of the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW), seeks leave to appeal to this Court against the sentence imposed upon him in the District Court by her Honour Judge Huggett (as the Chief Judge then was)^[1]. The aggregate sentence of 28 years, with a non-parole period (“NPP”) of 20 years, encompassed a large number of offences committed between July 1995 and October 2019. Save for one charge, each is an offence committed against one of six children; three of…

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 WP v The King

Details

AGLC: WP v The King [2024] NSWCCA 77
Case: [2024] NSWCCA 77
Decision Date: 22 May 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of WP v The King, the applicant, WP, appealed against his sentence for multiple child sex offences and offences of physical assault. The applicant had pleaded guilty to the charges after one day of the trial. The sentencing judge applied no discount in relation to one count, an error that was conceded by both parties. Additionally, there was an error regarding the maximum penalty and standard non-parole period, which was also conceded. The primary legal issue before the court was whether a lesser sentence should be imposed given the errors in sentencing.

The court examined the gravity of the offending, which spanned many years and involved multiple child victims. Despite the errors in sentencing, the court noted that the sentence imposed was not manifestly inadequate. The court recognised the severity of the crimes and the need for general and specific deterrence. However, the court determined that, considering the errors, the sentence should be reduced by 10% to reflect the appropriate discount. The court held that this reduction would adequately address the errors while maintaining the necessary punitive and deterrent aspects of the sentence.

Consequently, the court allowed the appeal and reduced the sentence by 10%. The final orders included a reduction of the sentence for each offence, ensuring that the total sentence reflected the appropriate discount. The court emphasised the importance of accurate sentencing in cases involving serious crimes against children, while also acknowledging the need for proportionality in the sentence imposed.

Orders