CRIME – SENTENCE – appeal against sentence – historical child sexual assaults – two victims aged about 6 to 12 years – ongoing course of conduct over a period of years – familial relationship between applicant and victims – lengthy delay between offending and prosecution – inappropriateness of grounds of appeal complaining of weight given to particular features – relevance of applicant’s reactive depression developed as a consequence of prosecution – relevance of claims by applicant of childhood abuse – no error disclosed
Counsel: L Fernandez (Applicant) E Wilkins SC (Respondent)
Solicitors: Bernhaut Solicitors (Applicant) Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Respondent)
File Number(s):
2021/46591
Publication restriction:
None
Decision under appeal
Court or tribunal:
District Court of NSW
Jurisdiction:
Criminal
Date of Decision:
01 August 2022
Before:
English DCJ
File Number(s):
2021/46591
JUDGMENT
KIRK JA: I agree with Wilson J.
WILSON J: On 1 August 2022 the applicant, whose name must be anonymised in compliance with s 578A 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 WW v The King
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
WW v The King [2023] NSWCCA 311
Case
[2023] NSWCCA 311
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appeal was heard by the High Court of Australia against the sentence imposed on the applicant following his conviction for multiple historical child sexual assaults. The applicant was found guilty of sexually abusing two victims who were approximately 6 to 12 years old over a prolonged period. The court needed to determine if the sentence was appropriate given the nature and duration of the offences, the familial relationship between the applicant and the victims, and the considerable time elapsed between the offences and the prosecution. The appeal raised questions about the weight given to specific aspects of the case, the impact of the applicant's reactive depression stemming from the prosecution, and the relevance of the applicant's claims of childhood abuse.
The court examined whether the appeal grounds identified any errors in the sentencing process. It found that the appeal did not reveal any errors in the weight given to particular features of the case. The court considered the applicant's reactive depression and claims of childhood abuse but determined these were not relevant to the sentencing process. The court concluded that the sentence was appropriate and did not disclose any error. The court's reasoning focused on the need to balance the severity of the crimes, the impact on the victims, and the appropriate response to historical offences that had been prosecuted after a significant delay.
Based on its findings, the court dismissed the appeal. The High Court upheld the sentence imposed by the lower court, confirming that the sentence was appropriate given the circumstances of the case. The court's decision emphasised the importance of considering the severity and impact of the crimes, the nature of the relationship between the offender and the victims, and the appropriate response to historical offences that had been prosecuted after a significant delay. The court found no basis to interfere with the sentence, affirming the lower court's decision.