Za v R

In the matter of Za v R, the appellant, Za, challenged his conviction and sentence for arranging his 12-year-old daughter's marriage to a 20-year-old man, which was deemed a contravention of s 66EB of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). The court was tasked with determining whether the term "procure" in the statute encompassed the appellant's actions in arranging his daughter's marriage and whether the sentencing judge correctly assessed the objective seriousness of the offence.

The court considered the meaning of the word "procure" in the context of the statutory provision and the appellant's actions. It was noted that the term "procure" should be interpreted in its ordinary and natural meaning, taking into account the context in which it was used. The court held that the appellant's actions in arranging his daughter's marriage constituted procuring a child for unlawful sexual activity, as it involved facilitating the commission of an offence by a child. Additionally, the court found that the sentencing judge had not erred in assessing the objective seriousness of the offence as "very serious," given the significant breach of the appellant's duty of care and the potential harm caused to the victim.

The appellant also sought leave to appeal against his sentence, arguing that the sentencing judge had not properly considered his religious beliefs as a mitigating factor. The court held that the sentencing judge's assessment of the appellant's religious beliefs as a motive for the offence did not constitute an ameliorating factor, as it did not address the gravity of the crime or the harm caused to the victim. The court found that the sentencing judge had appropriately considered the relevant factors and that there was no error in the sentencing process. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal against the sentence was dismissed. The court also refused the appellant's application for an extension of time to appeal against his conviction and to apply for leave to appeal against his sentence, as the appellant had not demonstrated any exceptional circumstances warranting an extension.