R v G

In the case of The Queen v "G", the defendant, referred to as "G", appeared for sentencing after pleading guilty to two charges of sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection and three charges of doing an indecent act on a child under 12 years. The court was required to determine an appropriate sentence for the defendant, taking into account the purposes and principles of sentencing as outlined in the Sentencing Act 2002. The primary purposes of sentencing in this case were to hold the defendant accountable for the harm caused, promote a sense of responsibility, denounce the conduct, deter the defendant and others from engaging in such conduct, and protect the community. The principles of sentencing that were particularly relevant included the gravity of the offending, the seriousness of the offending, the impact of the offending on the victims, and consistency with appropriate sentencing levels in other cases.

The court considered the appropriate sentence for the defendant in two steps. First, the court calculated a finite sentence, in other words, a specified number of years in prison. Once the court had determined the finite sentence, it had to decide whether that sentence was appropriate or whether it should impose a sentence of preventive detention. The court also considered the minimum period of imprisonment, which would be longer than the period otherwise applicable under the Parole Act 2002 if the court was satisfied that the period was insufficient for certain purposes.

After considering the defendant's personal circumstances, both positive and negative factors, the court concluded that a sentence of preventive detention was not appropriate in this case. The court found that the risks the defendant posed to the community were not unmanageable and that a determinate sentence combined with the extended supervision order post-release would be able to provide effective mitigation of the defendant's risk sufficient to protect the public. The court also found that a minimum period of imprisonment was not necessary in this case.

The defendant was sentenced to three years and three months' imprisonment for the two charges of sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection, and on the three charges of doing an indecent act on a child under 12 years, the defendant was sentenced to 18 months on each of those charges. All of these terms were to be served concurrently. The written version of these sentencing notes would be issued in a redacted form, as the defendant's name was previously permanently suppressed in 2012 to protect the victims of the defendant's offending.