R v JM and SM [2010] NSWDC 318

R v JM and SM [2010] NSWDC 318

The court held that JM's offending was substantially more serious than SM's because he was the principal offender, committed multiple serious offences, used internet communications in connection with the offending, possessed serious child pornography, and committed a gross breach of parental trust causing significant emotional harm. His s66A(2) offences were above the mid-range but not in the worst category. SM's s66A(2) offence was under the mid-range, taking into account her husband's influence and lesser culpability, but still involved a serious breach of trust and significant emotional harm. Full-time imprisonment was required for both offenders, with a 25 per cent discount for early...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 October 2010
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentence / Sentencing Following Pleas of Guilty
Outcome
JM was sentenced to a total term of imprisonment of 12 years with a non-parole period of 9 years. SM was sentenced to a total term of imprisonment of 5 years and 9 months with a non-parole period of 3 years and 9 months.
Legal Topics
['child Sexual Assault' 'child Pornography' 'use of Carriage Service' 'form 1 Offences' 'standard Non Parole Period' 'guilty Plea Discount' 'protective Custody' 'parity']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['child Sexual Assault' 'child Pornography' 'use of Carriage Service' 'form 1 Offences' 'standard Non Parole Period' 'guilty Plea Discount' 'protective Custody' 'parity']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Sentence / Sentencing Following Pleas of Guilty

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['What sentences should be imposed on JM and SM after their pleas of guilty to child sexual offences and related offences.' 'Where the offences, particularly the Crimes Act 1900 s66A(2) offences, fell within the range of seriousness.' 'Whether significant emotional harm, breach of trust, guilty pleas, lack of prior record, special circumstances, protective custody and parity affected sentence.']

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that JM's offending was substantially more serious than SM's because he was the principal offender, committed multiple serious offences, used internet communications in connection with the offending, possessed serious child pornography, and committed a gross breach of parental trust causing significant emotional harm. His s66A(2) offences were above the mid-range but not in the worst category. SM's s66A(2) offence was under the mid-range, taking into account her husband's influence and lesser culpability, but still involved a serious breach of trust and significant emotional harm. Full-time imprisonment was required for both offenders, with a 25 per cent discount for early...

Court Disposition

JM was sentenced to a total term of imprisonment of 12 years with a non-parole period of 9 years. SM was sentenced to a total term of imprisonment of 5 years and 9 months with a non-parole period of 3 years and 9 months.

Orders

  • ['JM: on count 5 under Crimes Act 1900 s91G(1)(a), convicted and sentenced to imprisonment with a non-parole period of 1 year and total term of 3 years, both commencing 16 November 2009.' 'JM: on count 3 under Crimes Act 1900 s91H(2), convicted and sentenced to imprisonment with a non-parole period of 1 year and...