R v Pemble [2015] NSWDC 168

R v Pemble [2015] NSWDC 168

The offence was a serious example of an offence against s 81 because it involved extensive skin to skin contact, nudity, ejaculation onto the complainant's body, the complainant's young age, vulnerability, and a significant breach of trust by a teacher and Marist brother. Although the offender was entitled to credit for his guilty plea, remorse, good character, delay, prospects of rehabilitation, age, health, and the likelihood of harder custody, a suspended sentence was insufficient for punishment and denunciation. Applying the historical sentencing approach required for the 1972 offending, but taking the seriousness of the conduct and Form 1 matters into account, a full-time custodial...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 July 2015
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentence / Sentence After Guilty Plea
Outcome
The offender was sentenced to imprisonment for 18 months with a non-parole period of 9 months.
Legal Topics
['sentence' 'form 1' 'historical Sexual Assault' 'indecent Assault' 'victim Impact' 'non Parole Period']
['criminal Law'] ['sentence' 'form 1' 'historical Sexual Assault' 'indecent Assault' 'victim Impact' 'non Parole Period']

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 / Sentence After Guilty Plea

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['What sentence should be imposed for one count of indecent assault on a male pursuant to s 81 of the Crimes Act, with two further s 81 matters taken into account on a Form 1.' 'Whether the offender should receive a full-time custodial sentence or a suspended sentence.' 'How historical sentencing standards for offending committed in 1972 should affect the sentence imposed in 2015.']

Ratio Decidendi

The offence was a serious example of an offence against s 81 because it involved extensive skin to skin contact, nudity, ejaculation onto the complainant's body, the complainant's young age, vulnerability, and a significant breach of trust by a teacher and Marist brother. Although the offender was entitled to credit for his guilty plea, remorse, good character, delay, prospects of rehabilitation, age, health, and the likelihood of harder custody, a suspended sentence was insufficient for punishment and denunciation. Applying the historical sentencing approach required for the 1972 offending, but taking the seriousness of the conduct and Form 1 matters into account, a full-time custodial...

Court Disposition

The offender was sentenced to imprisonment for 18 months with a non-parole period of 9 months.

Orders

  • ['The offender is sentenced to imprisonment with a non-parole period of nine months and a head sentence of 18 months to date from 23 July 2015.' 'The non-parole period will expire on 22 April 2016, on which day the offender is to be released to parole.' 'There is to be no publication of the name of the complainant...