R v Proberts [2022] NSWDC 737

R v Proberts [2022] NSWDC 737

The offending was in the low range of objective seriousness, the offender had good character, good prospects, a low risk of reoffending, and the long delay assisted his case by demonstrating rehabilitation and increasing the present impact of sentence. However, a section 10 outcome was not appropriate because a conviction was required to recognise the harm to the victim, denounce the conduct, promote accountability and serve general deterrence. Imprisonment was not required because it would add little to rehabilitation or community protection and a conviction with punishment in the community adequately served the relevant sentencing purposes. The offender was therefore convicted and...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 November 2022
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentence / Sentence After Guilty Plea
Outcome
Offender convicted and sentenced to a community correction order for two years.
Legal Topics
['sexual Intercourse With Child Aged Above 14 and Under 16' 'objective Seriousness' 'delay' 'parity' 'section 10 Dismissal Without Conviction' 'community Correction Order']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['sexual Intercourse With Child Aged Above 14 and Under 16' 'objective Seriousness' 'delay' 'parity' 'section 10 Dismissal Without Conviction' 'community Correction Order']

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 ['Whether the offending warranted an order under section 10 with no conviction recorded.' 'Whether parity with the sentence imposed on Mr Healey should be taken into account.' 'How delay between the 2005 offence and sentence should affect sentence.' 'Whether the offender presented a continuing sexual risk to the community.' 'Whether imprisonment was required or a community correction order was appropriate.']

Ratio Decidendi

The offending was in the low range of objective seriousness, the offender had good character, good prospects, a low risk of reoffending, and the long delay assisted his case by demonstrating rehabilitation and increasing the present impact of sentence. However, a section 10 outcome was not appropriate because a conviction was required to recognise the harm to the victim, denounce the conduct, promote accountability and serve general deterrence. Imprisonment was not required because it would add little to rehabilitation or community protection and a conviction with punishment in the community adequately served the relevant sentencing purposes. The offender was therefore convicted and...

Court Disposition

Offender convicted and sentenced to a community correction order for two years.

Orders

  • ['Of the offence under section 66C(3) the offender is convicted.' 'The offender is sentenced to a community correction order for a period of two years commencing 25 November 2022 and expiring on 24 November 2024.' 'The offender must not commit any offence.' 'The offender must appear before the court if called on to...