R v Ronald KING [2009] NSWCCA 117

R v Ronald KING [2009] NSWCCA 117

The sentence imposed for sexual intercourse with a child under 10 years was manifestly inadequate and failed to reflect the objective seriousness, aggravating factors, denunciation, and deterrence required. Significant errors included misapplication of the Ellis discount, inappropriate suspension, and failure to properly consider Form 1 matters and prior criminal record. The Court allowed the Crown appeal, quashed the original sentence, and re-sentenced the respondent to a substantial custodial term.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 April 2009
Procedural Posture
Crown Appeal Against Sentence / Court of Criminal Appeal Appeal and Resentencing
Outcome
Appeal allowed; sentence quashed; respondent re-sentenced to full-time imprisonment.
Legal Topics
['crown Appeal' 'sentencing' 'sexual Offences Against Children' 'suspended Sentence' 'denunciation' 'objective Seriousness' 'mitigating Factors' 'ellis Discount']
['criminal Law'] ['crown Appeal' 'sentencing' 'sexual Offences Against Children' 'suspended Sentence' 'denunciation' 'objective Seriousness' 'mitigating Factors' 'ellis Discount']

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

Crown Appeal Against Sentence / Court of Criminal Appeal Appeal and Resentencing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate' 'Assessment of objective seriousness of sexual intercourse with a child under 10' 'Appropriateness of Ellis discount for disclosure of guilt' 'Proper consideration of Form 1 matters in sentencing' 'Whether discretionary reasons existed to dismiss the appeal' 'Appropriateness of suspended sentence']

Ratio Decidendi

The sentence imposed for sexual intercourse with a child under 10 years was manifestly inadequate and failed to reflect the objective seriousness, aggravating factors, denunciation, and deterrence required. Significant errors included misapplication of the Ellis discount, inappropriate suspension, and failure to properly consider Form 1 matters and prior criminal record. The Court allowed the Crown appeal, quashed the original sentence, and re-sentenced the respondent to a substantial custodial term.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; sentence quashed; respondent re-sentenced to full-time imprisonment.

Orders

  • ['The appeal is allowed.' 'The sentence imposed in the District Court is quashed.' 'Taking into account the matters on the Form 1 the respondent is sentenced to a term of imprisonment comprising a non-parole period of 4 years 6 months and a balance of term of 2 years 6 months. The sentence is to date from 28...