R v Pascal Lucien Francois DIONNET [2008] NSWDC 65

R v Pascal Lucien Francois DIONNET [2008] NSWDC 65

The offences were above the mid-range of objective seriousness due to their violent and premeditated nature and the breach of a victim's sense of safety; however, the standard non-parole period was considered appropriate given the offender's mental state, which will make custody harsher, but not to a degree sufficient to diminish his moral culpability or warrant a lower non-parole period. Sentences were not accumulated as a measure of leniency.

Parties
Prosecution: The Crown; Accused: Pascal Lucien Francois Dionnet
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 April 2008
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Sentencing After Conviction at Trial
Outcome
The offender is sentenced to imprisonment with a non-parole period of seven years on each count and a head sentence in each case of ten years imprisonment.
Legal Topics
Sentencing, Sexual Intercourse Without Consent, Standard Non Parole Period, Actual and Threatened Violence, Mental Health in Sentencing
Criminal Law Sentencing Sexual Intercourse Without Consent Standard Non Parole Period Actual and Threatened Violence Mental Health in Sentencing

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Crown

Prosecution

Pascal Lucien Francois Dionnet

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Sentencing After Conviction at Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the appropriate sentence for two counts of sexual intercourse without consent committed with violence and threats?
  2. 2 Should the standard non-parole period be applied, or are there circumstances justifying deviation?
  3. 3 Does the offender's mental state diminish his moral culpability and mitigate sentence?

Ratio Decidendi

The offences were above the mid-range of objective seriousness due to their violent and premeditated nature and the breach of a victim's sense of safety; however, the standard non-parole period was considered appropriate given the offender's mental state, which will make custody harsher, but not to a degree sufficient to diminish his moral culpability or warrant a lower non-parole period. Sentences were not accumulated as a measure of leniency.

Court Disposition

The offender is sentenced to imprisonment with a non-parole period of seven years on each count and a head sentence in each case of ten years imprisonment.

Orders

  • Imprisonment on each count: ten years with a non-parole period of seven years, sentences to be served concurrently, commencing 30 August 2006.
  • Offender eligible for parole on 29 August 2013.