R v. RA [2006] NSWDC 138

R v. RA [2006] NSWDC 138

The two penile penetration offences were at least middle range offences because they involved serious sexual abuse by a father of his eight year old daughter, in the context of about twenty or thirty similar acts, and involved aggravating factors of abuse of trust and vulnerability. The digital penetration offence was serious but below mid range. The offender's prior good character justified non-parole periods below the standard for the mid-range offences, but his maintenance of innocence meant there was no contrition or remorse and no evidentiary basis for finding rehabilitation prospects. Substantial accumulated sentences were required, producing an effective non-parole period of...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 August 2006
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentencing for Sexual Intercourse With Child Under 10 Years of Age / Sentence After Conviction
Outcome
The offender was sentenced to imprisonment on counts 1, 3 and 4; the Court considered but declined to make an apprehended violence order.
Legal Topics
['sexual Intercourse With Child Under 10 Years of Age' 'standard Non Parole Period' 'aggravating Factors' 'mitigating Factors' 'abuse of Position of Trust or Authority' 'remorse and Contrition' 'rehabilitation']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['sexual Intercourse With Child Under 10 Years of Age' 'standard Non Parole Period' 'aggravating Factors' 'mitigating Factors' 'abuse of Position of Trust or Authority' 'remorse and Contrition' 'rehabilitation']

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 Sentencing for Sexual Intercourse With Child Under 10 Years of Age / Sentence After Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["What sentences should be imposed for three sexual offences against the offender's eight year old daughter." 'Whether the offences were in the middle range of objective seriousness for the purpose of the standard non-parole period.' 'What aggravating and mitigating factors under s 21A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 applied.' "Whether the offender's claimed low risk of re-offending, lack of remorse, prior good character and prospects of rehabilitation affected sentence." 'Whether an apprehended violence order should be made.']

Ratio Decidendi

The two penile penetration offences were at least middle range offences because they involved serious sexual abuse by a father of his eight year old daughter, in the context of about twenty or thirty similar acts, and involved aggravating factors of abuse of trust and vulnerability. The digital penetration offence was serious but below mid range. The offender's prior good character justified non-parole periods below the standard for the mid-range offences, but his maintenance of innocence meant there was no contrition or remorse and no evidentiary basis for finding rehabilitation prospects. Substantial accumulated sentences were required, producing an effective non-parole period of...

Court Disposition

The offender was sentenced to imprisonment on counts 1, 3 and 4; the Court considered but declined to make an apprehended violence order.

Orders

  • ['Count 1: non-parole period of thirteen years commencing on 18 August 2006 and expiring on 17 August 2019; balance of term of four years and four months commencing on 18 August 2019; sentence concludes on 17 December 2023.' 'Count 3: non-parole period of seven years commencing on 18 August 2013 and concluding on 17...