R v Rush [2019] NSWDC 773

R v Rush [2019] NSWDC 773

Although the offences were serious and caused continuing harm, they fell well toward the bottom of the range of objective seriousness for s 66C(3), were committed on one night by an immature 18-year-old, were not repeated, and the offender had demonstrated remorse, rehabilitation, good prospects and low risk of reoffending after significant delay. In those circumstances, imprisonment was not the answer and substantial community service under community correction orders would adequately punish the offender while giving proper emphasis to rehabilitation.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 December 2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentencing for Sexual Intercourse With a Child Aged Between 14 16 / Sentence After Guilty Pleas
Outcome
Offender convicted on Counts 1 and 2 and sentenced to community correction orders with community service; Form 1 taken into account.
Legal Topics
['sexual Intercourse With Child Under 16' 'objective Seriousness' 'youth and Immaturity of Offender' 'delay' 'rehabilitation' 'community Correction Order' 'victim Impact Statements']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['sexual Intercourse With Child Under 16' 'objective Seriousness' 'youth and Immaturity of Offender' 'delay' 'rehabilitation' 'community Correction Order' 'victim Impact Statements']

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 a Child Aged Between 14 16 / Sentence After Guilty Pleas

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether a custodial sentence was required for two offences of sexual intercourse with a child aged between 14-16 with a Form 1 matter taken into account.' "How the offender's youth and immaturity, delay, guilty pleas, remorse, rehabilitation, low risk of reoffending and the harm to the complainants should be weighed in sentence." 'Whether a non-custodial option with substantial community service could adequately punish the offender and meet sentencing purposes.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the offences were serious and caused continuing harm, they fell well toward the bottom of the range of objective seriousness for s 66C(3), were committed on one night by an immature 18-year-old, were not repeated, and the offender had demonstrated remorse, rehabilitation, good prospects and low risk of reoffending after significant delay. In those circumstances, imprisonment was not the answer and substantial community service under community correction orders would adequately punish the offender while giving proper emphasis to rehabilitation.

Court Disposition

Offender convicted on Counts 1 and 2 and sentenced to community correction orders with community service; Form 1 taken into account.

Orders

  • ['Count 1: convicted; community correction order for 2 years 6 months; additional condition to perform community service work for 125 hours; supervision by Community Corrections for as long as required.' 'Count 2: convicted; community correction order for 3 years; additional condition to perform community service...