R v RG [2020] NSWDC 492

District Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v RG [2020] NSWDC 492 Hearing dates: 21 February 2020 Date of orders: 21 February 2020 Decision date: 21 February 2020 Jurisdiction: Criminal Before: M L Williams SC DCJ Decision: An aggregate term of imprisonment of 3 years with a non-parole period of 2 years: at [33]. Catchwords: SENTENCING — Penalties — Imprisonment SENTENCING — Mitigating factors — Plea of guilty SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Circumstances of offence — Deterrence — Factual basis for sentence — General principle — Maximum penalty — Multiple offences — Objective seriousness SENTENCING — Subjective considerations on sentence — Special circumstances — Age of offender Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 Cases Cited: Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571 Imbornone v R [2017] NSWCCA 144 R v Thomas [2007] NSWCCA 269 R v Qutami (2001) 127 A Crim R 369 Veen v The Queen (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465 Texts Cited: Nil Category: Sentence Parties: Regina (Crown)

RG (Offender) Representation: Mr P Lynch (Crown)

Mr T Thorpe (Counsel for the offender) File Number(s): 2016/185134 Publication restriction: STATUTORY NON-PUBLICATION APPLIES Any matter which may identify the complainant: s 15A Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987; s 578A Crimes Act 1900

Judgment 1. RG, now aged 74, pleaded guilty at the time of a trial being listed in November 2019 to a number of historic sexual offence counts. I accept Mr Thorpe's submission that a discount of 15% should be allowed for the utilitarian value of the plea, given that it eliminated the victims having to recount their experiences in evidence. 2. It is clear that an aggregate sentence of fulltime imprisonment should be imposed, and no other alternatives need be considered when I carry out the sentencing exercise in accordance with s 3A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 and what the High Court said in Veen v The Queen (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465, as Mr Thorpe helpfully pointed out in his written submissions. 3. The agreed facts show that the offences relate to offences committed against two cousins RS and PF. The victim's grandmother, JS, lived with the offender during the 1970s and 1980s. RS lived with JS between1986-1988. 4. The offences to which he has pleaded guilty are under a number of repealed sections which carry lower maximum penalties than the maximum penalties that are now applicable for the same type of offence, namely s 61E(1) of the Crimes Act 1900, (Counts 1,2,5,6) which carried a maximum penalty of six years imprisonment, with no standard non-parole period; s 61E(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 (Count 3) which carried a maximum penalty of two years imprisonment, with no standard non-parole period; and s 61M(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 (Count 4) which carried a maximum penalty of seven years imprisonment, with no standard non-parole period. These maximum penalties are of course legislative guideposts in the sentencing exercise.