Regina v Roger SLATER [2003] NSWCCA 178

Reported Decision : 142 A Crim R 322

New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION : Regina v Roger SLATER [2003] NSWCCA 178 revised - 15/07/2003 HEARING DATE(S) : 01/07/03 JUDGMENT DATE : 1 July 2003

JUDGMENT OF : Grove J at 57; Shaw J at 1 DECISION : (1) Leave to appeal granted; (2) Appeal dismissed.

CATCHWORDS : CRIMINAL LAW - appeal against sentence - range of sentences at time of commission of offences - delay - no question of principle LEGISLATION CITED : Crimes Act 1900; Crimes (Child Assault) Amendment Act 1985; De Simoni v The Queen (1981) 147 CLR 383; Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610; R v DJS [2001] NSWCCA 189; R v Hudson (Unreported, NSWCCA, 30 July 1998); CASES CITED : R v Maclay (1990) 46 A Crim R 340; R v MJR (2002) 54 NSWLR 368; R v Moon (2000) 117 A Crim R 497; R v Shore (1992) 66 A Crim R 37; R v Watson [1999] NSWCCA 227; Regina (NSW)

PARTIES : v

Roger SLATER FILE NUMBER(S) : CCA 60097/03 COUNSEL : G Bashir - Appellant D Howard - Crown SOLICITORS : S O'Connor - Crown

LOWER COURT District Court JURISDICTION : LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : LOWER COURT Sorby DCJ JUDICIAL OFFICER :

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL 60097 of 2003

Grove J Shaw J

1 July 2003 Regina v Roger SLATER Judgment 1 Shaw J: This is an application for leave to appeal against the severity of a sentence imposed on the applicant (Roger Slater) as a result of a plea of guilty, by Sorby DCJ, on 20 September 2002. 2 The plea was in relation to two charges pursuant to s 61D of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). The first count raised an allegation that the applicant, between 5 December 1981 and 25 February 1982, had sexual intercourse with his daughter without her consent, when she was 12 years of age. 3 The second count alleged that between 20 February 1991 and 16 March 1991 the applicant had sexual intercourse with his daughter without her consent. 4 The sentencing judge was also asked to take into account four additional, similar offences specified on the form 1. 5 The applicant's abusive and reprehensible behaviour in relation to his daughter began when she was 12 years of age and the last of the six incidents that were dealt with occurred when she was 21. As the Crown submitted, the unlawful conduct thus spanned the entire period of the complainant's adolescence, although it was not characterised as a course of conduct. 6 On any analysis these were very serious offences and, according to the victim impact statement placed before the sentencing judge, resulted in significant psychological consequences for the complainant over a long period of time. 7 The sentencing judge provided detailed and considered remarks on sentence which resulted in a determination that the applicant serve, in relation to count 1, and taking into account the matters on the form 1, imprisonment for four years commencing on 20 September 2003 and expiring on 19 September 2007, with a non-parole period of two years expiring on 19 September 2005. 8 In relation to count 2 it was determined that the applicant should serve a period of imprisonment for a fixed term of two years and 6 months commencing on 20 September 2002 and expiring 19 March 2005, with the sentences being served partly concurrently and partly cumulatively. 9 The overall result was, in effect, a sentence of 5 years imprisonment with 3 years to be served as the non parole period. 10 It is in these general circumstances that the applicant claims that errors have been made in the sentencing process and that the total result is excessively severe. 11 The sentences of the applicant have to seen against the maximum sentences prescribed by the legislature for the offences at the relevant times when they were committed. In relation to the first count, that is, when the complainant was 12, the maximum penalty was 10 years. In relation to the second count, when the complainant was 21, the maximum penalty was 8 years. In relation to the matters on the form 1, taken into account on the first count, the maximum penalties, had they been separate counts, were, for the first matter, 10 years, because the complainant was aged 13 years; for the second, 7 years, because the complainant was aged 16 years; for the third, 7 years, the complainant then being 16 years; and the fourth, 7 years, the complainant then being 17 years of age.