Australia, June 2 -- New South Wales Land and Environment Court issued text of the following judgement on May 2:

1. DAVIES J: I have had the considerable advantage of reading Dhanji J's judgment in draft. I agree with his Honour's reasons and the orders he proposes.

2. WRIGHT J: I agree with the orders proposed by Dhanji J for the reasons given by his Honour.

3. DHANJI J: The Crown, pursuant to s 5D(1) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), appeals against the sentence imposed upon the respondent, Reginald James Williams, in the District Court of New South Wales at Queanbeyan on 15 November 2024 by English DCJ.

4. The respondent pleaded guilty to nine federal offences related to him procuring or attempting to procure persons he believed to be children to engage in sexual activity with him outside of Australia and the persistent sexual abuse of two children outside of Australia. It will be necessary in due course to say something in relation to the form of the various charges which described the victim as being, in fact, a child.

5. The respondent also pleaded guilty to one State offence of failing to comply with reporting obligations under the Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Act 2000 (NSW).

6. The following table outlines the offences for which the respondent was sentenced, their minimum and maximum penalties, and the indicative sentences as determined by the sentencing judge:

Table omitted can be viewed at: (https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/19679aa5e867bdaaa32dd83e)

7. The indicative sentences for the offences were each arrived at after the application of a 25 percent discount for the respondent's early plea of guilty pursuant to s 16A(2)(g) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) and, in the case of the State offence, s 25D of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW).

8. As can be seen from the table, the sentencing judge took four federal offences into account pursuant to s 16BA of the Crimes Act 1914, two in relation to sequence 10 and one each in relation to sequences 11 and 13. The sentence for the State offence was wholly concurrent with the sentence for the federal offences.

9. The respondent was sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 3 years and 4 months commencing on 7 February 2023 with a non-parole period of 1 year and 10 months. The non-parole period expired on 6 December 2024 and the total sentence, if not disturbed, will expire on 6 June 2026. As at the date of the hearing the respondent had not been released to parole. It seems likely this appeal affected the decision not to grant him parole.

10. The grounds of appeal on which the appellant seeks to rely are as follows:

Ground 1: The sentencing judge erred by imposing an aggregate head sentence of less than 50% of the mandatory minimum head sentence in relation to sequences 10 and 11, contrary to s 16AAA of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth).

Ground 2: The sentencing judge erred by applying a reduction to account for the offender's guilty plea which was greater than 25% of the mandatory minimum head sentence in relation to sequence 9, contrary to s 16AAC of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth).

Ground 3: The sentences imposed in respect of each of sequences 9, 10, 11, 13 and 19, the orders for cumulation, and the non-parole period are manifestly inadequate, in particular, but not only, because:

a. The sentences on each of sequences 9, 10, 11, 13 and 19 fell below the mandatory minimum head sentence for those offences;

b. The reduction in the sentences imposed on each of sequences 9, 10, 11, 13 and 19:

i. was not necessary to properly account for the value of the plea; and

ii. in respect of sequence 9, was greater than 25%, contrary to the approach to s 16AAC of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth);

c. The sentences on each of sequences 10, 11 and 13 did not adequately account for the charges to be taken into account in the sentencing for those sequences pursuant to s 16BA of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth);

d. The sentence did not have proper regard to the minimum and maximum penalties prescribed for the offences; and

e. The sentence did not properly reflect the principles of denunciation, punishment, and specific and general deterrence.

11. The respondent concedes that each of the appellant's grounds of appeal are established and does not argue against the Court exercising its residual discretion and moving to resentence the respondent. Unsurprisingly, on resentence, the parties emphasised different matters as deserving of weight.

12. For the reasons set out below, I would allow the appeal and resentence the respondent.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/19679aa5e867bdaaa32dd83e)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.