AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
District Court 26 July 2019

R v Cattell

[2019] NSWDC 504

Sexual offences

Citation: R v Cattell [2019] NSWDC 504
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 26 July 2019
Judge: Grant DCJ

Background

The offender, a Catholic priest, appeared for sentence on seven historical sex offences committed against multiple male victims between 1968 and 1990 while serving in New South Wales parishes. The victims were children at the time of the offending, and the offender exploited his position of religious authority and trust in each instance. Two additional matters were taken into account on a Form 1 (a procedural mechanism allowing related offences to be considered in mitigation of the principal sentence without separate conviction).

The offender had previously been sentenced for related offending in proceedings in 1994, 2015, and 2016. The current proceedings arose after further victims came forward, with one victim providing a statement to police as late as October 2017. The offender was committed for sentence from Penrith Local Court in November 2018 after entering an early guilty plea.

Three victims provided victim impact statements or had their experiences described through the agreed facts. The statements revealed lasting and severe psychological harm, including difficulties in personal relationships, mental health crises, substance use, and ongoing daily suffering.

  • What sentences were appropriate for each of the seven charges, having regard to the objective seriousness of each offence and the applicable maximum penalties?
  • What discount applied for the timing of the guilty plea under the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act?
  • How should the principle of totality operate where some offending had already been the subject of prior sentencing proceedings?
  • Whether special circumstances existed justifying a departure from the standard ratio between the non-parole period and the total sentence?
  • What aggregate sentence reflected the overall criminality without double-counting offences addressed in earlier proceedings?

Decision

Grant DCJ applied a 25% discount to all indicative sentences on the basis that the guilty plea was entered at the earliest reasonable opportunity. His Honour also noted that the plea spared the victims the additional trauma of giving evidence.

In assessing objective seriousness, the court considered the nature of the conduct, the ages of the victims, the age gap between offender and victims, the inequality of the relationship arising from the offender's priestly role, and the degree of premeditation. The offending was characterised as predatory across multiple victims over an extended period.

On totality, Grant DCJ took into account the sentences already imposed in the 1994, 2015, and 2016 proceedings and considered what sentence would have been imposed had these matters been dealt with at the same time. The court held that some additional period of imprisonment beyond those earlier terms was nonetheless warranted, while remaining mindful of the totality principle to avoid a crushing or disproportionate outcome. Special circumstances were found based on the offender's age and prospects of rehabilitation, justifying a reduced non-parole period relative to the total term.

An aggregate sentence of 30 months was imposed under s 53A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act, with a non-parole period of nine months.

Orders Made

  • An aggregate sentence of 30 months imprisonment imposed, commencing 26 July 2019 and expiring 25 January 2022.
  • Non-parole period of nine months, expiring 25 April 2020, with the offender eligible for parole on that date.
  • Indicative sentences announced for each of the seven charges (ranging from four months to 18 months), each reflecting a 25% discount for the early guilty plea.
  • A report from Dr Webster directed to be placed on the offender's file.

Key Takeaways

  • Where an offender has been sentenced in multiple prior proceedings for related historical offending, a sentencing court must consider what the sentence would have been had all matters been dealt with together, and the totality principle operates to constrain any additional term, though it does not extinguish the need for some further period of imprisonment.
  • A full 25% discount for a guilty plea under s 22 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act is available where the plea is entered at the earliest reasonable opportunity, including at the Local Court stage prior to committal for sentence.
  • Special circumstances justifying a non-parole period below the standard proportion can be established by reference to an offender's age and prospects of rehabilitation.
  • The District Court quoted extensively from the opening address of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, affirming that the devastating and long-lasting effects of child sexual abuse are a central consideration in sentencing for such offences.
  • Under s 53A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act, an aggregate sentence may be imposed across multiple charges, with indicative sentences announced for each individual offence to reflect the relative weight assigned to each.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation:
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 21A, 22, 25AA, 53A
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 61E(1A), 61M(1), 66C(1), 81, 81A

Cases:
- EG v R [2015] NSWCCA 21
- Magnuson [2013] NSWCCA 50
- Moon v R [2000] NSWCCA 534
- Porter v R [2019] NSWCCA 117
- R v Hibbard [2009] NSWCCA 20
- R v Johnson; R v Holder (1983) 3 NSWLR 245