AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
District Court 26 July 2022

R v Maguire (No. 3)

[2022] NSWDC 359

Sexual offences

Citation: R v Maguire (No. 3) [2022] NSWDC 359
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 26 July 2022
Judge: Bennett SC DCJ

Background

Following a judge-alone trial, Raymond John Maguire was found guilty on 18 February 2022 of 15 charges spanning three separate complainants. The offences occurred over a period of approximately eight years, between 2009 and 2017, and were committed at Wyee in New South Wales.

The charges encompassed a range of serious child sex offences, including producing child abuse material, grooming children for unlawful sexual activity, aggravated sexual intercourse with children aged between 10 and 14 years, and acts of indecency. In each instance involving sexual intercourse, the relevant child was under the offender's authority, which constituted an aggravating circumstance under the Crimes Act 1900.

The three complainants are referred to by their initials, RH, AH, and SCA. The youngest complainant, SCA, was aged eight or nine at the time of the relevant conduct. This sentencing judgment addressed the appropriate penalties to be imposed across all 15 counts.

  • What individual sentences were appropriate for each of the 15 counts, having regard to the maximum penalties and the circumstances of each offence?
  • How should the sentences be structured in light of the aggregate sentencing provisions under the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999?
  • What significance, if any, attached to the standard non-parole period applicable to count 14 (grooming of SCA), given that this was the only count to which a standard non-parole period applied at the time of sentencing?
  • Whether special circumstances existed to justify a non-parole period that represented a greater proportion of the head sentence than the statutory norm?

Decision

The court sentenced the offender on each of the 15 counts individually, setting terms ranging from 2 years 6 months (count 14, grooming of SCA) to 7 years (counts 4, 5, 8, and 13, each involving aggravated sexual intercourse). The court noted that count 14 was the only offence to which an applicable standard non-parole period of five years applied, and that the standard non-parole period served as a legislative guidepost for assessing the objective seriousness of the offence, consistent with the principles in Muldrock v R [2011] HCA 39.

For the offences that carried maximum penalties but had no standard non-parole period at the time of the conduct, the court sentenced the offender according to the legislative structure in force at the time each offence was committed. Later legislative changes, including standard non-parole periods introduced by parliament in 2015, did not apply retrospectively to those earlier offences.

The court then exercised its power to impose a single aggregate sentence of 15 years, with a non-parole period of 10 years. The ratio of non-parole period to head sentence reflects a finding of special circumstances. The court identified three factors supporting that finding: the offender's age, the fact that this was his first custodial sentence, and a number of physical limitations he experienced. These factors, the court concluded, meant the offender would require an extended period in the community to reintegrate.

Orders Made

  • An aggregate sentence of 15 years imprisonment imposed, commencing 24 February 2022 and expiring 23 February 2037.
  • Non-parole period of 10 years, with the offender eligible for release to parole on 23 February 2032.
  • Individual sentences imposed on each count as follows:
  • Count 1 (producing child pornography): 3 years
  • Count 2 (grooming, RH): 4 years
  • Count 3 (aggravated sexual intercourse, RH, under authority): 5 years 6 months
  • Count 4 (aggravated sexual intercourse, RH, under authority): 7 years
  • Count 5 (aggravated sexual intercourse, RH, under authority): 7 years
  • Count 6 (inciting act of indecency, RH, under authority): 3 years 6 months
  • Count 7 (inciting act of indecency, RH, under authority): 3 years 6 months
  • Count 8 (aggravated sexual intercourse, RH, aged 14 to 16): 7 years
  • Count 9 (producing child abuse material): 3 years
  • Count 10 (aggravated sexual intercourse, AH, under authority): 6 years
  • Count 11 (aggravated sexual intercourse, AH, under authority): 6 years
  • Count 12 (aggravated sexual intercourse, AH, under authority): 6 years
  • Count 13 (aggravated sexual intercourse, AH, under authority): 7 years
  • Count 14 (grooming, SCA): non-parole period of 1 year 5 months, parole period of 1 year 1 month, total 2 years 6 months
  • Count 15 (act of indecency, SCA): 2 years 9 months
  • The offender stands convicted of all 15 offences.
  • Exhibits to remain on file.

Key Takeaways

  • Where a standard non-parole period did not exist at the time an offence was committed but was subsequently introduced by parliament, the District Court confirmed that the offender must be sentenced according to the legislative structure in force at the time of the offence.
  • A finding of special circumstances can reduce the proportion of a head sentence that must be served as a non-parole period. Here, the court found that the offender's age, his status as a first-time custodial prisoner, and his physical limitations collectively justified an extended parole period to facilitate community reintegration.
  • Aggregate sentencing under the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 permits a court to impose one consolidated sentence across multiple counts presented on a single indictment, rather than ordering each sentence to run consecutively or concurrently.
  • The presence of an authority relationship between the offender and the child complainants constituted a statutory aggravating circumstance under s 66C(2) of the Crimes Act 1900, attracting a maximum penalty of 20 years imprisonment for the most serious sexual intercourse offences.
  • All 15 charges were properly prosecuted on indictment in the District Court. The court expressly noted that, notwithstanding the availability of summary conviction procedures for some offences, the circumstances made prosecution before a magistrate inappropriate.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation:
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), including ss 61O, 66C, 66EB, 91H
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), Part 4 Division 1A, s 54A

Cases:
- Muldrock v R [2011] HCA 39
- Markarian v R [2005] HCA 25
- Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa [2010] NSWCCA 194
- Droudis v R [2020] NSWCCA 322
- Gail v R [2021] NSWCCA 16
- PB v R [2016] NSWCCA 258
- R v AJP [2004] NSWCCA 434
- R v TWP [2006] NSWCCA 141
- Tepania v R [2018] NSWCCA 247
- R v Maguire (No. 1) [2002] NSWDC 92