AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
District Court 24 May 2023

R v Kravchenko

[2023] NSWDC 200

Sexual offences
CRIME SENTENCE UNHELPFUL EXPERT EVIDENCE.

Citation: R v Kravchenko [2023] NSWDC 200
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 24 May 2023
Judge: Colefax SC DCJ

Background

The offender, a 31-year-old Russian-born man living unlawfully in Australia, connected with a 12-year-old girl via the social media platform Snapchat in June 2022. The victim had accepted all pending friend requests on her account out of boredom. She promptly told the offender she was 12 years old; he confirmed he was 31 and responded with sexual comments about her.

Over the course of 19 June 2022, the offender sent the child graphic sexual messages, explicit images, and proposed meeting her the following day. He told her he would supply cannabis for them to share. The victim's mother overheard a phone call in which the offender stated he did not care that the victim was 12 and described a sexual act he intended to perform.

The offender travelled to premises in Fairfield on 20 June 2022 to meet the victim as arranged. The victim was not there, as police had been alerted by her mother. The offender was arrested on 24 June 2022 and remained in custody on bail refusal from that date.

  • What sentence was appropriate for the principal offence of travelling with the intention of meeting a child under 14 years of age groomed for sexual activity, contrary to s 66EB(2A) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)?
  • How should the Form 1 matter (procuring a child under 14 for unlawful sexual activity) affect the sentence for the principal offence?
  • What discount, if any, should apply for the guilty plea?
  • Were there special circumstances justifying a variation to the standard ratio between the non-parole period and the head sentence?

Decision

The District Court assessed the principal offence as mid-range in objective seriousness. The court noted several aggravating features: the offender was fully aware from the outset that the victim was 12 years old, the conduct included sending explicit images to a child, and the proposal to supply cannabis to a 12-year-old added a further and serious dimension to the overall criminality.

The Form 1 matter, although arising from the same sequence of events as the principal offence, was treated as a discrete act of criminality warranting a meaningful increase in the sentence. The court found no additional statutory aggravating factors beyond those already inherent in the offending.

On subjective matters, the court had before it a sentencing assessment report, a psychological report, and a letter of contrition from the offender. The psychological evidence was described as unhelpful. While the offender had some mental health issues, the court found these were not causally related to the offending and therefore carried limited mitigating weight. His lack of prior criminal history, his status as a first-time prisoner, and the need for a longer parole period to facilitate rehabilitation were accepted as grounds for a finding of special circumstances.

The court applied a 25% discount for the guilty plea. Although an administrative error in Local Court records meant the offender had to be formally arraigned on indictment on the day of sentencing, the Crown and defence agreed the intention to plead guilty existed at an earlier stage, and the full discount was applied accordingly.

Orders Made

  • Principal offence: imprisonment for 3 years and 9 months (after 25% guilty plea discount from a pre-discount term of 5 years), backdated to 24 June 2022.
  • Non-parole period: 2 years and 3 months, commencing 24 June 2022, with eligibility for parole on 23 September 2024.
  • Balance of sentence: 1 year and 6 months, commencing 24 September 2024, expiring 23 March 2026.
  • Special circumstances finding made, varying the standard non-parole period ratio.

Key Takeaways

  • The District Court assessed online grooming and travelling offences involving a victim aged 12, combined with proposals to supply cannabis to that child, as warranting a mid-range objective seriousness classification under s 66EB(2A) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW).
  • A Form 1 matter arising from the same course of conduct as the principal offence can still be treated as a discrete act of criminality requiring a meaningful uplift to the principal sentence, even where the events are factually connected.
  • Where psychological evidence tendered at sentence is assessed by the court as unhelpful, it will carry little or no weight in mitigation, particularly where no causal link is established between a mental health condition and the offending.
  • Special circumstances were found based on the combination of first-time custody status, mental health considerations, and the need for a longer supervisory period on parole to support rehabilitation, justifying a departure from the standard non-parole period ratio.
  • An administrative error causing a formal arraignment on the day of sentence did not preclude a 25% guilty plea discount where both parties agreed the intention to plead guilty was formed at an earlier point.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation:
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 66EB(2A) (travelling with intention of meeting a child under 14 groomed for sexual activity; maximum penalty: 15 years imprisonment; standard non-parole period: 6 years)

Cases:
No cases were cited in the judgment.