AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
District Court 14 June 2024

R v Sampson

[2024] NSWDC 694

Sexual offences
CRIME SENTENCE INTENTIONALLY SEXUALLY TOUCH CHILD 10 16 YEARS

Citation: R v Sampson [2024] NSWDC 694
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 14 June 2024
Judge(s): Bourke SC DCJ

Background

The offender, a male, faced sentencing on seven counts of sexual offending against four child victims. The offending spanned from approximately 2002 to 2021, covering two distinct periods: one linked to a long-term relationship between 1999 and 2008, and another linked to a separate relationship from around 2015 to 2016. Each victim was a young girl who had a connection to the offender through his intimate partners.

The offences included indecent assault of children under ten years, indecent assault of children under sixteen years, and intentional sexual touching of a child aged between ten and sixteen. A Form 1 offence of intimidation under the Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 was also taken into account on the final count. The offending involved separate incidents against each victim, occurring in domestic settings including a private residence, a vehicle, and during a swimming excursion.

The offender pleaded guilty, though at a late stage. The parties agreed he was entitled to a five percent discount on sentence for the utilitarian value of those pleas.

  • What indicative sentences were appropriate for each individual count, having regard to maximum penalties and, where applicable, standard non-parole periods?
  • How should totality principles apply to an aggregate sentence spanning seven counts involving four victims and offending across many years?
  • What weight should be given to mitigating and subjective factors, including the late guilty pleas, prospects of rehabilitation, and the offender's first period of full-time custody?

Decision

Bourke SC DCJ set indicative sentences for each count separately, all calculated after applying the five percent discount for the late guilty pleas. The individual indicative head sentences ranged from two years and ten months (count 1) to three years and six months (count 7), with specified non-parole periods attached to those counts carrying a standard non-parole period.

The court gave careful consideration to totality principles before imposing an aggregate sentence. His Honour found that some degree of notional accumulation was warranted, given that the offending involved four separate victims, discrete criminal acts, and a period spanning many years. At the same time, the court was mindful of avoiding a sentence so lengthy as to have a crushing effect on the offender's prospects of rehabilitation.

The final aggregate head sentence was set at seven years imprisonment, with a non-parole period of four years and three months. Both periods commenced from 31 January 2024. The court identified the offender's status as a first-time full-time custodial detainee and the need for post-release supervision as reasons to fix a non-parole period that was greater than the statutory benchmark of one-third.

Orders Made

  • Aggregate head sentence of seven years imprisonment, commencing 31 January 2024 and expiring 30 January 2031
  • Non-parole period of four years and three months, expiring 30 April 2028
  • Indicative sentences specified for each count (ranging from two years ten months to three years six months), each discounted five percent for the late guilty pleas
  • Separate non-parole periods specified for those counts attracting a standard non-parole period
  • Form 1 intimidation offence taken into account in sentencing on count 10

Key Takeaways

  • Where an offender is sentenced on multiple counts involving separate victims and distinct criminal acts spanning many years, some degree of notional accumulation in an aggregate sentence reflects the individual criminality of each offence while avoiding a crushing outcome.
  • A five percent discount for the utilitarian value of a guilty plea remained available even where the plea was entered at a relatively late stage, consistent with the approach in cases such as BP v R and related authorities.
  • The District Court treated the standard non-parole periods attached to several counts as important guideposts in setting indicative non-parole periods, without treating them as mandatory minima.
  • An offender's status as a first-time full-time custodial detainee, combined with the need for post-release monitoring, informed the court's decision to fix a non-parole period greater than one-third of the aggregate head sentence.
  • Subjective factors bearing on rehabilitation were weighed against the objective seriousness of repeated, opportunistic sexual offending against young children in positions of vulnerability arising from their domestic relationships with the offender.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 61M(2), 66DB(a)
- Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 (NSW), s 13(1)
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)

Cases
- BP v R [2010] NSWCCA 159
- Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37
- Hoskings v R [2021] NSWCCA 169
- Nasrallah v R [2021] NSWCCA 207
- R v Gavel [2014] NSWCCA 56
- TM v R [2023] NSWCCA 185