AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
2
Court of Criminal Appeal 22 October 2025

GE v R

[2025] NSWCCA 168

Sexual offences

Citation: GE v R [2025] NSWCCA 168
Court: Court of Criminal Appeal, New South Wales
Date: 22 October 2025
Judges: Ward P, Adamson JA, Weinstein J

Background

The applicant, GE, pleaded guilty in the Local Court to 19 sexual offences committed against his biological daughter over approximately two years, during which she was aged between 9 and 11. A further three offences were taken into account on Form 1 documents (a procedural mechanism by which additional, related offences are formally noted and factored into the overall sentence without separate conviction).

On 1 May 2025, Huggett CJDC sentenced the applicant to an aggregate term of 24 years imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 18 years. Two counts carried a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. The applicant became eligible for parole on 21 October 2040.

The applicant sought leave to appeal against sentence on three grounds: that the sentencing judge had failed to treat his limited criminal history as a mitigating factor, had failed to properly consider his rehabilitation prospects, and that the aggregate sentence was manifestly excessive.

  • Whether the sentencing judge failed to take into account the applicant's limited criminal history as a mitigating factor under s 21A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
  • Whether the sentencing judge failed to properly consider the applicant's prospects of rehabilitation
  • Whether an aggregate sentence of 24 years was manifestly excessive
  • The appropriate weight to be given to prior good character and limited criminal record where offending is serious, prolonged, and involves a gross breach of trust
  • The proper role of comparative sentencing analysis when assessing whether an aggregate sentence is manifestly excessive

Decision

Ground 1: Limited criminal history. It was common ground at the sentencing hearing that the applicant's limited criminal history was relevant, but that the weight to be attributed to it was a matter for the sentencing judge and would be affected by the number and duration of the offences. Huggett CJDC found that the applicant was otherwise of good character but did not consider that this entitled him to particular leniency, given the extent and prolonged nature of the offending. The Court of Criminal Appeal was satisfied that her Honour applied the correct approach, consistent with the High Court's reasoning in Ryan v The Queen (2001) 206 CLR 267. Ground 1 was not made out.

Ground 2: Rehabilitation prospects. The sentencing judge did not find that the applicant had no prospects of rehabilitation; she characterised them as "guarded." Her Honour noted that the pro-social factors relied upon by the applicant, including his work history, limited criminal record, and absence of substance abuse, had all been present at the time of the offending. The Court found no error in that assessment, observing that it was consistent with the report of the relevant expert. Ground 2 was not made out.

Ground 3: Manifest excess. The applicant did not challenge the indicative sentences for individual offences or contest the assessment of their objective seriousness. Instead, he relied on comparisons with sentences imposed in other cases. The Court rejected that approach, reaffirming that sentencing is a process of instinctive synthesis of all relevant factors, not data assimilation from other cases. The utility of such comparisons diminishes further in the context of aggregate sentences covering many offences attracting different discounts. The Court was satisfied that the sentence imposed was open on the evidence. Ground 3 was not made out.

Orders Made

  • Leave to appeal granted
  • Appeal dismissed

Key Takeaways

  • The Court of Criminal Appeal confirmed that, where an offender's prior good character coexists with serious, prolonged offending, a sentencing judge is entitled to give that character only limited weight. The approach endorsed in Ryan v The Queen does not compel leniency in such circumstances.

  • A finding of "guarded" rehabilitation prospects is not equivalent to a finding of no prospects. Where pro-social factors relied upon as indicators of rehabilitation were present throughout the period of offending, a sentencing court may reasonably treat them as carrying reduced mitigating weight.

  • In dismissing the manifest excess ground, the Court reaffirmed that comparative sentencing analysis has limited utility, particularly where the cases relied upon differ in the number of victims, location, and degree of violence, and especially in the context of aggregate sentences spanning many offences with differing discounts.

  • Sentencing courts are not required to treat community expectations as demanding leniency. Ward P specifically noted that community expectations in a case involving egregious breach of parental trust required an appropriately lengthy sentence.

  • The legislative choice to set the maximum penalty for sexual intercourse with a child under 10 at life imprisonment, amended in 2015, was treated as a relevant indicator of the seriousness with which Parliament regards this category of offending.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 66A, 66C, 66DB, 66DC, 66DE, 66EB, 91G
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 3A, 10, 21A, 33
- Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), s 5
- Crimes Legislation Amendment (Child Sex Offences) Act 2015 (NSW)

Cases
- Ryan v The Queen (2001) 206 CLR 267; [2001] HCA 21
- The Queen v Pham (2015) 256 CLR 550; [2015] HCA 39
- The Queen v Kilic (2016) 259 CLR 256; [2016] HCA 48
- Director of Public Prosecutions (Vic) v Dalgleish (a pseudonym) (2017) 262 CLR 428; [2017] HCA 41
- The Queen v De Simoni (1981) 147 CLR 383; [1981] HCA 31
- Nataucu v R [2025] NSWCCA 94
- Warton v R [2025] NSWCCA 5
- Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) v TH [2023] NSWCCA 81; (2023) 307 A Crim R 149
- R v Baker [2000] NSWCCA 85