AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
1
Court of Criminal Appeal 5 May 2025

Rokovada v R

[2025] NSWCCA 64

Sexual offences

Citation: Rokovada v R [2025] NSWCCA 64
Court: Court of Criminal Appeal, New South Wales
Date: 5 May 2025
Judges: Adamson JA; Hamill J; Ierace J

Background

The applicant was arrested in March 2023 and charged with multiple sexual offences arising from a single incident in March 2022. During committal proceedings in the Local Court, a case conference was held and a case conference certificate was filed. In February 2024, the applicant offered to plead guilty to one count of sexual intercourse without consent on the basis that the complainant consented to all sexual activity except ejaculation. The Crown rejected that offer in March 2024, and the applicant was committed for trial to the District Court.

At a "Super Call-over" in the District Court in July 2024, the matter was resolved on terms that were materially identical to the applicant's earlier counter-offer. The applicant pleaded guilty to one count of sexual intercourse without consent, with the agreed facts reflecting the very factual basis the applicant had proposed months earlier in the Local Court.

The sentencing judge applied a 10% discount for the guilty plea under s 25D(2)(b) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW). The applicant sought leave to appeal on the sole ground that a 25% discount under s 25D(2)(a) should have applied, arguing it was manifestly unfair that the Crown had achieved no better outcome than if it had accepted the applicant's Local Court offer.

  • Whether the sentencing judge erred by applying a 10% rather than a 25% discount for the guilty plea under s 25D of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
  • Whether the applicant's case conference certificate was sufficient to satisfy the requirements of s 25D(2)(a)
  • Whether the applicant fell within s 25D(2)(a) (plea before and accepted by a Magistrate during committal) or s 25D(2)(b)(ii) (plea after committal for trial)
  • Whether the applicant qualified for a higher discount under s 25E (different offence) or s 25D(3) (new count offence)

Decision

The Court of Criminal Appeal granted leave to appeal but dismissed the appeal. Adamson JA, with Hamill J and Ierace J each adding observations, held that the 10% discount was the correct one under the statutory framework as it applied to the applicant's circumstances.

The applicant's case conference certificate was found to be insufficient to satisfy s 25D(2)(a). More fundamentally, the applicant had not pleaded guilty before and had that plea accepted by a Magistrate during committal proceedings. Instead, he pleaded guilty after being committed for trial, which placed him squarely within s 25D(2)(b)(ii). The language of s 25D(2)(a) is confined to pleas made and accepted in the Local Court during committal; the fact that an offer to plead guilty had been recorded in the case conference certificate did not bring the applicant within that provision.

The Court also found that the applicant did not satisfy the requirements of s 25E, because he had not pleaded guilty to a different offence from the one charged. Nor did s 25D(3) assist, because there was no new count offence. The existing statutory framework left no room to apply a higher discount on the basis that the Crown's eventual agreement mirrored the applicant's earlier offer.

Both Hamill J and Ierace J made observations about the inflexibility and potential unfairness of the statutory regime as it operated on these facts. All three judges noted the merit in reviewing the scheme's operation, given that the legislation requires parties to record offers in case conference certificates but then provides no mechanism to reward an accused who made a timely offer that the Crown later accepted on the same terms.

Orders Made

No orders were made in this decision.

Key Takeaways

  • Under s 25D(2)(a) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), the 25% discount applies only where a plea of guilty was made and accepted by a Magistrate during committal proceedings in the Local Court; a plea entered after committal for trial attracts the lower discount under s 25D(2)(b).

  • Recording an offer to plead guilty in a case conference certificate does not, of itself, satisfy the requirements of s 25D(2)(a), and does not entitle an accused to the higher discount if the plea is ultimately entered in the District Court after committal.

  • The Court of Criminal Appeal confirmed that s 25E and s 25D(3) have discrete and limited application: s 25E requires a plea to a different offence, and s 25D(3) requires a new count offence; neither provision assisted an applicant who pleaded to the same charge on which he was committed.

  • In dismissing the appeal, all three judges acknowledged the potential unfairness that arises where an accused makes a timely offer in the Local Court that the Crown ultimately accepts on the same terms in the District Court, yet the accused receives no credit beyond the lower statutory rate.

  • Hamill J and Ierace J expressly observed the desirability of legislative review and possible reform of the statutory plea discount regime to address its inflexibility in circumstances such as those presented in this case.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 61I
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 22, 25A, 25B, 25C, 25D, 25E, 25F, Pt 3 Div 1A, 33
- Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), ss 55, 66, 70, 75, 77, 97
- Justice Legislation Amendment (Committals and Guilty Pleas) Act 2017 (NSW)

Cases
- Black v R (2022) 107 NSWLR 225; [2022] NSWCCA 17
- Green v R [2022] NSWCCA 230
- Ke v R [2021] NSWCCA 177
- Camilleri v R (2023) 308 A Crim R 52; [2023] NSWCCA 106
- R v Thomson; R v Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 383; [2000] NSWCCA 309
- SZTAL v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2017) 262 CLR 362; [2017] HCA 34
- Borri v R [2023] NSWCCA 166
- R v Cardoso [2003] NSWCCA 15; (2003) 137 A Crim R 535