Carreno v R

1. [1]

   BUTTON J: I agree with McNaughton J.

2. [2]

   McNAUGHTON J: On 26 April 2022, the applicant (Pablo Carreno) filed a notice of appeal seeking leave to appeal against the aggregate sentence imposed upon him by Judge O’Brien AM in the District Court at Sydney on 3 February 2021. The sentence followed late pleas of guilty to several serious offences, including aggravated sexual assault, arising out of a “home invasion” committed many years earlier in 1998, when the applicant was 19 years and 10 months old (“the 1998 offences”). At the time of sentencing, the applicant was 42 years old.

3. [3]

   The applicant’s trial had been listed to commence on 17 August 2020. On 18 August 2020, he entered pleas of guilty to Counts 1 to 3 on the indictment and asked for three further offences to be taken into account.

4. [4]

   The aggregate sentence imposed by the sentencing judge was 16 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 12 years’ imprisonment. The details of the offences, the maximum penalties, the discount for the plea of guilty, and the indicative sentences (taking into account the Form 1 matters) are set out in the following table:

5. [5]

   The following three matters were taken into account on Form 1:

6. [6]

   The sentence commenced on 12 August 2019. The full term of the sentence is due to expire on 11 August 2035 and the applicant is eligible for release on parole from 11 August 2031. The commencement date took into account the fact that the applicant had been in custody since 9 August 2017 for other matters. He has been in custody solely in relation to the 1998 offences since 8 April 2020.

7. [7]

   The grounds of appeal are as follows:

   1. (1)

      Ground 1: The sentencing judge erred in finding there was no evidence of a causal connection between the applicant’s youth or maturity and the offending or, alternatively, in positively finding no causal connection existed.

   2. (2)

      Ground 2: In the alternative to ground 1, the sentencing judge gave insufficient reasons for finding there was no evidence of a causal connection between the applicant’s youth or maturity and the offending or why no weight was to be afforded to that matter.

   3. (3)

      Ground 3: The sentence imposed was manifestly excessive.

8. [8]

   The appeal was filed out of time. No objection is taken to leave being granted to file the appeal out of time, and I am of the view that leave should be granted.

9. [9]

   In my opinion, none of the grounds of appeal have been made out and the appeal should be dismissed.

Factual background

1. [10]

   The pleas of guilty were entered on the day after the applicant’s trial was due to commence, prior to jury empanelment, attracting a discount of 10% in conformity with common law principles. (I note that the Early Appropriate Guilty Plea legislation did not apply.)

2. [11]

   An agreed statement of facts was tendered in the sentence proceedings. Given the nature of the appeal, it is appropriate to go into the facts in some detail.

3. [12]

   At about 11:00pm on 25 November 1998, the applicant and two other men armed with guns, all wearing gloves and balaclavas, invaded a home unit at Haberfield in the inner west of Sydney, which was occupied by the male and female victims. They violently assaulted the male victim and repeatedly and violently assaulted and sexually abused the female victim, including with the barrel of a gun. Both victims were threatened with death unless they handed over money. The offenders’ balaclavas were rolled up on their faces at points during the offences and the female victim saw their faces at times. However, no identification of the offenders could be made at the time of the offences.

4. [13]

   The applicant was not arrested for the offences until 2017.

5. [14]

   The circumstances of special aggravation were being armed with a dangerous weapon and in company. The “home invasion” commenced after the male victim went to investigate a noise he had heard. When he opened the front door, it was forced open and he was hit to the throat and head with a gun barrel with such force that it broke apart. He fell to the ground. He was told to stay down, his face was pushed to the floor and he was dragged by the hair into the lounge room. He was told not to look or move. He could feel a shoe on the side of his face and a gun barrel at the back of his head. His feet and arms were tied behind his back with electrical cord from within the unit and demands were made for cash and drugs. At one point he was threatened with a “fucking bullet through your head” if cash was not provided. The male victim said he had no cash. A piece of material was put over his mouth and he was kicked to the mouth, causing lacerations inside his mouth. He was also kicked to the ribs. A piece of material was placed over his head. He heard the unit being ransacked.

6. [15]

   The male victim was taken to hospital after the offences and was found to have suffered burn marks to his wrists and ankles, a bruise to his left forehead, a graze to his neck, multiple lacerations to his gums and loose bottom front teeth.

7. [16]

   The female victim was in bed when the second or third offender (not the applicant) came through the bedroom door with a silver handgun. She was told to get down. This armed offender grabbed her by the shirt and pointed the gun to her temple. He pushed her to the floor and put his knee into her back while still pointing the gun at her head. He pulled her skirt down to expose her buttocks, told her not to look at him and hit her in the head with the gun. He opened her legs using the gun and pressed the barrel against her genital area, asking her about the money. The applicant entered the room, digitally penetrated her vagina with his finger and said to her: “Where is the money. Tell me or you are going to die for this”. He inserted another finger into her vagina and was thrusting it in and out whilst demanding money. The applicant continued to insert his fingers in her vagina when the third offender entered the bedroom. An article of clothing was placed over her head and all three offenders demanded money. The gun was pointed at her head again and she was hit to the head a number of times.

8. [17]

   The second or third offender held the female victim’s arms behind the back of her neck while the applicant pressed his knee into her back. The gun was moved from her head and inserted into her vagina for a period of time causing her significant pain while the applicant and the second offender demanded money and jewellery.

9. [18]

   The gun was removed from her vagina. She was then pulled to her feet and placed on the floor while the other offenders ransacked the room. The gun was pointed at her head again and she was told to spread her legs and lift her bottom area.

10. [19]

    The three offenders cleared space on the bed and the female victim was thrown onto the bed on her back. Her head was covered and she was pulled by her legs to the edge of the bed. Her legs were forced open and she was told not to look at the offenders. They threatened to shoot her if she did not tell them where the money was located. Her shirt was ripped open, her skirt was torn off completely and the gun was pushed against her head. The applicant forced his penis into her vagina and had penile-vaginal intercourse with her while the second or third male squeezed and sucked her breasts. She did not know if the applicant ejaculated.

11. [20]

    When the applicant withdrew his penis, the second offender immediately digitally penetrated her vagina and then had penile-vaginal intercourse with her while the third offender forced her hands down and pushed the gun towards her face. She did not know if the second offender ejaculated.

12. [21]

    The female victim’s hands and ankles were then tied with electrical cord, causing her pain and thick tape was wrapped around her mouth.

13. [22]

    The offenders stole jewellery belonging to the male victim, family heirlooms belonging to the female victim, a mobile phone and cameras.

14. [23]

    The offenders left and the female victim managed to cut herself and the male victim free. The police and ambulance were called, and they were both taken to hospital.

15. [24]

    The female victim underwent a sexual assault examination, during which semen was detected in her vaginal swab and DNA samples were taken. She gave a general description of the applicant. None of the offenders could be identified at that stage and the investigation was suspended in 1999.

16. [25]

    In 2017, the applicant’s DNA was uploaded to the DNA database and a link was made to the applicant in the present matter as follows:

    1. (1)

       Male DNA recovered from Y-filer testing of the female victim’s high and low vaginal swab which was a mixture of two individuals, the profile of the major contributor matched the applicant’s profile, all males on his paternal line and 1 in 750 males in the general population; and

    2. (2)

       A DNA mixture of at least three individuals was found in the female victim’s vulval swab and the major contributor had the same profile as the applicant. It was greater than 100 billion times more likely to obtain this major profile if it was from the applicant than from an unknown, unrelated individual in the general population.

17. [26]

    The applicant exercised his right to silence when he was arrested in 2017 while he was in custody for another offence.

18. [27]

    The applicant gave evidence on sentence. He said the other two offenders were aged about 25 and 27, but he refused to name them for fear for his safety. He agreed in cross-examination that earlier in the same year, before these offences, he had committed an offence of robbery on his own at a service station during which he had punched a service station attendant a couple of times to the head. He agreed that no-one had influenced him to commit that offence. He also agreed that a couple of weeks after the present offences, he was caught outside a nightclub with a firearm and served some time in prison as a result of that offence. He stated that he was asked to hold it by some “bad guys” and was drunk at the time.

19. [28]

    In his evidence-in-chief, the applicant said that in 1998 he was “hanging around with bad guys who lived in his neighbourhood and that he ‘got caught up’ with ‘some bad stuff’”. In cross-examination, he agreed that no-one forced him to participate in the present offences and that he could have left at any time.

20. [29]

    As to later offending, the applicant stated in cross-examination that in 2015, he defrauded a former employer of $160,000 and that in 2017, he was involved in a police pursuit following which he was found in possession of a firearm and bullet. He initially denied all knowledge of that offence until DNA evidence linked him to the weapon.

21. [30]

    The applicant also agreed in cross-examination that he had initially told his lawyers that he had consensual sexual intercourse with the female victim in the present case and that this was a lie formulated to try to explain the DNA evidence.

Remarks on sentence

1. [31]

   After setting out the facts of the matter, the sentencing judge stated “Specially aggravated break and enter offences are very serious examples of criminal conduct and general deterrence is an important sentencing consideration”. Further, “a clear message must be sent that if people enter the homes of other members of the community uninvited and without warning and then commit serious criminal offences, then severe penalties will be imposed.” The sentencing judge noted “importantly” in this case the applicant was both in company and, as part of a joint criminal enterprise, armed with a dangerous weapon.

2. [32]

   In determining the objective seriousness of Count 1, the sentencing judge noted that “the relative seriousness of the ‘felony’ committed following the breaking and entering [was] an appropriate matter for the Court to consider”. In this case, the “felony” was an offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm.

3. [33]

   The sentencing judge identified that these offences were colloquially referred to as “home invasions” and that this home invasion violated the peace and tranquillity of the victims’ premises in a “most serious way”. It was further noted that the fact that the indictment alleged the offender was in company and armed with a dangerous weapon as part of a joint criminal enterprise did not limit the aggravating factors that could be taken into account in the determination of objective seriousness. Here, the offending was further aggravated by the fact that the applicant knew there were persons present within the premises at the time of the break-in, and that the hands and feet of both victims were tied up so that they were deprived of their liberty. A further matter of aggravation was that there were multiple firearms (rather than just a single firearm), all of which were deployed in a threatening manner. The remarks continued, “It is not controversial to observe that the more circumstances of aggravation existing in a crime the more objectively serious it is.”

4. [34]

   The male victim’s physical injuries, referred to above, were not taken into account by the sentencing judge as aggravating factors, as actual bodily harm was already an element of the offence. The sentencing judge noted that the female victim was physically assaulted in addition to being sexually assaulted and threatened with other serious violence. A gun was also repeatedly pointed at her and she was struck to the head on more than one occasion. The sentencing judge stated:

5. [35]

   The planning was further evidenced by the offenders wearing gloves and balaclavas for disguise. The offending was accompanied by a ransacking of the premises, and so far as the offence of steal property from dwelling on the Form 1, multiple items of jewellery including family heirlooms were stolen. These items were not recovered and that matter impacted on the sentencing judge’s assessment of the objective seriousness of the offending.

6. [36]

   The sentencing judge noted the submission made on behalf of the applicant that there was no permanent physical injury on either of the victims. However, based on the material in the victim impact statements, whilst accepting there was no permanent physical injury to either of the victims, the sentencing judge was satisfied that each had suffered significant and long-lasting “injury” as a result of the conduct.

7. [37]

   There was no dispute at sentence, and the sentencing judge so found, that the objective seriousness of Count 1 fell at a point well above the mid-range of objective seriousness for offences of this type. The sentencing judge stated, “there can be no doubt that the offending in count 1 is gravely serious”.

8. [38]

   The sentencing judge set out some well-known and important principles in relation to sentencing for the offence of sexual intercourse without consent in company. It was noted that “all non-consensual sexual intercourse is an extreme form of violence that the community rightly abhors and is a form of crime where courts are expected to impose meaningful sentences. When committed in company, while armed and in the home of the victim as is the case here, such offending is very grave indeed.” The sentencing judge referred to the maximum penalties and said that those penalties made Parliament’s intention “abundantly clear”.

9. [39]

   Amongst other things, the sentencing judge noted it was important to have regard to “the degree of violence exhibited, the physical hurt inflicted, the form of the forced intercourse, the overall circumstances pertaining to the crime or crimes, and the degree of humiliation inflicted upon the victim.” The sentencing judge highlighted that in relation to the primary offending, there were “two separate examples of sexual intercourse being the insertion of the barrel of a handgun into the [female victim’s] vagina by one of the offenders and penile/vaginal penetration by [the applicant]”. In addition, the counts of sexual intercourse to be dealt with on a Form 1 involved digital penetration by the applicant, and a further instance of penile/vaginal intercourse by another of the applicant’s armed co-offenders.

10. [40]

    The sentencing judge accepted on balance that the co-offenders were the persons armed, and not the applicant.

11. [41]

    That the sexual offences were committed in the female victim’s own home was found by the sentencing judge to be a matter of considerable aggravation. The violence was significant and accompanied by ongoing serious threats to kill and using a firearm both pointed at her head, and “in what was a most demeaning and cruel act, inserted into her vagina. The level of terror that [the female victim] must have felt when the firearm was used in this way is difficult to imagine.”

12. [42]

    The sentencing judge also noted that the fact that the applicant being “in company" was an element of the offence did not mean that it could not be taken into account as a matter of aggravation. This was because that element could be made out by the presence of just one other person – and here there were two. The sentencing judge found that the presence of more than one other person added to the objective seriousness of the offending as it impacted the level of fear felt by the female victim.

13. [43]

    The sentencing judge also noted that the sexual assaults were completely “gratuitous, opportunistic and humiliating of her.” It was noted that the intention of the offenders on entering the premises was apparently to steal money and drugs. The sentencing judge noted:

14. [44]

    The sentencing judge assessed the objective seriousness for each of the sexual assaults to be “at a point well above the mid-range and approaching the upper end of the range for offences of this type”, noting too that in considering Count 3, he would have to have regard to the two additional sexual assault offences on the Form 1. This would increase the appropriate penalty which would have applied without those scheduled offences.

15. [45]

    The sentencing judge further stated that “both the home invasion and the sexual assaults involved conduct of very significant objective criminality”, and that meaningful appropriate sentences “must be imposed as a means of conveying a very clear message of both general and specific deterrence”. He added that there was a “very strong need for the sentence to be imposed to adequately punish [the applicant] and to recognise the very considerable harm done to the victims and the community more broadly”.

16. [46]

    Given the gravamen of the first two grounds of appeal concern how the sentencing judge dealt with the question of the applicant’s youth at the time of the offending, I will set out the entire section of the remarks concerning the applicant’s subjective case on sentence – which not only touches directly on the contentious issue, but also provides appropriate context. The relevant section of the remarks state:

17. [47]

    The sentencing judge allowed a 10% discount for the late pleas of guilty to reflect the pleas’ utilitarian value.

18. [48]

    The impact on the witnesses was acknowledged by the sentencing judge in some detail, noting that he accepted “without hesitation” that the applicant’s conduct has had an “overwhelming deleterious effect” on the female victim, and further noting that the applicant was responsible both directly and as a participant in the joint criminal enterprise for all the various harms that had been caused to her. The sentencing judge found the emotional harm caused to her was “substantial” within the meaning of s 21A(2)(g) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) and was a specifically aggravating factor in respect of sentencing for Counts 2 and 3.

19. [49]

    As to totality, the sentencing judge referred to the principles summarised in Osman v R [2020] NSWCCA 78 at [53] and considered the issue of backdating in light of the applicant’s other sentence and his continuous custody since his arrest on the present matters. He determined that the sentence for these matters should start on 12 August 2019 – which allowed for partial concurrency with his other sentence.

20. [50]

    The sentencing judge declined to make a finding of special circumstances. He noted that the sentence to be imposed on the applicant would already provide a lengthy and sufficient period of supervision on parole, and further stated that given the grave nature of the offending, a non-parole period in accordance with the statutory ratio of 75% represented the minimum period of incarceration which was appropriate in all the circumstances.

Grounds 1 and 2:

1. [51]

   The grounds of appeal are as follows:

   1. (1)

      Ground 1: The sentencing judge erred in finding there was no evidence of a causal connection between the applicant’s youth or maturity and the offending or, alternatively, in positively finding no causal connection existed.

   2. (2)

      Ground 2: In the alternative to Ground 1, the sentencing judge gave insufficient reasons for finding there was no evidence of a causal connection between the applicant’s youth or maturity and the offending or why no weight was to be afforded to that matter.

2. [52]

   It is convenient to deal with both of these grounds together.

3. [53]

   It can first be observed that the issue of there being a “causal connection” between the applicant’s youth or maturity at the time of the offending and the offences committed was not raised squarely before the sentencing judge. Rather, it was raised clearly for the first time on this appeal, arising, it is argued, from a particular passage in the remarks set out above. For convenience, the relevant passage is repeated here:

4. [54]

   The evidence said to show a causal connection between the applicant’s youth or immaturity and his offending is said to be from the following passages from the report of Mr Diment, under the heading “Summary/Opinion”:

5. [55]

   These passages must be viewed in the context of other evidence.

   1. (1)

      Immediately after the passages which are relied upon by the applicant in Mr Diment’s report, the following is recorded:

   2. (2)

      In the body of the report under the heading “Background”, the following was included:

   3. (3)

      In the body of the report under the heading “Involvement in offences: (November, 2019)”, the following was included:

   4. (4)

      In examination-in-chief at the sentencing proceedings, the following evidence was adduced from the applicant:

   5. (5)

      At another point in examination-in-chief, the following evidence was adduced:

   6. (6)

      In cross-examination, the following evidence was adduced from the applicant:

   7. (7)

      Further, in cross-examination, the following evidence was adduced:

6. [56]

   Importantly, in the course of submissions on sentence on the applicant’s behalf the following was stated:

7. [57]

   The applicant argues that this passage should not be read literally. It is contended that counsel’s use of the word “culpability” should be read as a reference to the applicant’s criminal liability (especially in light of the reference to the role of the applicant), rather than a concession that the applicant’s moral culpability was not lessened because of his youth or the co-offender’s influence.

8. [58]

   The applicant further argues that youth may be relevant in three different ways:

   1. (1)

      Youth may increase the significance of the offender’s rehabilitation – in recognition of the capacity of youthful people to reform and that the protection of the community is facilitated through successful rehabilitation.

   2. (2)

      An offender’s moral culpability or criminality may be lessened if his or her immaturity was a significant factor in the offending – for example, where impulsivity and a lack of self-reflection as to its seriousness and possible consequences, being traits inherent in youths who have not reached full maturity, contributed to the offending. This lessens the weight attributable to general deterrence and retribution.

   3. (3)

      Chronological age may be an indicator but is not necessarily decisive of the offender’s level of maturity.

9. [59]

   The applicant fairly acknowledges that the significance afforded to “youth” as a factor may be diminished or, in some instance even, forfeited with very serious offending. The applicant contends, however, that the sentencing judge failed to engage with the facts and circumstances to determine what, if any, weight should be attributed to the applicant’s youth. If little or no weight is to be attributed, the reasoning ought to be revealed. The applicant submits “this should not be determined or dismissed merely by reference to a broadly stated principle.”

10. [60]

    The respondent argues that there were no errors by the sentencing judge in the identification and application of the law as to the significance of the youth of the applicant. The sentencing judge noted the age of the applicant as 19 years and 10 months. The offending was adult in nature, involving three males in company, two of them armed, forcibly gaining access to the premises, using force to subdue the occupants, with a degree of planning and premeditation shown by the wearing of balaclavas and gloves, the use of threats to the victims, measures taken to keep them quiet and to tie them up, demands for cash and money, theft of valuable items, as well as the repeated sexual assaults of the female victim including what clearly must have been the terrifying use of the guns. The respondent noted that at about the time of the offending, as also noted by the sentencing judge, the applicant had an association with people who had firearms and he had convictions for robbery and possessing an unauthorised firearm committed alone and independently of this matter.

11. [61]

    The respondent also drew the Court’s attention to the finding by the sentencing judge that the offending in question was not an uncharacteristic aberration.

12. [62]

    Further, the first sexual assault in the series of sexual assaults was committed by the applicant. He was the first to digitally penetrate the female victim’s vagina, at the time demanding money and telling her to: “tell me or you are going to die for this”. He continued to insert his fingers into her vagina when another male entered the room. Further, he was the first to force his penis into her vagina after she had been abused (by a co-offender) with one of the guns, thrown onto the bed and her clothes ripped or torn off.

13. [63]

    The respondent further emphasised that during the sentencing proceedings, the applicant’s counsel did not submit that his youth and/or immaturity was a mitigating factor in the list of relevant mitigating factors under s 21A(3) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW).

14. [64]

    The respondent submits that in light of all these factors, the sentencing judge was not in error in finding no evidence of a causal connection between the applicant’s youth and the offending.

15. [65]

    As to the alternative argument in Ground 2, the respondent argued that the applicant overlooked the detail with which the sentencing judge considered the applicant’s subjective case. The sentencing judge, amongst other careful considerations, considered the significance of the applicant’s history of both prior and subsequent offending.

16. [66]

    The respondent submits that no error has been demonstrated and that Grounds 1 and 2 have not been made out.

17. [67]

    The applicant, in essence, is arguing that the sentencing judge’s discretion miscarried in that he failed to take into account a material consideration, being a causal connection between the applicant’s youth or immaturity and the offending: House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 at 505; [1936] HCA 40 (“House”). Alternatively, he argues that the sentencing judge failed to provide sufficient reasons for finding no causal connection or in attributing no weight to the applicant’s youth or immaturity.

18. [68]

    It is difficult for the applicant to make out these first two grounds of appeal because what is now contended was a material House error, is a factor which was not even squarely raised before the sentencing judge. Further, to complain that there were insufficient reasons for a matter not put squarely before the sentencing judge for consideration is a difficult submission to sustain in light of the principle set out in DL v The Queen (2018) 266 CLR 1; [2018] HCA 26 at [32] where it was stated that the content and detail of reasons "will vary according to the nature of the jurisdiction which the court is exercising and the particular matter the subject of the decision".

19. [69]

    The principles relating to the factor of youth in the context of sentencing are well known. In the often cited decision of KT v R [2008] NSWCCA 51 at [22]-[26]; (2008) 182 A Crim R 571 (“KT”), the principles were summarised by McClellan CJ at CL:

20. [70]

    Further, Hamill J in CW v R [2022] NSWCCA 50, conveniently set out the following well known additional principles and comments at [62]-[65]:

21. [71]

    It is apparent from the passage of the remarks set out at [46] that these well-established principles were known to the sentencing judge.

22. [72]

    Here the applicant was aged 19 years and 10 months when he committed the offence, and a much older adult of 42 years when he was being sentenced.

23. [73]

    The obvious factor of the applicant’s youth at the time of offending was clearly appreciated by the sentencing judge. In the circumstances of this case, the sentencing judge was entitled to deal with the issue of the applicant’s youth in the manner he did for the following reasons:

    1. (1)

       Even if it were the case that there was some minimal evidence from Mr Diment’s report which technically could be said to ground a bare submission showing a “causal” connection between the applicant’s youth and his offending, the way in which the applicant’s case was argued before the sentencing judge did not rely on any such causal connection. Given the circumstances of the case, including the nature of the evidence in question, it is unlikely this was inadvertent. As recognised in the applicant’s written submissions, referred to above, in order for there to be an amelioration of the culpability of the offender on account of youth, the authorities make clear that the immaturity of the offender needs to be a significant factor in the commission of the offence (KT at [23]; R v Hearne [2001] NSWCCA 37 at [25]; (2001) 124 A Crim R 451 (“Hearne”); MS2 v The Queen [2005] NSWCCA 397 at [61]; (2005) 158 A Crim R 93). Further, it was open to the sentencing judge to find that the main import of the so-called evidence of causation was that he was influenced by his co-offenders largely because they were relatively older than he was, rather than because the applicant was young per se. This was reinforced by the evidence set out at [55(5)] above indicating that even when youth was no longer a factor, the applicant was still influenced by the very same people to commit offences.

    2. (2)

       The impugned passage does not show that the sentencing judge gave no weight to the applicant’s youth or immaturity. Rather, it showed that the applicant’s youth was appreciated by the sentencing judge but that such factors were to be given “much less weight” in light of the applicant’s behaviour which involved “extreme violence”. Such an approach was open to the sentencing judge and in accordance with authority.

    3. (3)

       The nature of the offending was such that youth carried limited significance.

    4. (4)

       This was not a case of a young offender coming before the court for a serious offence for the first time. To the contrary, as recognised by the sentencing judge, the applicant had committed a solo offence of robbery as an adult about eight months before these offences, and only three weeks after these offences he committed a further solo offence of possessing an unauthorised firearm. In light of this offending, any arguments involving impulsivity, a lack of self-reflection and possible consequences would have been far less forceful (if indeed such arguments had been made), especially when combined with the applicant’s continued criminal conduct committed much later in life. Accordingly, any argument in this case that general deterrence and retribution should carry less weight on account of youth is harder to make out.

    5. (5)

       The considerable emphasis placed by the authorities on the need to provide an opportunity for rehabilitation when sentencing youthful offenders has little part to play in this case because sentencing for this serious offending was dealt with so many years after its commission. This was recognised by the sentencing judge when he noted that the applicant’s record of offending after 25 November 1998 is “relevant not as a matter of aggravation in respect of the offending itself, but as some indication of his capacity for rehabilitation and ability to live a pro social and crime free life in the community.”

24. [74]

    Accordingly, in light of all the circumstances of this case, including the nature of the evidence, the conduct of the matter before the sentencing judge and the detailed remarks on sentence, I am of the view that Grounds 1 and 2 are not made out.

Ground 3: The sentence imposed was manifestly excessive

1. [75]

   In attempting to make good the ground of manifest excess of the aggregate sentence, the applicant directs the Court’s attention to the indicative sentence for Count 1 as being “outside the reasonable range” as the key basis of the argument. In support of his argument, he points to statistics as well as a number of so-called comparative sentences.

2. [76]

   It is important first to note that the applicant does not take issue with the description in the remarks of the seriousness of the offending in relation to Count 1. As set out above, the sentencing judge stated that the objective seriousness of Count 1 was at a point well above the mid-range of objective seriousness (or at the lower end of the high range) for offences of this type, and further stated that “there can be no doubt that the offending in count 1 is gravely serious”. Even at the outset, it can be noted that:

   1. (1)

      The maximum penalty for the s 112(3) offence is 25 years’ imprisonment;

   2. (2)

      There was a scheduled offence of stealing property which itself carried a maximum penalty of 7 years’ imprisonment; and

   3. (3)

      The indicative sentence prior to the discount (14 years) was 11 years below the maximum penalty, that is, only 56% of the maximum penalty,

3. [77]

   He attempts to do so by comparing the indicative sentence on Count 1 to other so-called comparative sentences, assisted by some statistical information.

4. [78]

   The applicant notes that there were only two decisions prior to the introduction of the SNPP on the Judicial Information Research System (“JIRS”) database for s 112(3) offences – which was conceded to be an insufficient sample.

5. [79]

   The applicant provided a statistical table containing 55 post-SNPP s 112(3) examples. Of these it was noted that two attracted a head sentence or indicative sentence of 10 years or more, being Franklin v R [2018] NSWCCA 245 (“Franklin”) and R v Charrouf (aka Obeid) [2020] NSWDC 311 (“Charrouf”).

6. [80]

   Franklin involved an offender who was in his 30s with no prior convictions. The offending was constituted by a planned home invasion comprising three offenders using weapons (a wooden club fashioned from an axe or pick handle and an unloaded firearm stolen from the victims), restraint of multiple victims, and considerable violence. There was no sexual violence. One victim was rendered unconscious and suffered a significant head wound which caused him grievous bodily harm. The injury was serious and had significant and ongoing impacts on his daily life.

7. [81]

   The s 112(3) offence involved the special aggravation of being in company with two others and inflicting grievous bodily harm on the victim while being reckless as to causing actual bodily harm. There were two additional offences on a schedule, being an aggravated detention (contrary to s 86(2)(a) of the Crimes Act) and a specially aggravated detention (contrary to s 86(3) of the Crimes Act). The other offence for which he was sentenced was a detain victim with the intention of obtaining a financial advantage. A 20% discount was applied for past and future assistance to law enforcement authorities, and there was a 25% discount for his plea of guilty. An indicative sentence of 20 years, before discount, for the s 112(3) offence was held not to be manifestly excessive, although in resentencing (on other grounds) the indicative sentence nominated by this Court was 18 years and 6 months imprisonment. This was reduced after discounts of 45% to 10 years. An aggregate sentence of 12 years and 6 months with a non-parole period of 8 years was imposed.

8. [82]

   The offender in Charrouf forcefully entered the victim’s home with his co-offender in the early hours and committed a serious indictable offence, namely aggravated wounding in company. The circumstance of special aggravation was being armed with a dangerous weapon (a pistol). After gaining entry, the co-offender fired two .38 calibre automatic shots at the victim. One bullet hit the victim’s thigh. The offender was about 34 years old at the time of offending and 37 years old at the time of sentence. He had extensive prior convictions including robbery in company, robbery with an offensive weapon, assault occasioning actually bodily harm, common assault, larceny, taking and driving a conveyance, and break, enter and steal. He had spent a significant part of his adult life in gaol and was on parole at the time of the offending. He received a 10% discount for his plea of guilty. He was sentenced to 11 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 7 years and 6 months.

9. [83]

   The applicant also referred to the Public Defenders’ Table which contains 21 cases, picking up both pre and post-SNPP offences. There is no material before this Court to suggest this table was before the sentencing judge. The applicant points to the two sentences which involved sentences over 10 years: Srikantharajah v R [2012] NSWCCA 209 (“Srikantharajah”) and Wootton v R [2014] NSWCCA 86; (2014) 241 A Crim R 256 (“Wootton”).

10. [84]

    It can be noted that in Srikantharajah, there were two offences against s 112(3). The serious indictable offence was intimidation, and the aggravating circumstance was that the appellant was in company. The circumstance of special aggravation was the intentional infliction of grievous bodily harm. There was an additional offence on a schedule, being intentionally or recklessly destroy property.

11. [85]

    The appellant, who was 25 years old at the time of offending, was part of a group of Tamil males involved in violent confrontations with members of the Sinhalese community. Together with the co-offenders, he attended the victims’ home at about 11:45pm and they smashed their way inside. One victim was struck with a metal pole (breaking his ankle) and stabbed in the stomach with a sharp implement. That victim also had his finger broken, hand wounded and had caustic soda squirted onto his face. The other victim had caustic soda squirted into his eyes, and whilst smashing a window with his hands in an attempt to escape, he received lacerations to his hands and sliced off the tips of his ring fingers. This victim was placed in a medically induced coma to alleviate pain. His sight returned over 2 to 3 months, but he continued to suffer pain to his eyes and blurred vision. The injuries were found to be very substantial.

12. [86]

    The offending was held to fall within the mid-range of objective seriousness, with no evidence of planning by the appellant who had become spontaneously involved and no evidence that the appellant knew any offender had caustic soda. His substance dependence disorder was held to have played a causal role in the offending. He had prior convictions for affray and being armed with intent to commit an indictable offence. He received a 25% discount for his pleas of guilty. Accordingly, the starting point for each offence before this reduction was 9 years and 4 months, with the total effective sentence being 10 years with a non-parole period of 6 years and 6 months. This sentence was affirmed on appeal.

13. [87]

    In Wootton, the appellant pleaded guilty shortly before trial to a break and enter dwelling and committing a serious indictable offence (robbery) with the special circumstance of aggravation being armed with a .22 pump-action long rifle. The offence was a planned violent robbery/home invasion by three offenders who concealed their faces and possessed firearms. The appellant was aged 27 at the time of the offence and together with two co-offenders, they forced their way into the victim’s home by firing a shotgun through the door. A number of the pellets struck the victim on his arm, back and neck. The victim was assaulted including being struck to the back of his head with the butt of a gun. The victim escaped and a shot was fired as he ran away. The victim’s partner and baby were present. The objective seriousness was found to be above the mid-range. The appellant received a 10% discount for his late plea of guilty. There was a history of disadvantage (childhood sexual abuse and early onset of drug addiction). He had prior convictions and was subject to a s 9 bond at the time of offending. There was no finding of genuine remorse. The starting point was 12 years. The sentence of 10 years and 9 months imprisonment with a non-parole period of 7 years was affirmed on appeal.

14. [88]

    The applicant then pointed to some further decisions which were not before the sentencing judge.

15. [89]

    I note that the first of these, Silas Gordon Haines v R [2012] NSWCCA 238, involves a s 111(2) offence (rather than s 112(3)) which carries a maximum penalty of 14 years. In light of the significantly different maximum penalty, I am of the view that it cannot be regarded as a comparative sentence and it is not useful to further consider it.

16. [90]

    The next was Stewart v R [2013] NSWCCA 185 in which the appellant was sentenced for seven offences with four additional offences on a Form 1. This concerned two home invasions, committed in company, on the night of 5 to 6 November 2010 and again on the night of 15 to 16 November 2010 on the same home and victims.

17. [91]

    During the second home invasion, the appellant was armed with a sawn-off shotgun, and the principal co-offender had a baseball bat at the time of entry. All offenders wore motorcycle helmets. The appellant knocked the male victim to the ground with the butt of the shotgun and forced the barrel into his mouth demanding money and valuables. Threats were made to harm a male victim, including by the cutting of his fingers, with the physical harm inflicted on him including a dislocated finger. The two female victims were indecently assaulted (making up the four additional offences on the Form 1). The appellant and the principal co-offender committed non-consensual oral and penile intercourse on an adult female victim inside the house. The appellant was just under 25 years old at the time of the offending and had experienced an “extremely disadvantaged upbringing”. He had a criminal history which was “not significant”, but which mostly concerned property damage offences. He had been abusing alcohol and cannabis and was “unaccustomed” to the “ice” he was given by the principal co-offender prior to the second home invasion. A 25% discount for his plea of guilty was applied and a finding of special circumstances was made (based on his need for rehabilitation and that it would be his first time in gaol). A total effective sentence of 14 years and 6 months imprisonment with an effective non-parole period of 8 years and 6 months was imposed.

18. [92]

    Piscitelli v R [2013] NSWCCA 8 involved an appellant who was 23 years old at the time of offending. He received a discount of 25% for an early plea of guilty, and an appeal against his head sentence of 16 years and 6 months was dismissed. The appellant had committed a break and enter and committing a serious indictable offence (attempted sexual intercourse without consent) in circumstances of special aggravation, namely wounding (repeated bashing of the victim’s head against a wall) contrary to s 112(3). The appellant was also found guilty of two counts of aggravated sexual intercourse. The victim was 83 years old and lived alone in her unit. The case of Brooks v R [2006] NSWCCA 169 was relied upon in Piscitelli and referred to by this applicant but I note that the offender in Brooks was charged with a s 112(2) offence which carried a lower maximum penalty and a 5 year SNPP. In Brooks, the victim was an 82 year old woman whose home was broken into. The 18 year old appellant (who was 21 at the time of sentence) terrified her with a spanner and digitally penetrated her and then committed penile-vaginal intercourse. He also performed cunnilingus and attempted to force the victim to perform fellatio and robbed her. He received a discount of 20% for his pleas of guilty. On appeal, his sentence was reduced to a head sentence of 14 years with a non-parole period of 10 years and 6 months. The sexual offending was found to have been opportunistic.

19. [93]

    In order for this ground to be made out, the applicant must show that the aggregate sentence was unreasonable or plainly unjust.

20. [94]

    As noted above, in attempting to do this, the applicant has particularly focussed on the indicative sentence for Count 1.

21. [95]

    The applicable principles are well known and are conveniently collected in Baker v R [2022] NSWCCA 195 at [117]-[119] by N Adams J:

22. [96]

    In my view the comparative sentences provided to this Court simply do not demonstrate that the indicative sentence for Count 1 was outside any reasonable range. Nor do they show that the aggregate sentence was unreasonable or plainly unjust.

23. [97]

    As referred to above in the discussion of the first two grounds of appeal, although the applicant was young when he committed the offences, he was not young when sentenced. Accordingly, the comparative sentences which focus on youthful offenders who were sentenced when they were still youthful have limited relevance. This is because factors such as an increased emphasis on rehabilitation do not apply where the person being sentenced is no longer youthful (and indeed, as in this case, has a subsequent criminal history). In the circumstances, it was open for the sentencing judge to give full weight to general and specific deterrence, and the guarded findings as to genuineness of remorse and prospects of rehabilitation were also open to him.

24. [98]

    Further, as stated in Hili v R (2010) 242 CLR 520; [2010] HCA 45 at [54]:

25. [99]

    As to the indicative sentence for Count 1, in light of all of the circumstances of the offence including the presence of multiple weapons, the number of persons involved, the maximum penalty, the scheduled offence, and the uncontested finding that the offending of Count 1 was gravely serious, a starting point of 14 years imprisonment with the discounted indicative sentence of 12 years and 7 months was well open to the sentencing judge.

26. [100]

    Further, the aggregate sentence clearly had a large component of notional concurrency built into it. Taking into account all of the circumstances of the three counts, which included the very serious sexual assault offences and the scheduled offences, an aggregate head sentence of 16 years with a non-parole period of 12 years was well within the discretion of the sentencing judge.

27. [101]

    Accordingly, I am of the view that Ground 3 is not made out.

Proposed orders

1. [102]

   The orders I therefore propose are:

   1. (1)

      Leave to file the appeal out of time granted.

   2. (2)

      Leave to appeal allowed.

   3. (3)

      Appeal dismissed.

2. [103]

   R A HULME AJ: I agree with McNaughton J.