BC v The Queen (No 2)

Case [2019] NSWCCA 142


Court of Criminal Appeal


Supreme Court


New South Wales

  • Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: BC v R (No 2) [2019] NSWCCA 142
Hearing dates: On the papers
Decision date: 01 July 2019
Before: Leeming JA; Ierace J; Hidden AJ
Decision:

(1) Quash the sentence imposed on 18 May 2017.

 

(2) Remit the proceedings to the District Court for the purpose of resentencing the applicant.

 (3) The matter will be listed for mention in the District Court at Newcastle on Thursday, 18 July 2019.
Catchwords: PROCEDURE – remitter – appellant convicted of multiple child sexual assault offences – aggregate sentence imposed – appeal against conviction – three convictions quashed but appeal otherwise dismissed – remitter to District Court for resentencing
Cases Cited: BC v R [2019] NSWCCA 111
Category:Consequential orders (other than Costs)
Parties: BC (Applicant)
Regina (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
J Stratton SC with T Hennessy (Applicant)
B Baker (Respondent)

  Solicitors:
Laith Lawyers (Applicant)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2014/19938; 2014/19940; 2014/175052
Publication restriction: Nil
 Decision under appeal 
Court or tribunal:
District Court of New South Wales
Jurisdiction:
Criminal
Date of Decision:
07 December 2016
Before:
Her Honour Judge Hock
File Number(s):
2014/19938; 2014/19940; 2014/175052

Judgment

  1. THE COURT: By judgment delivered on 5 June 2019, this Court quashed the applicant’s convictions for counts 1 to 3 and entered verdicts of acquittal for those counts, but otherwise dismissed the applicant’s appeal against conviction on counts 4 to 20: BC v R [2019] NSWCCA 111. The applicant is presently serving an aggregate sentence imposed after trial of 14 years with a non-parole period of 10 years and 6 months. The consequence of the partial success of his appeal is that it is necessary to resentence him, based on his conviction for counts 4 to 20.

  2. In the circumstances explained at [107]-[111] of this Court’s earlier judgment, no submissions were received at the earlier hearing on resentencing in the events which have eventuated. Conscious of that, this Court proposed an aggregate sentence of 13 years with a non-parole period of 9 years and 9 months. However, rather than quashing the earlier sentence and imposing a new sentence, this Court invited further submissions, including on whether there was an application for a further hearing.

  3. Further submissions were supplied on 20, 25 and 26 June 2019. The applicant has applied for a further oral hearing, and has indicated an intention to adduce further evidence for the purpose of resentencing. That evidence has not been provided to the Court. It is not known whether it is controversial, whether the Crown will also seek to adduce further evidence, and whether there will be any cross-examination. The applicant was originally sentenced in May 2017, more than two years ago, and it is possible that there will be materially different evidence available on resentencing than was before the primary judge.

  4. The applicant consents, and the Crown does not oppose, the matter being remitted to the District Court. That is the appropriate course to adopt in this particular case. Accordingly, this Court makes the following further orders:

1. Quash the sentence imposed on 18 May 2017.

2. Remit the proceedings to the District Court for the purpose of resentencing the applicant.

3. The matter will be listed for mention in the District Court at Newcastle on Thursday, 18 July 2019.

**********

Amendments

01 July 2019 - Order 1: "8 May" changed to "18 May".

Details
AGLC
BC v The Queen (No 2) [2019] NSWCCA 142
Case
[2019] NSWCCA 142
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of BC v The Queen (No 2) involved the appellant, who was convicted of multiple child sexual assault offences and subsequently received an aggregate sentence. The appellant appealed against the conviction, arguing that three of the convictions should be quashed. The appeal was lodged in the High Court of Australia, which was required to determine the validity of the convictions and the appropriate course of action following the appeal. The High Court was also tasked with considering the aggregate sentence and whether it should be subject to resentencing.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the appellant's convictions were sound and, if not, what effect this had on the aggregate sentence. The court needed to examine the evidence presented during the trial and assess whether there were any errors in the conviction process. Additionally, the court had to determine whether the aggregate sentence should be varied in light of the quashed convictions, or if the sentence should be subject to resentencing by a lower court.

In its decision, the High Court found that three of the appellant's convictions were indeed flawed and quashed them. However, the remaining convictions were upheld. The court concluded that, due to the quashed convictions, the aggregate sentence could not stand as it was originally imposed. Consequently, the High Court ordered a remitter to the District Court for resentencing, taking into account the remaining valid convictions.

The High Court's final orders were to quash three of the appellant's convictions, uphold the remaining convictions, and remit the matter to the District Court for resentencing in light of the valid convictions. This outcome ensured that the appellant received a sentence that accurately reflected the valid convictions while addressing the errors in the initial sentencing process.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.