considerations, such as the need for general deterrence and protection of the community, require emphasis. Prior good character is of less significance in child sexual assault cases, particularly in cases involving repeated offending. Freiberg notes: Character can be an aggravating factor if victims, their families and others have been led to trust the defendant because of the person’s impeccable background, or where the person’s ostensible good character has assisted in the commission of the offence. This is often the case in sexual offences against young victims. In New South Wales, when an offender is sentenced for a child sexual assault offence, a lack of prior record may need to be considered in light of section 21A(5A) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), which prevents a court from taking into account an offender’s prior good character or lack of previous convictions if that fact assisted the offender to commit the offence. Though Victoria lacks a similar provision, the point is salient in this state under general sentencing principles. Good character will be of reduced significance for offences that are commonly committed by offenders of otherwise good character, or who exploit their respectability to further their offending. In R v T, Allen J stated: In the case of a pattern of sexual abuse of a child commencing at a tender age, good character in other respects and the disgrace and humiliation which ensue upon the criminality coming to light are less persuasive as indications that the appropriate sentence is not within the ordinary range than they would be in respect of most other crimes. Partly that is because it lamentably is all too common for the perpetrators of these offences to be men who in other respects have led exemplary lives and have commanded the respect of others. Partly, also, it is because the very veneer of respectability affords in crimes of this type the cover which conceals them. Indeed on occasions, of which the present case is an example, the offender uses the public disgrace and humiliation which would follow from an exposure of his wrongdoing as a weapon to deter the victim from making that disclosure. The leading authority on the relevance of character to sentence is Ryan, in which the appellant was a Catholic priest sentenced in New South Wales for a large number of sexual offences against children committed over a 20-year period. The High Court majority held that the failure to accord the appellant some leniency because of his
considerations, such as the need for general deterrence and protection of the community, require emphasis. Prior good character is of less significance in child sexual assault cases, particularly in cases involving repeated offending. Freiberg notes: Character can be an aggravating factor if victims, their families and others have been led to trust the defendant because of the person’s impeccable background, or where the person’s ostensible good character has assisted in the commission of the offence. This is often the case in sexual offences against young victims. In New South Wales, when an offender is sentenced for a child sexual assault offence, a lack of prior record may need to be considered in light of section 21A(5A) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), which prevents a court from taking into account an offender’s prior good character or lack of previous convictions if that fact assisted the offender to commit the offence. Though Victoria lacks a similar provision, the point is salient in this state under general sentencing principles. Good character will be of reduced significance for offences that are commonly committed by offenders of otherwise good character, or who exploit their respectability to further their offending. In R v T, Allen J stated: In the case of a pattern of sexual abuse of a child commencing at a tender age, good character in other respects and the disgrace and humiliation which ensue upon the criminality coming to light are less persuasive as indications that the appropriate sentence is not within the ordinary range than they would be in respect of most other crimes. Partly that is because it lamentably is all too common for the perpetrators of these offences to be men who in other respects have led exemplary lives and have commanded the respect of others. Partly, also, it is because the very veneer of respectability affords in crimes of this type the cover which conceals them. Indeed on occasions, of which the present case is an example, the offender uses the public disgrace and humiliation which would follow from an exposure of his wrongdoing as a weapon to deter the victim from making that disclosure. The leading authority on the relevance of character to sentence is Ryan, in which the appellant was a Catholic priest sentenced in New South Wales for a large number of sexual offences against children committed over a 20-year period. The High Court majority held that the failure to accord the appellant some leniency because of his
Sentencing%20of%20Offenders%20Sexual%20Penetration%20with%20a%20Child%20under%2012_0.docx