A man jailed for at least 17 years for abducting and repeatedly raping a young girl over five hours will not have his sentence increased, after three judges decided it was not "manifestly inadequate".
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Brett David Hill was jailed for a maximum of 23 years and six months last year after pleading guilty to nine offences related to snatching the then 11-year-old as she walked to school near Newcastle and raping her at three different locations in June 2018.
The Crown challenged the sentence, arguing it was "plainly unjust, being so far below the range of sentences that could justly be imposed" and was "thereby likely to undermine public confidence in the proper administration of criminal justice".
But the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal on Monday dismissed the challenge, finding the sentence did not fall outside the range which could properly have been imposed by the District Court judge.
"Whilst I am also of the opinion that the aggregate sentence might be regarded as lenient, I am not persuaded that the aggregate sentence is manifestly inadequate," said Justice Derek Price, sitting with Justices Peter Garling and Robertson Wright.
The sentencing judge found Hill, 49, had shown no sympathy, empathy or compassion for the girl during the prolonged attack.
The victim told the court she might look normal on the outside but there was a "massive invisible scar written across my face".
She described being a carefree young girl who loved life, walked around with a smile on her face and was scared of nothing before Hill grabbed her as she walked to school.
She was now too scared to even walk her dog, and suffers constant flashbacks - reliving the day when she was frozen, numb and helpless and wanted to die as Hill violated her, at one stage tying her to a tree.
Justice Price said for the appeal to succeed, lawyers for the Director of Public Prosecutions had to show the sentence was below the range of terms that could be justly imposed for the offending according to sentencing standards.
But the failure to provide any comparable cases for similar offences was "surprising and did not assist the Director's case".
The sentencing judge was well aware of the high seriousness of the respondent's offending and his characterisation of the objective gravity of each of the offences was not challenged, Justice Price said.
"His Honour was mindful of the need for general deterrence and protection of the community," he said.
"However, the respondent's pleas of guilty and his subjective case required a reduction in sentence and the principle of totality was to be borne in mind."
Australian Associated Press
