Key Facts
- •The appellant, Kaydon Hall, was convicted of rape (count 1), sexual activity with a child (counts 6 and 9), and threatening another with a bladed article (count 139AA).
- •The rape involved a 17-year-old complainant (C1) who was asleep and heavily medicated. The act was recorded on a baby monitor.
- •The sexual activity with a child involved a 14-year-old complainant (C2). The appellant was aware of C2's age.
- •The appellant had no prior convictions and was diagnosed with ADHD.
- •A psychologist's report noted cognitive processing difficulties and developmental delays but did not establish a direct link between these and the offending behaviour.
- •The appellant pleaded guilty to all charges.
Legal Principles
Reporting restrictions under the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 apply to protect the identity of victims of sexual offences.
Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992
Sentencing guidelines for rape and sexual activity with a child offences consider aggravating and mitigating factors, including the vulnerability of the victim, the age gap between the offender and victim, and the offender's mental health.
Sentencing Council guidelines for rape and sexual activity with a child offences
Credit for guilty pleas should be given at the earliest opportunity. The level of credit varies.
Sentencing guidelines on guilty pleas
Totality principle in sentencing requires the court to consider the overall sentence in light of all offending behaviour, harm, culpability, and aggravating and mitigating factors.
Common law principle of totality
Outcomes
The appeal against the sentence for rape (count 1) was dismissed.
The judge appropriately considered the aggravating factors (vulnerability of the victim, sustained nature of the offence, domestic setting) and mitigating factors (youth, lack of prior convictions, developmental difficulties). The downward adjustment for mitigation was sufficient.
The appeal against the sentence for sexual activity with a child (count 9) was partially allowed.
The judge incorrectly applied a 20% discount for the guilty plea instead of the standard one-third. The sentence was reduced from 14 months to 12 months.
The sentence for threatening another with a bladed article was left unaffected.
The judge’s decision to order this sentence concurrently with the other sentences was considered appropriate in the context of the totality principle.