TF, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellant was sentenced on 12 September 2023 by Her Honour Judge Bagnall to a total determinate sentence of 18 months' imprisonment, split equally between custody and licence, for ten offences against his four children. These offences comprised eight common assaults and two specimen offences of cruelty to children, involving abuse over nearly ten years including physical violence and humiliation. The sentence imposed was concurrent, with six months for each common assault and 18 months for the cruelty charges.

Prior to this, the Appellant had been sentenced in June 2021 to an 18-month probation order for separate domestic offences involving his estranged wife, including threats to kill, common assault, harassment, and possession of extreme pornographic material. A three-year suspended sentence was also live at the time of the current sentencing.

The appeal concerns an alleged failure in sentencing related to the judge's consideration of the Appellant's successful completion of the prior probation order and certain medical circumstances, as well as a totality point regarding the aggregate sentence.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether insufficient weight was given by the sentencing judge to the Appellant's post-offence rehabilitation evidence, specifically the successful completion of a prior probation order.
2. Whether the totality principle was properly applied in sentencing, considering the Appellant's prior sentences and current offences.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The sentencing judge gave insufficient weight to the Appellant’s successful completion of a probation order related to earlier offences.
• Mitigating evidence, including medical reports and rehabilitation efforts, should have led to a lesser sentence or non-custodial option.
• A totality argument was raised, contending that the cumulative sentencing should have been reduced given the existing probation order and suspended sentence.

Appellee's Arguments (The Crown)

• The probation order had been completed, thus the principle that a second court should not ordinarily interfere with an ongoing probation order did not apply.
• The sentencing judge properly considered all relevant factors, including the Appellant’s limited insight and denial of responsibility for many offences.
• The seriousness and lasting harm caused to the children warranted the custodial sentence imposed.
• The totality argument was not persuasive given the severity and cumulative nature of the offences.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court acknowledged the Appellant’s successful completion of a prior probation order but emphasized that this did not preclude a custodial sentence for the current offences. The principle that a second court should not interfere with an ongoing probation order was inapplicable since the probation had been completed.

The court examined the pre-sentence and neuropsychology reports, noting the Appellant’s partial denial of responsibility and limited insight into the harm caused, which diminished the weight of rehabilitation evidence. The medical history, including brain injury and mental health issues, was considered relevant but did not outweigh the gravity of the offences.

The court stressed the high culpability and severe harm to the children, supported by expert victim impact reports describing trauma, fear, mental health difficulties, and disruption to their lives. The judge’s sentencing remarks reflected a balanced consideration of aggravating and mitigating factors, with particular emphasis on the need for punishment and deterrence in child cruelty cases.

The totality argument was rejected because, had all offences (including those against the wife) been sentenced together, a longer custodial sentence would have been imposed. The court found no error in principle or manifest excess in the sentence.

Overall, the court found the sentencing decision to be sound, proportionate, and justified by the evidence and circumstances.

Holding and Implications

The court DISMISSED THE APPEAL and affirmed the 18-month determinate custodial sentence imposed by the sentencing judge.

The decision confirms that successful completion of a prior probation order does not automatically mitigate custodial sentencing for subsequent serious offences, particularly in cases involving high harm and culpability such as child cruelty. The ruling reinforces the principle that punishment and deterrence are paramount in such cases. No new legal precedent was established; the judgment applies existing principles to the facts presented.