24 The Crown submitted in the Court below that even though the plea had been entered at the earliest opportunity, the nature and circumstances of the offences were such that it was inappropriate that there should be any discount for the plea of guilty. The applicant submitted he was entitled to the maximum value of the discount because of the utilitarian value of the plea.
25 His Honour, in considering the effect of the pleas of guilty, observed that a plea of guilty "would ordinarily, unless in the most extreme case, warrant a reduction in sentence". He referred to the Crown's submission that it was inappropriate in the circumstances to allow any discount for the pleas in this case. He referred to Thompson's case and the rationale for reducing the penalty by reason of a plea of guilty. He concluded the pleas had a utilitarian value, exhibited some contrition and that the victims had been spared the ordeal of appearing at the trial. He also found there was some initial reluctance by the applicant and an initial denial of unprotected sex and continued equivocation as to diagnosis of which the applicant was well aware and as to his moral culpability. These, in my opinion, were relevant factors in considering the exercise of the discretion, particularly in relation to the question of contrition or remorse.
26 His Honour concluded:
I would assess the plea of guilty as warranting a reduction in the sentence from the maximum term in each case of seven years imprisonment to one of six years.
27 In his written submissions in this Court the applicant said:
Given that there had been a plea at the first available opportunity and there was evidence of genuine contrition, the appropriate discount should have been in the order of 35%.
28 In my opinion the circumstances of this case were such that it was open to his Honour, consistently with principle, to have allowed no discount for the plea of guilty. His Honour's reduction in sentence from 7 years to 6 years represented a discount of approximately 15% for the plea of guilty and was well within the range open to him. In my opinion, no error has been demonstrated in this regard.
29 It is clear from the context of his Honour's comments in his Remarks on Sentence that the discount arrived at by him was the product of a balancing, having regard to the relevant facts and circumstances, of the Crown's submission that there should be no discount with the applicant's submission that he should receive the maximum discount. Further explanation by his Honour was neither necessary or appropriate. In my opinion there was no failure to provide adequate reasons for the discount selected.