DPP v Doughty

Case [2023] ACTSC 397

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

DPP v Doughty

Citation: 

[2023] ACTSC 397

Hearing Date: 

12 December 2023

Decision Date: 

20 December 2023

Before:

Taylor J

Decision: 

[134]

Catchwords: 

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence –sexual offending – four counts of sexual intercourse with a person under 16 years of age – one count of an act of indecency on a person under 16 years of age – one count of not complying with a s 3LA order – pleas of guilty – pattern of offending – predatory conduct

Legislation Cited: 

Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), ss 55(3), 61(3)

Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), ss 3E, 3LA(5), 16A, 17A(1), 19AC, 19AJ

Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), ss 7, 10, 47

Cases Cited: 

Azzopardi v The Queen [2011] VSCA 372; 35 VR 43

Blundell v the Queen [2019] ACTCA 34

Cahyadi v The Queen (2007) 168 A Crim R 41

Director of Public Prosecutions v Dalgliesh (a pseudonym) [2017] HCA 41; 262 CLR 428

Director of Public Prosecutions v Mitchell (No 2) [2023] ACTSC 118

DPP v Moala (No 3) [2023] 306

DPP v Swingler [2017] VSCA 305

DPP v Torbert [2023] ACTSC 332

Henry v The Queen [2019] ACTCA 5

Hili v the Queen (2010) HCA 45; 242 CLR 520

Hogan v Hinch [2011] HCA 4; 243 CLR 506

Imbornone v The Queen [2017] NSWCCA 144

Kelly v Ashby [2015] ACTSC 346

KT v R [2008] NSWCCA 51; 2008 A Crim R 112

Laipato v The Queen [2020] ACTCA 35

Markarian v R [2005] HCA 25; 228 CLR 357

Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59

Muldrock v The Queen [2011] HCA 39; 244 CLR 120

O’Brien v The Queen [2015] ACTCA 47

R v Baxendale [2018] ACTSC 60

R v BC [2022] ACTCA 19

R v Carberry; R v Deng; Carberry v The King [2023] ACTCA 32

R v Dent (unreported, NSWCCA, 14 March 1991)

R v Eisenach [2011] ACTCA 2

R v Goboly [2016] ACTSC 32

R v Hile [2018] ACTSC 266

R v Loeschnauer [2022] ACTSC 30; 98 MVR 484

R v MAK [2006] NSWCCA 381; 167 A Crim R 159

R v McGrail (No 3) [2016] ACTSC 372

R v Porter (No 3) [2022] ACTSC 236

R v Summerfield [2018] ACTCA 20

R v Toumo'ua [2017] ACTCA 9; 12 ACTLR 103

R v White [2022] ACTSC 178

Smith v The Queen [2011] NSWCCA 163

Taylor v The Queen [2014] ACTCA 9

Zdravkovic v Queen [2016] ACTCA 53

Parties: 

Director of Public Prosecutions ( Crown)

Samuel John Doughty ( Offender)

Representation: 

Counsel

M Howe ( DPP)

E Chen ( Offender)

Solicitors

ACT Director of Public Prosecutions

Legal Aid ACT ( Offender)

File Number:

SCC 104 of 2023

TAYLOR J:   

Introduction

1․The offender Samuel John Doughty is to be sentenced for a number of offences that include serious examples of sexual offending against young people committed between 2015 and 2021.…

Continue reading DPP v Doughty

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Director of Public Prosecutions v Doughty [2023] ACTSC 397
Case
[2023] ACTSC 397
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Victoria, the Director of Public Prosecutions sought an appeal against the sentence imposed on Doughty, who had been convicted on four counts of sexual intercourse with a person under 16 years of age, one count of an act of indecency on a person under 16 years of age, and one count of not complying with a s 3LA order. Doughty had entered pleas of guilty to all charges. The Crown argued that the sentence was manifestly inadequate, given the seriousness and pattern of Doughty's predatory conduct. The court was required to determine whether the sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate and, if so, what the appropriate sentence should be.

The court examined the nature and seriousness of the offences, the vulnerability of the victims, and the need to protect the community. It found that Doughty's offending was predatory and manipulative, targeting children over an extended period. The court concluded that the sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate and that it should be increased. The court found that the appropriate sentence should reflect the seriousness of the offences and the need to deter and protect the community.

Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, and the sentence was set aside. The court ordered that Doughty be re-sentenced by a different judge, with the original sentencing judge invited to take into account the reasons of the appeal court. The court further ordered that Doughty be detained in custody until the re-sentencing hearing. The appeal was allowed, and the sentence was set aside. Doughty was to be re-sentenced by a different judge, with the original sentencing judge invited to consider the appeal court's reasons. Doughty was to be detained in custody until the re-sentencing hearing.

Orders

Orders of the court

[134]

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.