DPP v Dunn - [2022] ACTSC 355

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	DPP v Dunn
Citation:	[2022] ACTSC 355
Hearing Date:	16 December 2022
DecisionDate:	16 December 2022
Before:	Mossop J
Decision:	See [67]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and punishment – sentence – choking, suffocating or strangling – sexual intercourse without consent – contravening a family violence order – common assault – offences in low to mid-range of objective seriousness – where sexual intercourse without consent occurred where victim hoping offender would commit offence to provide a reason to separate – pleas of guilty – history of family violence offending – where offences constituted breaches of intensive correction order and good behaviour order – good behaviour order cancelled – sentences of imprisonment imposed
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT), ss 65, 108 Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), ss 10, 34B Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), ss 26, 28(2)(a), 54 Family Violence Act 2016 (ACT), s 43(2)
Cases Cited:	DPP v McIntosh (No 3) [2022] ACTSC 348 R v XXL [2022] ACTSC 24
Parties:	ACT Director of Public Prosecutions Luke Bradley Peter Dunn ( Offender)
Representation:	Counsel R Christensen SC ( DPP) S Robinson ( Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions Fortify Legal ( Offender)
File Numbers:	SCC 88 of 2022 SCC 89 of 2022

MOSSOP J:

Introduction

Luke Dunn has pleaded guilty to the following charges:

(a)One count of common assault (CC2022/1255) contrary to s 26 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT). The maximum penalty is two years’ imprisonment.
(b)One count of choking, strangling or suffocating (CC2022/851) contrary to s 28(2)(a) of the Crimes Act. The maximum penalty is five years’ imprisonment.
(c)One count of sexual intercourse without consent (CC2022/1254), contrary to s 54 of the Crimes Act. The maximum penalty is 12 years’ imprisonment.
(d)One count of contravening a family violence order (SCCAN2022/50), contrary to s 43(2) of the Family Violence Act 2016 (ACT). The maximum penalty is 500 penalty units, five years’ imprisonment or both.

Facts

The facts are agreed and are in summary as follows.

Background

The offender met the victim, who I will refer to as UM, in 2020 and commenced a relationship with her.

On 7 January 2021 a Deputy Registrar of the Magistrates Court granted an interim family violence order against the offender, on the application of UM. The grounds for the making of that order are not disclosed in the Statement of Facts. On 8 January 2021, the order was served and explained to the offender by police. The order was granted for two years ending on 25 January 2023. Some of the conditions of the order prohibited the offender from being at UM’s house, being within 100 metres of her except at court or mediation, locating or contacting UM except through legal practitioners or at court or mediation or counselling, engaging in family violence towards UM, or causing anyone else to contact UM except as permitted by the order. The agreed facts do not…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading DPP v Dunn

Details

AGLC: DPP v Dunn [2022] ACTSC 355
Case: [2022] ACTSC 355
Decision Date: 16 December 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of DPP v Dunn involved the Director of Public Prosecutions, acting on behalf of the Crown, against a defendant named Dunn. Dunn was facing multiple charges, including sexual intercourse without consent, choking, suffocating or strangling, contravening a family violence order, and common assault. The case was heard in a court that had jurisdiction over criminal matters. The dispute centred around the appropriate sentence for Dunn's multiple offences, all of which were deemed to be in the lower to middle range of objective seriousness.

The court was tasked with determining the appropriate punishment for Dunn's actions, which included the sexual assault and choking of a victim. The victim had hoped that Dunn would commit an offence, providing a reason for separation. The legal issues revolved around assessing the severity of the offences, Dunn's history of family violence offending, and the appropriate sentence in light of these factors. The court also had to consider that the offences constituted breaches of both an intensive correction order and a good behaviour order.

In its judgment, the court took into account the severity of the offences, Dunn's history of family violence, and the fact that the offences were breaches of the orders. The court determined that the appropriate sentence was imprisonment. The court cancelled the good behaviour order, reflecting the gravity of Dunn's actions. The final orders were made, specifying the sentences of imprisonment imposed on Dunn for his various offences.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [67]

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.