Legal Research
Cases
DPP v Samuel Myers (a pseudonym)

DPP v Samuel Myers (a pseudonym)

Case [2023] ACTSC 142 8 June 2023

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	DPP v Myers (a pseudonym)
Citation:	[2023] ACTSC 142
Hearing Date:	5 June 2023
DecisionDate:	8 June 2023
Before:	Mossop J
Decision:	See [73]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and punishment – sentence – various offences of incest, produce child abuse material and maintain sexual relationship committed against offender’s children – principal victim aged between 20 and 27 months – further offences of possess child abuse material and using a carriage service to access child abuse material – offence of maintaining sexual relationship above the mid-range of objective seriousness – other offences spanning from low-range to mid-range – early plea of guilty – finding that there is an overwhelmingly strong prosecution case – no significant discount permitted – no criminal history – sentence of imprisonment imposed
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), ss 56, 61(1), 62(1), 64(1), 65(1) Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), ss 16A(2)(g), 19, 19AB, 19AC, 23ZD Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), s 35 Criminal Code (Cth), ss 474.19(1), 474.22(1) Evidence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1991 (ACT), s 74 Family Violence Act 2016 (ACT), s 8
Cases Cited:	Millard v The Queen [2020] ACTCA 20 R v Johnston [2020] ACTSC 46 R v Minson [2022] ACTSC 46 R v Snowden [2022] ACTSC 186 The Queen v Ashton (a pseudonym) [2022] ACTCA 45 The Queen v Newby [2022] ACTCA 20; 367 FLR 122 The Queen v Toumo'ua [2017] ACTCA 9; 12 ACTLR 103
Parties:	Director of Public Prosecutions Samuel Myers (a pseudonym) (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel S Jerome with S Bargwanna ( DPP) K Musgrove ( Offender)
Solicitors Director of Public Prosecutions Hugo Law Group ( Offender)
File Number:	SCC 27 of 2023

MOSSOP J:

Introduction

On 6 February 2023 the offender pleaded guilty to various child-sex offences committed against his daughter and offences related to accessing and possession of child abuse material. The plea was entered in the Magistrates Court, after a plea of not guilty, the provision of a brief of evidence and following negotiations between the parties as to the appropriate charges.

Publication of the victim’s name is prohibited pursuant to s 74 of the Evidence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1991 (ACT) in circumstances where publication of the offender’s name would reveal the identity of the child victim. I have made an order preventing publication of his name. As a result, the offender has been assigned a pseudonym for the purposes of these reasons. The offender’s daughter will be referred to in these reasons by the pseudonym Jane, and his son, by the pseudonym Timothy.

During the course of the offending, the offender’s daughter was between 20 months and 27 months old. She was the main victim of the offending. One of the charges relates to offending involving the offender’s son (CC2023/1229). He was three years and nine‑months old at the time of that offending.

The charges are summarised in the following table. For ease of reference later in these reasons, the charges…

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 Samuel Myers (a pseudonym)

Details

AGLC: DPP v Samuel Myers (a pseudonym) [2023] ACTSC 142
Case: [2023] ACTSC 142
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Samuel Myers, referred to in these reasons by the pseudonym, was convicted and sentenced for a range of child sex offences committed against his daughter Jane, between 20 months and 27 months of age, and offences related to accessing and possession of child abuse material. The legal issues before the court included determining the objective seriousness of the offences, the subjective circumstances of the offender, and the appropriate sentence considering the early plea of guilty, the absence of criminal history, and time already spent in custody. The court assessed the objective seriousness of the offences, taking into account the abuse of the offender's parental role, the vulnerability of the victims, and the nature of the sexual acts committed. The court also considered the offender's early plea of guilty, his lack of criminal history, and the time already spent in custody.

Justice Mossop concluded that the prosecution case was overwhelmingly strong, and as a result, no substantial discount could be given for the plea of guilty. The court imposed sentences for each offence, considering the overlapping nature of the offences and the need for a significant degree of concurrency. The aggregate sentence of imprisonment was set at 14 years and five months, with a non-parole period of eight years and eight months for the Territory offences. For the federal offences, concurrency was allowed to ensure an appropriate total aggregate sentence. The court also made a forfeiture order in relation to the electronic items on which the child abuse material was stored.

The final orders included convictions and sentences for each of the charges, as well as the forfeiture of specified electronic items. The sentences ranged from 7 months and 15 days to 51 months of imprisonment, with the non-parole period set at 60% of the head sentence for the Territory offences.

Orders