Lewis v Jefferson-Taite - [2016] ACTSC 29

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Kamara
Citation:	[2016] ACTSC 294
Hearing Date:	5 October 2016
DecisionDate:	5 October 2016
Before:	Elkaim J
Decision:	See paragraph [48]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – using a carriage service to procure sexual activity with a person under 16 – sexual intercourse with a young person under 16 – possessing child pornography – pleas of guilty
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1990 (ACT), ss 55(2), 65 Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), s 16A, s20(1)(b) Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth), s 474.26 Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), ss 6, 7, 10, 17, 33(1)(za) Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) Criminal Procedure Act 1965 (SL) Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 501 Sexual Offences Act 2012 (SL), s 4
Cases Cited:	Clarkson v The Queen [2011] VSCA 157; 32 VR 361 Islam v The Queen [2006] ACTCA 21 R v AD [2014] ACTSC 222 R v Aniezue [2016] ACTSC 82 R v CV [2013] ACTCA 22; A Crim R 67 R v Major [2016] ACTSC 161
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Mr Ibrahim Kamara (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel Mr K Lee (Crown) Mr J O’Keefe (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) John O’Keefe Lawyers (Offender)
File Number:	SCC 23 of 2016
Publication Restriction:	The complainant’s name is suppressed.

ELKAIM J:

Introduction

On 21 July 2016 the offender was arraigned on an indictment that had been filed on 16 March 2016. He pleaded guilty to five counts. They were:

(a)One count of using a carriage service to procure sexual activity with a person under 16 years of age. This is a Commonwealth offence under s 474.26 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth). It carries a maximum term of imprisonment of 15 years.
(b)Three counts of sexual intercourse with a young person under the age of 16. This is a Territory offence contrary to s 55(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT). The maximum penalty for each offence is 14 years imprisonment.
(c)One count of possessing child pornography contrary to s 65 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT). The maximum penalty is 7 years imprisonment or 700 penalty units or both.

The offender had been charged with the offences, plus one other, on 10 October 2015. A further charge was added on 13 November 2015. On 3 December 2015 he pleaded not guilty to all charges. He was committed for trial in the ACT Supreme Court on 11 February 2016.

On 23 May 2016 a trial was set down to commence on 29 August 2016. There was to be a pre-trial hearing on 26 July 2016. Following discussions between the parties, on 30 June 2016, the Crown agreed to accept pleas of guilty to the above counts in full satisfaction of the indictment. As stated above the pleas were recorded on 21 July 2016.

The facts behind the offences

In relation to the carriage offence, in September 2014 the offender added a…

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 Lewis v Jefferson-Taite

Details

AGLC: Lewis v Jefferson-Taite [2016] ACTSC 294
Case: [2016] ACTSC 29
Decision Date: 5 October 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the County Court of Victoria, Lewis, the appellant, faced Jefferson-Taite, the respondent, over multiple serious charges. Lewis was charged with engaging in sexual activity with a minor under the age of 16 years, procuring such activity through a carriage service, and possessing child pornography. After pleading guilty to all charges, the court proceeded to determine an appropriate sentence. The primary legal issues before the court were the gravity of the offences and the factors that should inform the sentencing decision. The court had to weigh the severity of Lewis's crimes, his guilty plea, and any mitigating circumstances against the principles of deterrence and rehabilitation.

The court began by acknowledging the profound breach of trust and the significant harm caused to the minor by Lewis's actions. It noted the aggravating factors, including the use of a carriage service to procure the sexual activity and the possession of child pornography. Despite these aggravating factors, the court considered the mitigating aspects of Lewis's early guilty plea and his otherwise unblemished criminal record. The court also considered the impact on Lewis's family and his remorse. Ultimately, the court determined that a custodial sentence was necessary to appropriately reflect the seriousness of the crimes and to serve as a deterrent. The sentence imposed balanced the need for punishment with the potential for rehabilitation.

In reaching its decision, the court thoroughly analysed the sentencing principles and precedents relevant to the charges. The court referenced previous cases where similar offences were addressed and the sentences that were imposed. The court concluded that a sentence of imprisonment was warranted given the gravity of the offences and the need to protect the community. The specific sentence imposed by the court is detailed in paragraph [48] of the judgment. The court's detailed reasoning provided clarity on the factors considered and the rationale behind the final sentence.

Orders

Orders of the court

See paragraph [48]

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.