SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
COURT OF APPEAL
Case Title: | Akis Emmanouel Livas v The Queen |
Citation: | [2015] ACTCA 54 |
Hearing Date(s): | 13 August 2015 |
DecisionDate: | 13 August 2015 |
Before: | Murrell CJ, Perry J & Walmsley AJ |
Decision: | Appeal dismissed |
Catchwords: | CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – particular offences – sexual intercourse without consent – consent vitiated through fraudulent representation – sentence – whether sentencing judge erred in imposing a period of immediate full-time imprisonment – objective seriousness of offence |
Legislation Cited: | Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) ss 54(1), 67(1)(g) |
Cases Cited: | |
Parties: | Akis Emmanouel Livas (Appellant) The Queen (Respondent) |
Representation: | Counsel Mr S Gill (Appellant) Mr S Drumgold (Respondent) |
| Solicitors Legal Aid ACT (Appellant) ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent) | |
File Number(s): | ACTCA 10 of 2015 |
Decision under appeal: | Court/Tribunal: Supreme Court of the ACT Before: Penfold J Date of Decision: 6 February 2015 Case Title: R v Livas Citation: [2015] ACTSC 50 Court File Number(s): SCC 62 of 2014 |
THE COURT:
Background
This is an appeal against sentence. On 6 February 2015 the appellant pleaded guilty to one count of sexual intercourse without consent, the apparent consent having been obtained by fraud. Section 54(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) creates the offence of having sexual intercourse without consent, being reckless as to whether that other person consents.
Section 67 of the Crimes Act provides a non-exhaustive list of circumstances in which consent is negated. Section 67(1)(g) of the Crimes Act provides that consent of a person to sexual intercourse with another person is negated if that consent is caused by a fraudulent misrepresentation of any fact made by the other person.
There are other grounds identified by s 67 for vitiating consent, and they include the infliction of violence and threats of violence.
The penalty for the offence is 12 years imprisonment. The appellant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 25 months. An order was made by the sentencing judge that the sentence be suspended after the appellant had served eight months of full-time custody, provided he give an undertaking to comply with the conditions of a 24-month Good Behaviour Order.
The Appeal
In his notice of appeal, the appellant complained that the sentencing judge had:
(a)taken an immediately served custodial period as a starting point because the offence was rape;
(b)failed to consider periodic detention as an alternative to the full-time component of the sentence of imprisonment, and
(c)not treated the fact that consent was fraudulently obtained as reducing the objective seriousness of the offence.
Ground (b) was not pressed and grounds (a) and (c) were dealt with together. The appellant asks that the appeal be allowed, the sentence quashed and the case remitted for him to be sentenced according to law.
The Offence
At the time of the offence, the complainant worked as a sex worker from her home in a Canberra suburb. In October 2010, the appellant made an appointment to spend an…
Continue reading Livas v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Livas v The Queen [2015] ACTCA 54
- Case
- [2015] ACTCA 54
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Court was required to determine whether the appellant's conduct amounted to sexual intercourse without consent, specifically addressing the legal effect of consent obtained through fraudulent misrepresentation. Furthermore, the Court had to assess the appropriateness of the sentence imposed, considering the objective seriousness of the offence and whether the sentencing judge had made any errors in this regard.
The Court reasoned that consent obtained by fraudulent misrepresentation does not constitute valid consent in law. It applied established legal principles concerning the vitiation of consent, finding that the appellant's misrepresentations were of a nature that went to the very foundation of the sexual relationship, thereby rendering the complainant's consent invalid. In relation to sentencing, the Court found no error in the sentencing judge's assessment of the objective seriousness of the offence and the subsequent imposition of a period of immediate full-time imprisonment.
The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal dismissed
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.