R v Ardron - [2021] ACTSC 91

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Ardron
Citation:	[2021] ACTSC 91
Hearing Dates:	15 April, 13 May 2021
Decision Date:	13 May 2021
Before:	Murrell CJ
Decision:	The offender is sentenced to 16 months’ imprisonment for the
subject offence and two 24-month good behaviour orders with additional conditions for the breach offences.
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – Act of indecency on young person – Breach offences – Whether
registration on sex offender register will cause particular hardship on the offender
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) s 61(2) Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 33, 35
Cases Cited:	R v CV [2013] ACTCA 22; 233 A Crim R 67 TMTW v The Queen [2008] NSWCCA 50
Parties:	The Queen (Crown)
Michelle Maree Ardron (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel
S Janackovic (Crown) J Sabharwal (Offender)
Solicitors
ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Tim Sharman Solicitors (Offender)
File Number:	SCC 236 of 2020
MURRELL CJ:
Introduction

1. The offender pleaded guilty to the offence that, on 11 November 2018, she committed an act of indecency on a person under the age of 16 years, contrary to s 61(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) (Crimes Act).

The maximum penalty for the offence is 10 years’ imprisonment.

3. The offender was charged with committing of an act of indecency on a person under the age of 16 years (the primary charge) and committing an act of indecency without consent (the backup charge). She was committed to the Supreme Court for trial. Soon after committal, she offered to plead guilty to the backup charge. Three months later, at a criminal case conference, she agreed to plead guilty to the primary charge.
4. The appropriate discount under s 35 of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) (Sentencing Act) is 20 per cent.
5. The offence places the offender in breach of two 24-month good behaviour orders imposed by the Magistrates Court.

Facts of principal offence

6.       In November 2018, the complainant was mowing lawns in his local neighbourhood for cash. He was 15 years and seven months old.
7.       On 10 November 2018, he doorknocked various residences, including that of the offender, seeking mowing work. The complainant and the offender agreed that, at
about 2 PM on the following day, the complainant would mow the offender’s lawn in
return for payment. The complainant provided the offender with a flyer for his mowing
business, which described the complainant as a “trustworthy local student”.
8.       On 11 November 2018, the complainant attended the offender’s residence at 2:20 PM

and apologised for being late. When the offender answered the door, she seemed
drowsy. She was wearing shorts and a T-shirt.
9.       After the complainant started mowing the front lawn, the offender came out of the house and told him that she did not have the money to pay him immediately but would pay him the following day.
10.     After the…

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 R v Ardron

Details

AGLC: R v Ardron [2021] ACTSC 91
Case: [2021] ACTSC 91
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory heard a case involving Michelle Maree Ardron, who pleaded guilty to an act of indecency on a person under the age of 16 years and committing an act of indecency without consent. The court had to decide on the appropriate sentence considering the breach of two good behaviour orders, the impact on the victim, the objective seriousness of the offence, and the subjective features of the offender.

The court considered the offender's history of substance abuse and mental health issues, her efforts towards rehabilitation, and the impact of registration on the sex offender register. The court also examined the significant psychological impact on the victim, who has not returned to lawnmowing in the vicinity of the offender's residence due to fear of confrontation. The court found the offence to be of substantial objective seriousness, involving significant violation of the complainant's personal integrity.

The court imposed a sentence of 16 months’ imprisonment for the primary offence, to be served by way of an intensive correction order in the community, with an additional condition that the offender not consume alcohol. For the breach offences, the court cancelled the existing good behaviour orders and resentenced the offender to a two-year good behaviour order with specific conditions for supervision, reporting, treatment, counselling, and drug testing.

The court's decision reflects a balance between the need for accountability, deterrence, and recognition of harm to the victim, alongside the offender's efforts towards rehabilitation and the potential impact of registration on her capacity to care for her child. The court aimed to address the objectives of sentencing, including general deterrence, denunciation, and rehabilitation, while considering the specific circumstances of the offender and the offence.

Orders