R v Aroub

Case [2017] ACTSC 187


SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

R v Aroub

Citation:

[2017] ACTSC 187

Hearing Dates:

16 May 2017; 7 June 2017; 14 July 2017

DecisionDate:

14 July 2017

Before:

Murrell CJ

Decision:

Sentenced to 2 years’ imprisonment, suspended after 6 months upon the offender entering into a good behaviour order for 18 months.

Catchwords:

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – Jury trial – Offences against the person – Sexual intercourse without consent – Act of indecency – Opportunistic digital penetration of sleeping victim – Significant impact on victim – Offender with disadvantaged background – No prior relevant criminal history – Totally concurrent sentences

Legislation Cited:

Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) ss 50(1), 54(1), 60(1)

Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT)ss 7, 33

Cases Cited:

Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25; 228 CLR 357

R v Ballantyne (Unreported, Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, Chief Justice Murrell, 1 April 2014)

Parties:

The Queen (Crown)

Ozogow Aroub (Offender)

Representation:

Counsel

Ms S McMurray (Crown)

Mr R Davies (Offender)

Solicitors

ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)

Legal Aid ACT (Offender)

File Number:

SCC 208 of 2015

MURRELL CJ:

  1. On 15 March 2017, a jury found the offender guilty of two offences committed on 19 April 2015:

(a)Count 1: Engaging in sexual intercourse with the victim without her consent and being reckless as to whether she consented contrary to s 54(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) (Crimes Act).

(b)Count 2: Committing an act of indecency on the victim without her consent and being reckless as to whether she was consenting contrary to s 60(1) of the Crimes Act.

  1. The offence of engaging in sexual intercourse without consent carries a maximum penalty of 12 years’ imprisonment.

  1. The offence of committing an act of indecency without consent carries a maximum penalty of seven years’ imprisonment.

Facts

  1. On the night of 18 April 2015, the victim accompanied a friend to Civic. During the evening, the friends consumed alcohol at several nightclubs. They met the offender.

  1. The offender consumed alcohol during the evening.

  1. In the early hours of 19 April 2015, the victim, her friend, the offender and others went to the offender’s home. Eventually, the victim went to a spare room where she lay down and fell asleep.

  1. The victim awoke to find the offender digitally penetrating her (Count 1). He had unzipped her dress and was kissing her back between the shoulder blades (Count 2).  The victim pushed the offender’s hand away.  He smiled and told her to “relax”.  She told the offender that she needed to go to the bathroom. She attempted to do so but was unable to open the door as it had no handle.  The offender assisted her to open the door and she left the room.  The victim found her friend and told her what had occurred. 

  1. The victim and her friend telephoned the police and called a taxi.  A few hours later, the police…

Continue reading R v Aroub

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Aroub [2017] ACTSC 187
Case
[2017] ACTSC 187
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Aroub involved the appellant, who was charged with sexual offences against a sleeping victim. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The appellant was found guilty of engaging in sexual intercourse without consent and committing an act of indecency against the victim. The court was required to determine the appropriate sentence for the appellant, taking into consideration the nature of the offences, the impact on the victim, and the appellant's background and criminal history.

The legal issues before the court were the severity of the offences, the impact of the offences on the victim, and the appellant's background and criminal history. The court had to consider whether the offences warranted a custodial sentence and, if so, the appropriate length of the sentence. The court also had to consider whether the sentence should be suspended and, if so, the conditions of the suspension.

The court found that the offences were serious and had a significant impact on the victim. However, the court also noted that the appellant had no prior relevant criminal history and came from a disadvantaged background. The court decided that a custodial sentence was warranted but that it should be suspended after a period of imprisonment to allow the appellant to rehabilitate and reintegrate into society. The court sentenced the appellant to two years' imprisonment, suspended after six months upon the offender entering into a good behaviour order for 18 months. This outcome balanced the need to punish the appellant for the offences with the need to provide an opportunity for rehabilitation and reintegration into society.

Orders

Orders of the court

Sentenced to 2 years’ imprisonment, suspended after 6 months upon the offender entering into a good behaviour order for 18 months.

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.