Legal Research
Cases
R v Ashton (a pseudonym)

R v Ashton (a pseudonym)

Case [2022] ACTSC 27 4 February 2022

Unconscionable Conduct

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Ashton (a pseudonym)
Citation:	[2022] ACTSC 27
Hearing Date:	3 February 2022
DecisionDate:	4 February 2022
Before:	Norrish AJ
Decision:	See [101]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – sexual relationship with a child under special care – parent – extended offending – categorisation of objective seriousness – minor criminal history – contrition – early plea of guilty – utilitarian value
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) s 56 Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) Pt 4.3, ss 7, 33, 36, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53
Cases Cited:	Director of Public Prosecutions v DDJ [2009] VSCA 115; 22 VR 444 Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25; 228 CLR 357 Mills v R [2017] NSWCCA 87 Muldrock v The Queen [2011] HCA 39; 244 CLR 120 R v Johnson [2015] SASCFC 170 R v KC [2020] ACTSC 94 R v Kellan (a pseudonym) [2021] ACTSC 314 R v Michalopoulos [2020] ACTSC 27 R v Page [2021] ACTSC 207 R v Sirl (No 4) [2020] ACTSC 23 R v Ware (a pseudonym) [2021] ACTSC 180 R v Way [2004] NSWCCA 131; 60 NSWLR 168 R v Whittaker [2021] ACTSC 189 Saddler v The Queen [2009] NSWCCA 83; 194 A Crim R 452 Veen v The Queen (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Baker Ned Ashton (a pseudonym) (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel K Marson (Crown) S McLaughlin (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Legal Aid ACT (Offender)
File Number:	SCC 217 of 2021

NORRISH AJ:

The offender, whose name is not to be published because it would lead to the identification of the victim, appears today for sentence in relation to an offence of engaging in a sexual relationship with a child with whom he had a special relationship, particularised as occurring between 1 January 2013 and 12 February 2021.

The offender pleaded guilty at the Magistrates Court after a few mentions of the matter but, in the circumstances, bearing in mind he was committed for sentence, I am proposing to provide the offender with the discount which is accepted in this jurisdiction as appropriate in all of the circumstances of 25 per cent for the utilitarian benefit of the plea of guilty.

The offender was born in October 1983 and was the father of the victim. He engaged in sexual activity with the victim from the time that she was six years of age until she was 14 years of age. The short statement of summary of the facts asserts that he in fact had sexual contact with her a minimum of one to two sexual acts per month. One need only do the mathematics of the number of months between early 2013 and February 2021 to appreciate the large number of acts committed by the offender which constitute the offence.

An illustration of that, if I may just go…

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 Ashton (a pseudonym)

Details

AGLC: R v Ashton (a pseudonym) [2022] ACTSC 27
Case: [2022] ACTSC 27
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The offender, Baker Ned Ashton, was convicted of engaging in a sexual relationship with a child with whom he had a special relationship. The court heard the case and considered various legal issues. One of the main issues was the categorisation of the objective seriousness of the offending. The court found that the case was below the worst category of offending of this type but just below that category and not well below that category of offending. The court also considered the offender's background, criminal history, and expressions of contrition. In the end, the court sentenced the offender to 12 years imprisonment, reduced from 16 years imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 7 years and 6 months. The court considered the purposes of sentencing and the need to ensure that the offender is adequately punished, and that the community is protected from the offender.

Orders