R v Barker

Case [2014] ACTSC 115

ACT SUPREME COURT

Case Title:

R v BARKER

Medium Neutral Citation:

[2014] ACTSC 115

Hearing Date:

2 April 2014

DecisionDate:

29 April 2014

Before:

Burns J

Decision:

See [16]

Catchwords:

CRIMINAL – SENTENCE – possess child pornography – use child for production of child pornography – act of indecency on a person under 16 years old – sexual intercourse with a person under 16 years old – 7 year age difference – boyfriend/girlfriend relationship – whether to record conviction

Legislation Cited:

Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), ss 55(2), 61(2), 64(3), 65,

Parties:

The Queen

Royston Paul Barker

Representation:

-     Counsel

Ms S Gul (Crown)

The offender appeared in person

-     Solicitor

ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)

File Number(s): 

SCC 4 of 2012

R v Royston Paul BARKER
SENTENCE

  1. Royston Paul Barker, you appear before me today for sentence with respect to a number of offences which were presented on an indictment containing 16 counts.

  2. On 2 December 2013, the first day of the trial of those counts, you entered pleas of guilty to four counts.  One of those was count 16, a charge of possession of child pornography (s 65 Crimes Act 1900 (ACT)). That carries a maximum penalty of seven years’ imprisonment. The three remaining counts to which you entered pleas of guilty were counts 10, 14 and 15. Each of those counts alleged an offence of using a child for the production of child pornography (s 64(3) Crimes Act 1900 (ACT)) and each count carries a maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment. You maintained your pleas of not guilty to the remaining counts on the indictment.

  3. After trial, you were found guilty by the jury of seven counts, not guilty with respect to two counts, and the jury was discharged from returning verdicts on two counts on the basis that they could not agree.  One count was the subject of a verdict of acquittal by direction during the trial.  The counts upon which the jury returned verdicts of guilty were counts 5 and 6 which were respectively counts alleging acts of indecency on a person under the age of 16 years (s 61(2) Crimes Act 1900 (ACT)). Those counts each carried a maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment. The jury returned verdicts of guilty of five counts (counts 4, 9, 11, 12 and 13) of sexual intercourse with a person under the age of 16 years (s 55(2) Crimes Act 1900 (ACT)). Each of those counts carries a maximum penalty of 14 years’ imprisonment. The jury’s verdicts mean that they were satisfied beyond a reasonable date that you did the acts alleged by the Crown with respect to those counts where they returned verdicts of guilty. They also mean that the jury were not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that at the time that you did those acts, you believed on reasonable grounds that the victim, CS, was of or above the age of 16 years. I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt based upon the…

Details
AGLC
R v Barker [2014] ACTSC 115
Case
[2014] ACTSC 115
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Barker, the appellant stood convicted of possessing child pornography, using a child for the production of child pornography, committing an act of indecency on a person under 16 years old, and engaging in sexual intercourse with a person under 16 years old. The victim, who was 15 years old at the time, and the appellant were in a boyfriend/girlfriend relationship. The difference in age between them was seven years. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence for the appellant, specifically whether to record a conviction.

The central legal issues before the court involved the nature and severity of the crimes committed by the appellant. The court had to consider the aggravating and mitigating factors, including the age difference between the parties, the relationship dynamics, and the appellant's prior criminal history. The court also needed to weigh the necessity of recording a conviction against the potential consequences for the appellant, particularly given the personal circumstances of the case.

In delivering the judgment, the court emphasised the gravity of the offences, noting the significant breach of trust and the potential long-term psychological impact on the victim. Despite the appellant's remorse and the personal relationship between the parties, the court found that recording a conviction was necessary to uphold the rule of law and deter similar conduct in the future. The court concluded that the offences were serious enough to warrant a criminal record, taking into account all the mitigating factors presented.

The final orders of the court included the recording of the appellant's conviction for all the offences. The court recognised the unique circumstances of the case but ultimately determined that the public interest in recording the conviction outweighed the personal aspects of the relationship between the appellant and the victim.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [16]

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.