R v Black

Case [2022] ACTSC 4


SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

R v Black

Citation:

[2022] ACTSC 4

Hearing Dates:

4 June 2021, 31 August 2021 and 8 November 2021

DecisionDate:

21 January 2022

Before:

Loukas-Karlsson J

Decision:

See [178]

Catchwords:

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – Use carriage service to menace, harass, or cause offence – delusional disorder – erotomanic subtype – application of Verdins principles – consideration of Intensive Correction Order – Intensive Correction Order imposed

Legislation Cited:

Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) s 42

Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 11, 46C
Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) ss 35, 309
Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) ss 16AAAA, 16A, 20AB
Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) ss 474.12, 474.17
Domestic Violence and Protection Orders Act 2008 (ACT) (repealed) s 90

Mental Health Act 2015 (ACT) ss 19, 26, 27

Cases Cited:

Director of Public Prosecutions v Dalgliesh (a pseudonym) [2017] HCA 41; 262 CLR 428

DPP (Cth) v Boyles (a pseudonym) [2016] VSCA 267
DPP (Cth) v De La Rosa [2010] NSWCCA 194; 243 FLR 28
Hili v the Queen [2010] HCA 45; 242 CLR 520
Hogan v Hinch [2011] HCA 4; 243 CLR 506
Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25; 228 CLR 357
Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59
Pearce v The Queen [1998] HCA 57; 194 CLR 610
Postiglione v The Queen (1997) 189 CLR 295
R v Elson [2020] ACTSC 264
R v Harrington [2016] ACTCA 10; 11 ACTLR 215
R v Jabal [2020] ACTSC 230
R v McDowall [2020] ACTSC 184
R v Miller [2018] ACTSC 244
R v O’Brien [1997] 2 VR 714
R v Pham [2015] HCA 39; 256 CLR 550
R v Srna [2018] ACTSC 337
R v Thomas (No 2) [2021] ACTSC 73
R v Toumo’ua [2017] ACTCA 9; 12 ACTLR 103
R v Tran [1999] NSWCCA 109
R v Verdins [2007] VSCA 102; 16 VR 269
R v XX [2009] NSWCCA 115; 195 A Crim R 38
Xiao v R [2018] NSWCCA 4; 96 NSWLR 1

Zdravkovic v The Queen [2016] ACTCA 53

Parties:

The Queen ( Crown)

Steven Black ( Offender)

Representation:

Counsel

B Morrisroe (4 June 2021 and 31 August 2021) and I Thomas (8 November 2021) ( Crown)

F Lalic ( Offender)

Solicitors

Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)

File Number:

SCC 66 of 2021

LOUKAS-KARLSSON J:

Introduction

  1. On 16 March 2021, Steven Black (the offender) pleaded guilty to the following:

(a) Three offences of use carriage service to menace, harass or cause offence, contrary to s 474.17(1) of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) (Criminal Code). The maximum penalty for this offence is 3 years’ imprisonment.

Agreed Facts

  1. The facts are set out in the Agreed Statement of Facts, which forms part of the Crown Tender Bundle. The agreed facts may be summarised as follows.

  1. The three offences the offender has pleaded guilty…

Continue reading R v Black

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Black [2022] ACTSC 4
Case
[2022] ACTSC 4
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Black is a sentencing matter before the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory. The offender, Steven Black, pleaded guilty to three offences of using a carriage service to menace, harass, or cause offence, contrary to section 474.17(1) of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth). The maximum penalty for each offence is three years' imprisonment. The court had to decide on the appropriate sentence for the offender, considering his mental health condition, the impact of his offending on the victims, and the principles of sentencing for Commonwealth offences.

The court considered the offender's delusional disorder, erotomanic subtype, as a significant mitigating factor. The offender's mental health condition had a direct causal connection to his offending behaviour, and his rehabilitation prospects were significantly contingent on the intensity of the management of his mental health. The court took into account the offender's remorse, his prospects for rehabilitation, and the need to protect the community.

The court decided to impose a sentence of 13 months and 15 days imprisonment for each offence, to be served by way of an Intensive Correction Order (ICO) for a period of three years. The court also imposed additional conditions on the ICO, including engaging with ACT Corrective Services staff, reporting any changes in medication and compliance, not contacting the victims, and abiding by a curfew condition. The court considered an ICO appropriate in this case due to the offender's mental health condition and the need for ongoing treatment in the community.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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.