R v Cattle (No 3) - [2020] ACTSC 135

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Cattle (No 3)
Citation:	[2020] ACTSC 135
Hearing Date:	22 May 2020
DecisionDate:	22 May 2020
Before:	Murrell CJ
Decision:	Total sentence of two years’ imprisonment wholly suspended upon entering good behaviour orders.
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – Act of indecency – Course of conduct – Historical child sexual offences – Position of authority – Where offender is in serious ill health – Consideration of hardship of particular penalty
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) ss 66B, 76 (as at 18 November 1983), 92K (as at 11 February 1987) Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 12, 13, 33(1), 34A
Cases Cited:	GS v The Queen [2016] NSWCCA 266 R v EN [2019] ACTSC 354 R v Lam (No 3) [2014] ACTSC 362 R v Scheeren [2014] ACTSC 272
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) John Walter Cattle (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel K Lee (Crown) S Howell (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) McKenna Taylor (Offender)
File Number:	SCC 162 of 2019

MURRELL CJ

Introduction

On 20 March 2020, a jury found the offender guilty of the following offences:

(a)Count 1: Between 1 January 1983 and 31 December 1984, he indecently assaulted SQ, a person under the age of 16 years, contrary to s 76 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) (Crimes Act) (as in force at that time), charged as a course of conduct charge under s 66B of the Crimes Act.
The maximum penalty for an offence against s 76 is five years’ imprisonment.
(b)Count 2: On 4 April 1987, he committed an act of indecency on DG, a person aged between 10 and 16 years, contrary to s 92K(2) of the Crimes Act (as in force at that time).
The maximum penalty is 10 years’ imprisonment.

Facts

During the 1980s, the offender was a tennis coach at Forrest Tennis Club. His duties included teaching tennis to children both individually and in groups.

Count 1

In 1983 and/or 1984, when SQ was in Year 5 and/or Year 6 at Forrest Primary School and was between 10 and 12 years old, the offender was her tennis coach.

On at least three occasions, the offender indecently assaulted SQ in the tennis clubhouse. He beckoned her into the kitchen area of the clubhouse, held her close with his arms around her back and shoulders (although not forcefully), engaged in tongue kissing, and asked her to touch his genitals (which she did). SQ said that the offender had taken her hand in his and shown her “what to touch and how”.

The offender and the complainant remained largely or completely clothed, although the complainant did see the offender’s penis at some stage.

The offender encouraged the complainant to treat this behaviour as “our little secret”, as something that was fun but slightly risky and which should not be disclosed. The complainant said that, “as the offence progressed, [there was] a…

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 Cattle (No 3)

Details

AGLC: R v Cattle (No 3) [2020] ACTSC 135
Case: [2020] ACTSC 135
Decision Date: 22 May 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Cattle (No 3), the defendant faced a criminal charge relating to historical child sexual offences. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, where the primary issue was to determine the appropriate sentence for the defendant's acts of indecency that occurred during a period when he held a position of authority. The court had to consider the seriousness of the offences, the defendant's role at the time, and his current state of serious ill health. The legal issues thus revolved around the appropriate penalty to impose under the circumstances, balancing the need for justice with the defendant's current health condition and the potential hardship of imprisonment.

The court evaluated the aggravating factors of the case, including the nature and duration of the offences, the defendant's position of authority, and the impact on the victims. The court also took into account the defendant's current health status, which was deemed to be serious and deteriorating. Given these considerations, the court determined that a custodial sentence would impose undue hardship on the defendant, while also considering the need for the sentence to reflect the gravity of the offences. Ultimately, the court concluded that a suspended sentence with good behaviour orders was the most appropriate course of action.

The Supreme Court of New South Wales found that the defendant should be sentenced to two years' imprisonment, wholly suspended, and instead be subject to a series of good behaviour orders. This decision balanced the need for a punitive response to the historical offences with the recognition of the defendant's current health status and the potential for undue hardship. The court's approach ensured that the sentence remained just and proportionate, reflecting the serious nature of the offences while also considering the defendant's current circumstances.

Orders

Orders of the court

Total sentence of two years’ imprisonment wholly suspended upon entering good behaviour orders.

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.