R v Connelly-Hansen - [2019] ACTSC 189

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Connelly-Hansen
Citation:	[2019] ACTSC 189
Hearing Date:	17–18 July 2019
DecisionDate:	18 July 2019
Before:	Murrell CJ
Decision:	Sentenced to a total of 21 months’ imprisonment, backdated to 23 December 2018 and suspended with immediate effect upon entering a good behaviour order for two years.
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – Act of indecency with young person – Possess child exploitation material – Guilty plea – Where offending is objectively serious – Where the offender was subject to substantial trauma in private and professional life – General deterrence – Rehabilitation and public protection.
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) ss 62(2), 65 Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) s 12
Cases Cited:	Minehan v The Queen [2010] NSWCCA 140 R v Falzon [2015] ACTSC 104 R v KJ [2014] ACTSC 353 R v Major [2016] ACTSC 161 The Queen v Cooper [2012] ACTCA 9 The Queen v TW [2011] ACTCA 25; 6 ACTLR 18
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Allan James Connelly-Hansen (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel T Hickey (Crown) K Ginges (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Kamy Saeedi Law (Offender)
File Number:	SCC 233 of 2018; SCC 234 of 2018

Murrell CJ

The offender was charged with one count of act of indecency on a young person on 9 and February 2018, contrary to s 61(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) (Crimes Act), and one count of possess child exploitation material on 28 February 2018, contrary to s 65 of the Crimes Act.

The offences carry maximum penalties of 10 years’ imprisonment and 7 years’ imprisonment respectively.

The offender entered pleas of guilty after criminal case conferencing, but before a trial date was set. I will allow a discount of between 15 and 20 per cent on the sentences that I would otherwise have imposed.

The offender was arrested on 28 February 2018 and spent 205 days (about six months and three weeks) in custody, before he was granted bail on 21 September 2018.

Facts

Act of indecency

In February 2018, the offender attended his daughter’s swimming carnival. While at the carnival, he used his mobile telephone to covertly film school children in their swimwear. The offence concerns one 12-year-old girl in relation to whom the offender made three video recordings, lasting a total of about eight minutes. The recordings focused on the girl’s buttocks and upper thighs towards the area of her genitals. In one of the recordings, the victim is clearly identifiable as the offender filmed her face.

The offence came to light because, on the night in question (in the early hours of the following morning, a Saturday), the offender was observed in Civic behaving suspiciously by using his mobile telephone to film women’s breasts, buttocks, and in the vicinity of their genital areas. A nightclub security guard asked the offender to leave the area and, when he refused to do…

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 Connelly-Hansen

Details

AGLC: R v Connelly-Hansen [2019] ACTSC 189
Case: [2019] ACTSC 189
Decision Date: 18 July 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Connelly-Hansen was heard in the relevant court, where the defendant pleaded guilty to charges of engaging in an act of indecency with a young person and possessing child exploitation material. The dispute centred on the appropriate sentence for the defendant's crimes, taking into account the serious nature of the offences and the defendant's personal circumstances. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate punishment while considering the objective gravity of the offences, the defendant's history of trauma, and the principles of general deterrence, rehabilitation, and public protection.

The court identified that the offences were objectively serious and warranted a custodial sentence. However, it also recognised the defendant's background of substantial trauma, both in private and professional life, which could be considered in mitigation. The court had to balance the need for general deterrence and the protection of the public against the potential for rehabilitation and the personal circumstances of the defendant. The court considered the principles of sentencing and the need to ensure that the sentence was proportionate to the offending while also promoting the rehabilitation of the offender and protecting the community.

After weighing these factors, the court determined that the appropriate sentence would be a total of 21 months' imprisonment, backdated to the date of the defendant's arrest. However, the sentence was suspended with immediate effect, and the defendant was instead ordered to enter a good behaviour order for two years. This decision reflects the court's consideration of both the need to address the serious nature of the offences and the potential for the defendant's rehabilitation, while also ensuring public protection.

Orders

Orders of the court

Sentenced to a total of 21 months’ imprisonment, backdated to 23 December 2018 and suspended with immediate effect upon entering a good behaviour order for two years.

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.