R v Cooksley

Case [2022] ACTSC 339

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

R v Cooksley

Citation:

[2022] ACTSC 339

Hearing Date:

19 October 2022

DecisionDate:

7 December 2022

Before:

Loukas-Karlsson J

Decision:

See [144]

Catchwords:

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – historic child sexual offences – maintain sexual relationship with child or young person under special care – indecent assault – where offender sentenced in NSW in relation to offending with same victim during same time period– principles in Mill

Legislation Cited:

Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) s 56, 81
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) s 81
Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) s 33

Cases Cited:

Barbaro v The Queen; Zirilli v The Queen [2014] HCA 2; 253 CLR 58
Barrett v The Queen [2016] ACTCA 38
Beniamini v Craig [2017] ACTSC 30
Beavis v The Queen [2018] NSWCCA 248
Cahyadi v The Queen [2007] NSWCCA 1; 168 A Crim R 4
Director of Public Prosecutions v Dalgliesh (a pseudonym) [2017] HCA 41; 262 CLR 428
Forster-Jones v The Queen [2020] ACTCA 31
Henry v The Queen [2019] ACTCA 5
Hili v the Queen [2010] HCA 45; 242 CLR 520
Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25; 228 CLR 357
Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59
Millard v The Queen [2016] ACTCA 14
Muldrock v The Queen [2011] HCA 39; 244 CLR 120
Pearce v The Queen [1998] HCA 57; 194 CLR 610
Postiglione v The Queen (1997) 189 CLR 295
R v Bernath (1997) 1 VR 271
R v Degioannis  [2019] ACTSC 47
R v KC [2020] ACTSC 94
R v Kellan (a pseudonym) [2021] ACTSC 314
R v Michalopoulos [2020] ACTSC 27
R v Pham [2015] HCA 39; 256 CLR 550
R v Porter(No 3) [2022] ACTSC 236
R v Smith (No 2) [2022] ACTSC 246
R v Toumo’ua [2017] ACTCA 9; 12 ACTLR 103
R v XX [2009] NSWCCA 115; 195 A Crim R 38
Taylor v The Queen [2014] ACTCA 9
The Queen v Ashton (a pseudonym) [2022] ACTSC 27
The Queen v Kilic [2016] HCA 48; 259 CLR 256
The Queen v Miller [2019] ACTCA 25
The Queen v Ware (a pseudonym) ACTCA 14
Simpson v The Queen [2019] NSWCCA 137
Zdravkovic v Queen [2016] ACTCA 53

Parties:

The Queen (Crown)

Christopher Gary Cooksley (Offender)

Representation:

Counsel

M Thomas (Crown)

G Hoare (Offender)

Solicitors

ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)

Wilkinson Throsby & Edwards (Offender)

File Number:

SCC 177 of 2022

Loukas-Karlsson J:

Introduction

  1. The offender, Christopher Gary Cooksley, entered pleas of guilty to the following offences:

(a)Count 1 (CAN 3545/22): An offence of maintaining a sexual relationship with a child or young person under special care contrary to s 56 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) (Crimes Act), between 1 January 1979 and 31 December 1982. The maximum penalty for this offence is 25 years imprisonment. I note this offence has subsequently been renamed…

Continue reading R v Cooksley

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Cooksley [2022] ACTSC 339
Case
[2022] ACTSC 339
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Cooksley, the appellant was convicted and sentenced for various historical child sexual offences committed against a victim under special care. The decision was made by the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal. The primary issues for the court were the appropriate sentencing principles to apply to the historic child sexual offences and whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. The appeal was centred around the application of principles from the case of R v Mill, which deals with the sentencing of historic child sexual offences.

The court considered whether the sentencing principles applied in R v Mill were appropriate for the current case. The appellant's legal representative argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive, and the court had to determine whether the sentence imposed by the primary judge was appropriate in light of the principles established in R v Mill. The court examined the gravity of the offences, the appellant's criminal history, and the need for deterrence and denunciation.

The court held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The court found that the primary judge had correctly applied the principles from R v Mill and had appropriately considered the relevant factors, including the gravity of the offences and the appellant's criminal history. The court also noted the importance of deterrence and denunciation in sentencing for historic child sexual offences. The appeal was dismissed, and the sentence imposed by the primary judge was upheld.

No additional orders were made beyond those mentioned in the judgment.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [144]

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.