R v Daniels - [1999] TASSC 62

[1999] TASSC 62

CITATION: R v Daniels [1999] TASSC 62

PARTIES:  R
  v
  DANIELS, Louis Victor

TITLE OF COURT:  SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA
JURISDICTION:  CRIMINAL
FILE NO/S:  391/1998
DELIVERED ON:  28 May 1999
DELIVERED AT:  HOBART
HEARING DATE/S:  23 April, 10, 11 and 24 May 1999
JUDGMENT OF:  Slicer J

CATCHWORDS:

Criminal Law - Jurisdiction, practice and procedure - Judgment and punishment - Sentence - Factors to be taken into account - Factual basis for sentence - Sentence to be of and related to offence - Generally - Actions constituting offences not charged - Sexual offences.

R v Di Simoni (1981) 147 CLR 383, applied.
Abel v R A94/1994; Newman and Turnbull v R (1995) 81 A Crim R 191; R v Sessions (1997) 95 A Crim R 151; Gipp v R (1998) 155 ALR 15, considered.
Abel v R A94/1994; H v R (1981) 3 A Crim R 53; R v D [1996] 1 Qd R 363, followed.
Aust Dig Criminal Law [820]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Prosecution:  M A Stoddart
             Accused:  O M Garrott
Solicitors:
             Prosecution:  Director of Public Prosecutions
             Accused:  Piggott Wood and Baker

Judgment Number: [1999] TASSC 62
Number of Paragraphs: 12

Serial No 62/1999
File No 391/1998

THE QUEEN v LOUIS VICTOR DANIELS

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT SLICER J

28 May 1999

Louis Victor Daniels has pleaded guilty to four counts of indecent assault contrary to the Criminal Code, s127, and two counts of unlawful sexual intercourse contrary to the Criminal Code, s124, with a 15 year old youth in 1992. The crimes were committed on two occasions in February and April 1992. The offender, then aged 45, was an Archdeacon of the Anglican Church and the incumbent of the Anglican Parish of Burnie. The complainant, a member of a family strongly attached to the Anglican Church at the relevant time, was involved in church activities and had become a member of the Church of England Boys Society. In February 1992, the offender invited the complainant and two other youths to spend a weekend at his holiday shack at Meander. The sexual misconduct alleged in counts 1 to 5 occurred during the course of that weekend spent at Meander. Although no force or coercion was employed, the disparity in age and status, and the existing relationship between the offender and the complainant rendered the compliance of the complainant one of simple acquiescence to the will of another. In the complainant's words:

"I wasn't physically scared of Lou, but I felt pressured that I had to and if I got in with him this once he would leave me alone. I was alone, there was really no one I could tell about this and he was two steps below a bishop and well respected. I didn't think that anyone would believe me even if I did say anything."

Further sexual misconduct occurred in April following attendance at a concert in Launceston. There had been some instances of sexual contact between the two during the interval…

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 Daniels

Details

AGLC: R v Daniels [1999] TASSC 62
Case: [1999] TASSC 62
Decision Date: 28 May 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of Tasmania was presented with the case of R v Daniels, where Louis Victor Daniels, an Archdeacon of the Anglican Church, had pleaded guilty to six counts of sexual offences against a 15-year-old youth. The offences occurred in 1992 and involved indecent assault and unlawful sexual intercourse. Daniels was sentenced to a term of imprisonment, with a portion of the sentence suspended. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentencing judge could take into account subsequent acts of sexual misconduct in determining the penalty, despite these acts not being charged. The court held that the offender could only be punished for the crimes to which he had pleaded guilty, and that subsequent conduct could not be considered as an aggravating factor. However, the court could consider the effects of the misconduct on the victim, and in this case, the court found that the subsequent sexual contact rendered the complainant more susceptible to the sexual advances of an older male.

The court further considered the impact of the offences on the complainant and the offender, as well as the effect of post-disclosure events on the offender's life. The complainant had suffered significant long-term harm, including nightmares, trouble holding relationships, and bouts of depression. The offender had lost his position in the church, experienced public shame, and lost income and assets. The court took into account the offender's long record of public service and commitment, but found that the abuse of position and trust warranted a significant sanction. The appropriate penalty was a sentence of imprisonment for a period of 12 months, with three months of the sentence suspended upon certain conditions.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court of Tasmania sentenced Louis Victor Daniels to a term of imprisonment for a period of 12 months, with three months of the sentence suspended, and directed that the Victims of Crime Compensation Levy of $300 be paid within four months of the date of release from prison. The court's reasoning and decision were based on the legal principles of punishment for the crimes to which the offender had pleaded guilty, as well as consideration of the impact of the offences on both the complainant and the offender.

Orders