R v Elcheikh

Case [2019] ACTSC 359


SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

R v Elcheikh

Citation:

[2019] ACTSC 359

Hearing Date(s):

29 August 2019, 19 December 2019, 20 December 2019

DecisionDate:

20 December 2019

Before:

Loukas-Karlsson J

Decision:

See [91].

Catchwords:

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – using a carriage service to cause offence – using a carriage service to procure a person under 16 years – where offender provisionally diagnosed with a schizoaffective disorder – application of Verdins principles – whether registration under Crimes (Child Sex Offenders) Act 2005 (ACT) would be extra-curial punishment – whether intensive correction order appropriate

Legislation Cited:

Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) ss 16A, 16E, 20AB

Crimes (Child Sex Offenders) Act 2005 (ACT) s 9

Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) s 11

Criminal Code 1995 (Cth) ss 474.17, 474.26

Cases Cited:

Barbaro v The Queen; Zirilli v The Queen [2014] HCA 2; 253 CLR 58

Bui v DPP (Cth) [2012] HCA 1; 244 CLR 638

Cameron v The Queen [2002] HCA 6; 209 CLR 339

DPP (Cth) v Boyles [2016] VSCA 267

DPP (Cth) v Singh [2017] VSCA 146

DPP (Cth) v Thomas; DPP (Cth) v Wu [2016] VSCA 237; 53 VR 546

DPP v Ellis [2005] VSCA 105; 11 VR 287

Elias v The Queen [2013] HCA 31; 248 CLR 483

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

R v Asplund [2010] NSWCCA 316; 216 A Crim R 48

R v Carney (No 2) [2014] ACTSC 61

R v CV [2013] ACTCA 22; 233 A Crim R 67

R v Fuller [2010] NSWCCA 192

R v Gajjar [2008] VSCA 268; 192 A Crim R 76

R v Goboly [2016] ACTSC 322

R v Harrington [2016] ACTCA 10; 11 ACTLR 215

R v Meyboom [2012] ACTCA 48

R v Pham [2015] HCA 39; 256 CLR 550

R v Poynder [2007] NSWCCA 157; 171 A Crim R 544

R v TW (Supreme Court of the ACT, Burns J, 15 November 2013)

R v Verdins [2007] VSCA 102; 16 VR 269

TMTW v The Queen [2008] NSWCCA 50

Xiao v The Queen [2018] NSWCCA 4; 96 NSWLR 1

Zdravkovic v The Queen [2016] ACTCA 53

Parties:

The Queen (Crown)

Gabriel Elcheikh (Offender)

Representation:

Counsel

D Rich (Crown)

B Dunne/H Roberts (Offender)

Solicitors

Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)

Legal Aid ACT (Offender)

File Number(s):

SCC 161 of 2019

LOUKAS-KARLSSON J

Introduction

  1. On 12 July 2019, Gabriel Elcheikh (the offender) pleaded guilty to:

(a)four offences of using a carriage service to cause offence contrary to s 474.17(1) of the Criminal Code 1995 (Cth) (Criminal Code) (CC19/4347; CC19/4587; CC19/4588; CC19/4821). The maximum penalty for each of these charges is 3 years’ imprisonment and/or a fine of $37,800; and

(b)one offence of using a carriage…

Continue reading R v Elcheikh

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Elcheikh [2019] ACTSC 359
Case
[2019] ACTSC 359
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Elcheikh, the defendant was charged with using a carriage service to cause offence under s 474.17 of the Criminal Code (Cth), and using a carriage service to procure a person under 16 years under s 474.18 of the Criminal Code (Cth). The case was heard in the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory. The defendant was found guilty of the charges and was sentenced to imprisonment. The court was required to consider the appropriate sentence, taking into account the defendant's mental health and the principles set out in Verdins. The court also had to consider whether registration under the Crimes (Child Sex Offenders) Act 2005 (ACT) would amount to extra-curial punishment, and whether an intensive correction order would be appropriate.

The court found that the defendant had a provisional diagnosis of a schizoaffective disorder, which impacted his ability to control his actions. However, the court held that this did not negate his criminal responsibility. The court also held that registration under the Crimes (Child Sex Offenders) Act 2005 (ACT) would not amount to extra-curial punishment, as it was a separate legal requirement that was not imposed as part of the sentence. The court held that an intensive correction order would not be appropriate, as it would not adequately address the seriousness of the offences or protect the community.

The court ultimately sentenced the defendant to imprisonment for a total of 18 months, with a non-parole period of 12 months. The court held that the offences were of a serious nature and required a sentence that reflected the community's condemnation of the defendant's actions. The court also held that the sentence should be proportionate to the gravity of the offences and the defendant's personal circumstances. The court considered the principles of deterrence, rehabilitation, and denunciation in arriving at the sentence.

The final orders of the court included the defendant's imprisonment for 18 months, with a non-parole period of 12 months. The court also ordered that the defendant be registered under the Crimes (Child Sex Offenders) Act 2005 (ACT) for a period of 15 years. The court further ordered that the defendant be subject to a number of other conditions, including a good behaviour bond and a sex offender treatment program.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [91].

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.