R v EO - [2017] ACTSC 138

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v EO
Citation:	[2017] ACTSC 138
Hearing Date:	15 May 2017
DecisionDate:	15 May 2017
Before:	Mossop J
Decision:	See [29]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and punishment – sentence – young offender – engaging in sexual intercourse with a person above the age of 10 years but under the age of 16 years – plea of guilty – remorse shown to the victim – insight into effects of offence – not included onto child sex offender’s register – Good Behaviour Order
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), s 55(2) Crimes (Child Sex Offenders) Act 2005 (ACT), ss 9(2), 9(3) Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), ss 133B, 133C, 133D
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) EO (Defendant)
Representation:	Counsel Mr S McLaughlin (Crown) Mr M Kukulies-Smith (Defendant)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Kamy Saeedi Lawyers (Defendant)
File Number:	SCC 288 of 2016

MOSSOP J:

Facts

The offender has pleaded guilty to the charge that, on the 13 April 2016, he engaged in sexual intercourse with a person above the age of 10 years but under the age of 16 years, contrary to s 55(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT). The victim was in fact 14 years of age at the time of the offence. The offender was aged 17 at the time and is now aged 19. As he was under age of 18 at the time of the offence, he is therefore a young offender for purposes of sentencing: see s 133B of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT).

The victim and her father were long time family friends of the offender’s mother and the offender.

The victim and her father travelled to Canberra from Sydney on 12 April 2016. As stated above (at [1]), the victim was aged 14 at the time. The offender, his mother, the victim, and her father all went out to dinner to a nearby restaurant. The victim and her father were staying at the offender’s house in Downer. The victim’s father slept on the couch and the victim was given the study to sleep in. The offender and the victim commenced a conversation through Facebook Messenger. During the conversation they discussed drinking, drug use, and sneaking out to parties, as well as prior sexual history. The victim asked the offender whether he could supply her with MDMA. The offender did not agree to this. The victim told him not to mention what she had told him to their parents.

The victim also communicated with her boyfriend who in turn contacted the offender and there was what is described in the statement of facts as “a heated exchange”.

The Facebook Messenger conversation continued between the offender and the victim. The victim reiterated her request that the offender not tell anyone about their conversation and the offender indicated that he was upset because of what he had been told by her boyfriend. The victim asked what she could…

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 EO

Details

AGLC: R v EO [2017] ACTSC 138
Case: [2017] ACTSC 138
Decision Date: 15 May 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of R v EO was heard in a court where the defendant, EO, pleaded guilty to engaging in sexual intercourse with a person who was above the age of 10 but under the age of 16. The dispute centred around the appropriate sentence to be imposed on EO, given the circumstances of the offence and his subsequent actions. The legal issues that the court had to decide included the appropriate penalty for the crime, the extent of EO's remorse, and the impact of the offence on the victim.

The court considered various factors, including EO's early guilty plea, the absence of any previous criminal history, and his expression of remorse towards the victim. The court also noted that EO had shown insight into the effects of his actions and had taken steps to ensure that he would not reoffend. The court concluded that EO should not be placed on the child sex offender's register, and instead, a Good Behaviour Order was deemed appropriate. The court emphasised the importance of rehabilitation and the potential for EO to lead a law-abiding life in the future.

In light of the aforementioned factors, the court imposed a sentence that was considered appropriate for the offence, while also taking into account EO's remorse and insight. The court acknowledged that the offence had a significant impact on the victim but recognised EO's efforts to make amends and his potential for rehabilitation. The court's decision reflected a balanced approach, taking into account the interests of both the victim and the defendant. The final orders, as stated in [29], included the imposition of a Good Behaviour Order and the exclusion of EO from the child sex offender's register.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [29]

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.