R v EP (No 3)

Case [2019] ACTSC 242


SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

R v EP (No 3)

Citation:

[2019] ACTSC 242

Hearing Date:

26 June 2019

DecisionDate:

28 August 2019

Before:

Loukas-Karlsson J

Decision:

See [99]

Catchwords:

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – using a carriage service to menace, harass or cause offence  – threatening to distribute an intimate image  – acts of indecency  – sexual assault in the third degree – stalking – where domestic violence context – where no relevant criminal history

Legislation Cited:

Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) ss 26, 35, 53, 60, 72E

Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) ss 16A, 19AC
Crimes (Intimate Image Abuse) Amendment Bill 2017 (ACT)
Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 6, 7, 10, 33
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) s 22
Criminal Code1995 (Cth) s 474.17
Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT) ss 68D, 68E

Cases Cited:

Alvares v R; Farache v R [2011] NSWCCA 33; 209 A Crim R 297

Beniamini v Craig [2017] ACTSC 30
Butters v R [2010] NSWCCA 1
Cahyadi v The Queen [2007] NSWCCA 1; 168 A Crim R 41
Cheung v The Queen [2001] HCA 67; 209 CLR 1
Cicciarelo v R [2009] NSWCCA 272
Director of Public Prosecutions v Dalgliesh (a pseudonym) [2017] HCA 41; 262 CLR 428
Fusimalohi v The Queen [2012] ACTCA 49
Hili v the Queen [2010] HCA 45; 242 CLR 520
Imbornone v The Queen [2017] NSWCCA 144
Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 215; 228 CLR 357
Monfries v The Queen [2014] ACTCA 46; 245 A Crim R 80
Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59
Muldrock v The Queen [2011] HCA 89; 244 CLR 120
Mun v R [2015] NSWCCA 234
Nguyen v R [2011] NSWCCA 111
O’Brien v The Queen [2015] ACTCA 47
Pearce v R (1998) CLR 610
R v Carmody [2016] ACTSC 382
R v Derbas [2003] NSWCCA 44
R v Dunn [2004] NSWCCA 41; 144 A Crim R 180
R v GG [2017] ACTSC 137
R v Haddara [2018] ACTSC 70
R v Hamid [2006] NSWCCA 302; 164 A Crim R 179
R v Hanslow [2002] NSWCCA 161
R v Harmouche [2005] NSWCCA 398; 158 A Crim R 357
R v Harrison [2002] NSWCCA 79; 121 A Crim R 380
R v Isaacs (1997) 41 NSWLR 374
R v KD [2019] ACTSC 62
R v Kilic [2016] HCA 48; 259 CLR 256
R v Lakiss [2018] NSWDC 309
R v M.A.K; R v M.S.K [2006] NSWCCA 381; 167 A Crim R 159
R v Meyboom [2012] ACTCA 48
R v Mobbs [2005] NSWCCA 371
R v Morabito (1992) 62 A Crim 82
R v Mumberson [2011] NSWCCA 54
R v NO (No 2) [2018] ACTSC 37
R v Pham [2015] HCA 39; 256 CLR 550
R v Stanley [2015] ACTSC 322
R v TL (No 2) [2016] ACTSC 289
R v Toumo’ua [2017]…

Continue reading R v EP (No 3)

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v EP (No 3) [2019] ACTSC 242
Case
[2019] ACTSC 242
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v EP (No 3), the respondent, EP, was the subject of a criminal prosecution. The court was required to determine the appropriate sentence for EP, who had committed various offences including using a carriage service to menace, harass or cause offence, threatening to distribute an intimate image, acts of indecency, sexual assault in the third degree, and stalking. These offences occurred within a domestic violence context, and EP had no relevant criminal history. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The primary legal issue the court needed to address was the appropriate sentence for EP, taking into account the nature and circumstances of the offences, as well as the principles of sentencing in relation to domestic violence. The court also needed to consider the impact of the offences on the victims, the likelihood of EP reoffending, and any relevant mitigating or aggravating factors. The court had to balance the need for deterrence, retribution, and rehabilitation when determining the sentence.

The court emphasised the seriousness of the offences committed by EP, noting that they had a significant impact on the victims and involved a pattern of abusive and controlling behaviour. The court also recognised the domestic violence context and the need to address the underlying issues contributing to the offending. In determining the sentence, the court considered the principles of parity, proportionality, and the specific circumstances of the case. Ultimately, the court decided that a custodial sentence was necessary to adequately address the seriousness of the offences and to protect the community. The court imposed a sentence of imprisonment, with specific details outlined in the final orders.

The final orders of the court, detailed at [99], specified the exact sentence imposed on EP, including the length of imprisonment and any additional conditions or requirements. The court's decision highlighted the importance of addressing domestic violence and the need for appropriate sentencing in such cases to ensure the safety and well-being of victims, as well as to uphold the principles of justice.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [99]

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.