R v GG

[2017] ACTSC 137

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

R v GG

Citation:

[2017] ACTSC 137

Hearing Date:

18 May 2017

DecisionDate:

26 May 2017

Before:

Mossop J

Decision:

See [55]

Catchwords:

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and punishment – sentence – trial by jury – sexual assault in the third degree – assault occasioning actual bodily harm – intentional damage to property – relationship evidence – offender in position of paternal authority figure – no prior criminal history – sentence of imprisonment – backdated sentence to take time in custody already served into account

Legislation Cited:

Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), ss 24, 51, 52, 53, 116

Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT)

Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), s 7, 63(1)

Parties:

The Queen (Crown)

GG (Defendant)

Representation:

Counsel

Ms S Gul (Crown)

Mr J Stewart (Defendant)

Solicitors

ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)

Ben Aulich and Associates (Defendant)

File Numbers:

SCC 165 of 2016

SCC 166 of 2016

MOSSOP J:

Introduction

1. After a trial lasting four days the offender, who I will refer to as GG or the offender, was found guilty of sexual assault in the third degree. A contravention of s 53(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) carries a maximum penalty of imprisonment for 12 years.

1. He was also found guilty of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The maximum penalty for that offence under s 24 of the Crimes Act is imprisonment for five years.

1. On day four of the trial the offender pleaded guilty to a charge of intentional damage to property. This was a contravention of s 116(3) of the Crimes Act which carries a maximum penalty of two years imprisonment or $7500 or both.

1. He was found not guilty of sexual intercourse without consent.

The offending conduct

1. The offender is the cousin of the victim’s mother.  In mid-2011, the victim moved in with the offender and his wife.  She was about to or had just turned 19 years old.  She had a young child who was at that time, two or three months old.  The victim had a somewhat disrupted childhood.  Her evidence was that she had been adopted when very young by her aunt and uncle and lived with them in New Zealand until they moved back to Samoa. She then lived with her biological mother and father.  Her mother was the victim of domestic violence and was ultimately murdered by her father.  She moved to live with her mother’s cousin in Auckland.  After the birth of her child she moved to live with the offender and his wife. 

1. The offender and his family took her in to help look after her baby boy.  The offender’s wife had four teenage sons from a previous marriage.  The offender and his wife also had an 11-year-old daughter.  They resided in New Zealand.  In 2011 the offender and his wife decided to move the family to Australia.  Before the whole family moved, the offender travelled to Australia to set things…