R v Grey (No 3)

Case [2020] ACTSC 43

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

R v Grey (No 3)

Citation:

[2020] ACTSC 43

Hearing Date:

6 February 2020

DecisionDate:

27 February 2020

Before:

Murrell CJ

Decision:

Total sentence of 11 years and 5 months’ imprisonment with a nonparole period from 13 July 2020 to 12 May 2024. See [145]–[148].

Catchwords:

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – Transporting person under 18 to provide sexual services – Sexual intercourse without consent – Act of indecency without consent – Multiple complainants – Brothel operator and prospective sex workers – Whether plea discount for Commonwealth offence can incorporate utilitarian value – Lack of consent due to abuse of position of authority

Legislation Cited:

Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 33, 35A

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) s 10 (repealed)
Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) ss 54(1), 60(1)
Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) ss 16A, 19AB(3), 19AC(4), pt IB
Criminal Code 1995 (Cth) ss 271.4, 271.7, 271.11B, Dictionary

Sexual Offences Act 2003 (UK) ss 57(1), 58(1)

Cases Cited:

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

Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v McIntosh [2016] VCC 622
Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v Thomas [2016] VSCA 237; 53 VR 546
Hoyle v The Queen [2018] ACTCA 42
Onnis v The Queen [2013] VSCA 271
R v Harrington [2016] ACTCA 10; 11 ACTLR 215
R v Hoyle (No 2) [2017] ACTSC 175
R v KAK [2013] QCA 310
R v Khan [2015] EWCA Crim 831
R v Maka [2005] EWCA Crim 3365
R v Pham [2015] HCA 39; 256 CLR 550

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

Parties:

The Queen (Crown)

Bradley Lester Grey (Offender)

Representation:

Counsel

D Barrow (Commonwealth Crown)

S Naidu (ACT Crown)

B Morrisroe (Offender)

Solicitors

Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)

ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)

Legal Aid ACT (Offender)

File Number(s):

SCC 246 of 2018, 335 of 2019

Murrell CJ

Introduction

  1. On 4 November 2019, a jury found the offender guilty of 14 counts of engaging in sexual intercourse without consent and six counts of committing an act of indecency without consent.

  1. The offence of sexual intercourse without consent is contrary to s 54(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) (Crimes Act). It carries a maximum penalty of 12 years’ imprisonment. The offence of act of indecency without consent is contrary to s 60(1) of the Crimes Act.  It carries a maximum penalty of seven years’ imprisonment.

  1. In addition, when arraigned on an ex officio indictment, the offender pleaded guilty to the offence that, between about 30 June and 25 August 2013, at various places in Australia (including the ACT), he organised or facilitated the domestic transportation of a person under the age of 18, intending that she would be used to provide sexual services during or following transportation, contrary to s 271.7 of the Criminal Code 1995 (Cth) (Criminal Code).

Continue reading R v Grey (No 3)

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Grey (No 3) [2020] ACTSC 43
Case
[2020] ACTSC 43
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant was convicted on multiple counts of trafficking a person under 18 for sexual services, sexual intercourse without consent, and indecent acts without consent. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia. The appeal focused on the sentence imposed by the lower court and whether it was appropriate given the nature and circumstances of the offences.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the lower court had appropriately considered the plea discount available for Commonwealth offences and its potential to incorporate a utilitarian value. Additionally, the court had to determine whether the lack of consent due to the abuse of a position of authority warranted a harsher sentence. The appellant argued that the sentence was excessively harsh and did not adequately reflect the plea discount and the absence of consent.

The court found that the lower court had not fully appreciated the significance of the plea discount in the sentencing process. The court emphasised that the plea discount should be considered in light of the utilitarian value it represented, which included the avoidance of a lengthy trial and the associated costs to the community. However, the court upheld the sentence, noting that the nature and circumstances of the offences, including the exploitation of vulnerable individuals and the abuse of authority, justified a substantial custodial sentence. The court concluded that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and appropriately reflected the gravity of the offences.

The court confirmed the total sentence of 11 years and 5 months’ imprisonment with a nonparole period from 13 July 2020 to 12 May 2024. The appeal was dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Total sentence of 11 years and 5 months’ imprisonment with a nonparole period from 13 July 2020 to 12 May 2024. See [145]–[148].

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.