R v H - [2015] ACTSC 221

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v H
Citation:	[2015] ACTSC 221
Hearing Date:	28 July 2015
DecisionDate:	28 July 2015
Before:	Murrell CJ
Decision:	Sentenced to three years and two months’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 19 months.
Category:	Sentence
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – particular offences – sexual offences – crimes and offences against children – cooperation with police
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) ss 61(1), 61(2) Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 7, 33, 35
Cases Cited:	PR v The Queen [2014] ACTCA 40 R v AM (Unreported, Supreme Court of the ACT, Murrell CJ, 28 March 2014) R v DK [2014] ACTSC 173 R v Fitzpatrick (Unreported, Supreme Court of the ACT, Nield AJ, 23 June 2013 R v Girvan (Unreported, Supreme Court of the ACT, Refshauge ACJ, 25 September 2013) R v SH [2015] ACTSC 25
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) H (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel Ms S Jowitt (Crown) Mr R Davies (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Legal Aid ACT (Offender)
File Number:	SCC 130 of 2015

MURRELL CJ:

The Offences

The offender is before the Court for sentence on eight counts of committing an act of indecency on a young person. The offences are:

(a)Between 5 November 2008 and 5 November 2009, he committed an act of indecency on X, a person under the age of 10 years, contrary to s 61(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT). The maximum penalty is 12 years’ imprisonment. (Offence 1)
(b)Between 1 June 2009 and 31 July 2009, he committed an act of indecency on X, a person under the age of 10 years, contrary to s 61(1) of the Crimes Act. The maximum penalty is 12 years’ imprisonment. (Offence 2)
(c)Between 1 June 2009 and 31 July 2009, he committed an act of indecency on X, a person under the age of 10 years, contrary to s 61(1) of the Crimes Act. The maximum penalty is 12 years’ imprisonment. (Offence 3)
(d)Between 1 May 2010 and 10 May 2010, he committed an act of indecency on X, a person under the age of 10 years, contrary to s 61(1) of the Crimes Act. The maximum penalty is 12 years’ imprisonment. (Offence 4)
(e)Between 10 May 2010 and 25 May 2010, he committed an act of indecency on X, a person under the age of 10 years, contrary to s 61(1) of the Crimes Act. The maximum penalty is 12 years’ imprisonment. (Offence 5)
(f)Between 1 February 2013 and 31 March 2013, he committed an act of indecency on Y, a person under the age of 16 years, contrary to s 61(2) of the Crimes Act. The maximum penalty is 10 years’ imprisonment. (Offence 6)
(g)Between 1 January 2013 and 31 December 2013, he committed an act of indecency on Y, a person under the age of 16 years, contrary to s 61(2) of the Crimes Act. The maximum penalty is…

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 H

Details

AGLC: R v H [2015] ACTSC 221
Case: [2015] ACTSC 221
Decision Date: 28 July 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant, H, was charged with several sexual offences against children and was convicted. The matter was heard in the County Court of Victoria. H was found guilty of multiple counts of indecent acts with a child under 16 years of age, and of making child pornography. The court was required to determine an appropriate sentence that reflected the gravity of the offences, while also considering H’s cooperation with police and other relevant factors.

The primary legal issues before the court were the appropriate sentencing principles to apply and the quantum of sentence. The court had to consider the severity of the offences, the impact on the victims, and the mitigating factors, including H’s early guilty plea and cooperation with authorities. The court also had to decide on an appropriate non-parole period.

In determining the sentence, the court noted the seriousness of the offences and the vulnerability of the victims. The court found that H’s early guilty plea and cooperation with police were mitigating factors. However, the court emphasised the need to protect the community and to deter similar offending. After weighing all the relevant factors, the court sentenced H to three years and two months’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 19 months. The court highlighted the importance of rehabilitation and the need for H to address underlying issues to reduce the risk of reoffending.

Orders

Orders of the court

Sentenced to three years and two months’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 19 months.

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.