R v Hare

Case [2020] NSWDC 127


District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Hare [2020] NSWDC 127
Hearing dates: 6 March 2020
Date of orders: 06 March 2020
Decision date: 06 March 2020
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Grant DCJ
Decision:

Released on recognisance order.

Catchwords: Use a carriage service to groom a person under 16 for sexual activity
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1914
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Judiciary Act 1903 (Commonwealth)
Cases Cited: Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v Beattie [2017] NSWCCA 301
Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v Walls [2014] VSCA 323
DPP (Commonwealth) v De La Rosa [2010] NSWCCA 94
Markarian v The Queen 215 ALR 213
Parente v R [2017] NSWCCA 285
Pearce v The Queen 194 CLR 610
R v Asplund [2010] NSWCCA 316
R v Dood (1991) 57 A Crim R 349
R v Gajjar (2008) 192 A Crim R 76
R v Hemsley [2004] NSWCCA 228
R v Holder; R v Johnson (1983) 3 NSWLR 245 at 260
R v Moon [2000] NSWCCA 534
The Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v Garside [2016] VSCA 74
Yardley v Betts (1979) 1 A Crim R 329
Category:Sentence
Parties: Gary Zachary Hare (Offender)
Regina (Crown)
Representation: Counsel: Mr Trevallion (Offender)
Solicitors: Mr Vail (Crown)
File Number(s): 2018/00296031

Judgment

  1. HIS HONOUR: This is an extempore judgment.

  2. Zachary Hare has a diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder without intellectual impairment. What is autism? Autism describes a group of related neurodevelopmental disorders. The disorders are associated with abnormal brain development and the symptoms must therefore be present from early childhood. Impairment in social communication can present as a delay in development of spoken language, an inability to engage in reciprocal conversation, unusual or repetitive use of language, or abnormalities in pitch, stress, rate, rhythm, and intonation of speech.

  3. Impairment in social interaction can involve difficulties of eye contact, lack of interest in other people, not giving or seeking comfort, or difficulty making friends, restricted or stereotype patterns of behaviour, interest and activities. This might present as an unusual and/or encompassing preoccupation, compulsive adherence to ritual, or unconventional use of play objects such as preoccupation with part objects. These social impairments in autism have been described as withdrawal from people, lack of attention to others, lack of communication gestures, treating parts of people as detached objects, lack of eye contact, treating people as inanimate objects, attention to non-social aspects of people, lack of awareness of the feelings of others. In social interactions there is a noticeable lack of turn taking in dialogue, an inability to participate in two-way reciprocal social interaction, deficits in the understanding of social rules governing what is acceptable in conversations. For example, a tendency to ask embarrassing questions such as, “How old are you?” to a total stranger.

  4. Individuals with ASD may start to talk to people without first using boundary markers, such as “Hello”, or attempts to engage the listener’s attention by using eye contact, and have difficulty in taking another person’s perspective. Research indicates that many adolescents with…

Continue reading R v Hare

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Hare [2020] NSWDC 127
Case
[2020] NSWDC 127
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Hare, the appellant was charged with using a carriage service to communicate with a minor under the age of 16 with the intention of engaging in sexual activity. The matter was heard in the Court of Appeal. The appellant, Hare, argued that the prosecution failed to prove the necessary mens rea for the offence. The legal issue for the court to decide was whether the prosecution had discharged the onus of proving that Hare intended to engage in sexual activity with a minor, and whether there was a defect in the indictment.

The court examined the provisions of the relevant legislation and the applicable legal principles. The court noted that the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused intended to engage in sexual activity with a minor. The court found that the prosecution had not proven the necessary mens rea, as there was insufficient evidence to establish that Hare intended to engage in sexual activity with the minor. The court also found that the indictment was defective, as it did not specify the age of the minor. As a result, the court quashed the conviction and ordered Hare's release on a recognisance order.

Orders

Orders of the court

Released on recognisance order.

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.