SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
COURT OF APPEAL
Case Title: | R v Haven (a pseudonym) |
Citation: | [2022] ACTCA 61 |
Hearing Date: | 16 August 2022 |
DecisionDate: | 11 November 2022 |
Before: | McCallum CJ, Mossop and Kennett JJ |
Decision: | The appeal is dismissed. |
Catchwords: | APPEAL – CRIMINAL LAW – Crown appeal against sentence – sexual intercourse without consent – young offender – whether complete suspension of sentence of imprisonment manifestly inadequate – sentence lenient but no appealable error demonstrated – appeal dismissed |
Legislation Cited: | Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), Ch 8A, ss 7, 33(1), 133C, 133D, 133G Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), ss 54, 55 |
Cases Cited: | Azzopardi v R [2011] VSCA 372; 35 VR 43 Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; 249 CLR 571 |
Parties: | The Queen (Appellant) Brian Haven (a pseudonym) (Respondent) |
Representation: | Counsel A Williamson (Appellant) T Jackson and S Robinson (Respondent) |
| Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Appellant) JDR Law (Respondent) | |
File Number: | ACTCA 6 of 2022 |
Decision under appeal: | Court/Tribunal: ACT Supreme Court Before: Norrish AJ Date of Decision: 4 February 2022 Case Title: R v Haven (a pseudonym) Citation: [2022] ACTSC 25 |
THE COURT:
Introduction
On 4 February 2022 an acting judge of the Supreme Court sentenced the respondent for an offence against s 54(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), engaging in sexual intercourse without consent. The sentence imposed was two years and seven months’ imprisonment but that sentence was wholly suspended subject to a good behaviour order for three years.
The Crown has appealed against that sentence. The only ground of appeal which was pressed was that the sentence was manifestly inadequate. That was because the suspension of the imprisonment resulted in a sentence that was manifestly inadequate. The Crown argued that suspending the sentence in its entirety failed to maintain an adequate standard of punishment for offences of this nature and did not achieve the purposes of sentencing – particularly general deterrence and denunciation. The Crown submitted that notwithstanding the respondent’s youth, the objective seriousness of the offence in combination with the respondent’s demonstrated lack of remorse and limited prospects of rehabilitation, required the…
Continue reading R v Haven (a pseudonym)
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Haven (a pseudonym) [2022] ACTCA 61
- Case
- [2022] ACTCA 61
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue before the Court was whether the sentence of imprisonment, which had been completely suspended, was so manifestly inadequate as to demonstrate an error of law. The Crown contended that the sentence was unduly lenient given the nature of the offence and the circumstances of the offender.
The Court acknowledged that the sentence imposed was lenient. However, it found that while the sentence might have been at the lower end of the available sentencing range, it did not reach the threshold of being demonstrably or manifestly inadequate. The Court applied the principles governing Crown appeals against sentence, which require a higher degree of error than simply disagreeing with the sentencing judge's discretion. No appealable error was demonstrated, and therefore the appeal was dismissed.
Orders
Orders of the court
The appeal is dismissed.
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.