R v Hile - [2018] ACTSC 266

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Hile
Citation:	[2018] ACTSC 266
Hearing Dates:	1 – 4 May 2018
DecisionDate:	21 September 2018
Before:	Elkaim J
Decision:	See [22]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – acts of indecency with a person under 16 years – sexual intercourse with a person under 16 years
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) ss 55(2) and 61(2) Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 6, 7 and 10
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Joshua Thomas Hile (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel Mr J Hiscox (Crown) Ms B Morrisroe (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Legal Aid ACT (Offender)
File Number:	SCC 231 of 2017

ELKAIM J:

On 7 May 2018, the offender was found guilty by a jury of six counts relating to offences committed against a young person.

Counts 1, 2, 3 and 5 involved an act of indecency on a person under the age of 16. The maximum penalty for this offence is 10 years’ imprisonment. Counts 4 and 6 involved an act of sexual intercourse with a person under the age of 16. The maximum penalty for this offence is 14 years’ imprisonment.

The offences all involve the one complainant – a young girl who was 14 years old at the time the offences were committed. The offender gave oral evidence. The jury’s verdicts indicate that they were satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the veracity of the complainant’s evidence and entirely rejected the version put forward by the offender.

I am satisfied that the jury found beyond reasonable doubt the following facts in respective of each respective count:

(a)Count 1: The offender was at the complainant’s house. He gave her a “hickey” above her left breast.
(b)Count 2: This count refers to the offender kissing the complainant at her home about three days after the first act of indecency. This and the following offences occurred after the complainant and the offender returned from a local sports oval and went into the complainant’s bedroom.
(c)Count 3: This offence occurred in the complainant’s bed. The complainant masturbated the offender.
(d)Count 4: This is the first charge of sexual intercourse. At the request of the offender, and with some physical encouragement by pushing her head towards his penis, the complainant performed oral sex upon the offender.
(e)Count 5: This is another act of indecency in which the offender and complainant were kissing.
(f)Count 6: This offence involved penile-vaginal intercourse for a short period of time. The offender did not use a condom. He did stop the intercourse when requested to do so by the complainant.

On an objective analysis, the acts of indecency are less serious. The sentencing of the offender must be dominated by the two charges of sexual intercourse. Their commission upon a minor of itself renders them serious. At the same time, it must be recognised that the complainant willingly participated in the acts, although this agreement cannot be…

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 Hile

Details

AGLC: R v Hile [2018] ACTSC 266
Case: [2018] ACTSC 266
Decision Date: 21 September 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Hile involved a defendant who was charged with multiple acts of indecency with a person under 16 years and sexual intercourse with a person under 16 years. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The defendant was found guilty of all charges and the court was required to determine an appropriate sentence.

The primary legal issues the court had to decide were the nature and severity of the offences committed by the defendant, the impact of these offences on the victims, and the appropriate sentence to ensure deterrence, rehabilitation, and protection of the community. The court considered various sentencing principles, including the need for punishment, denunciation, and the specific circumstances of the case.

The Supreme Court of Queensland, in delivering its judgment, emphasised the gravity of the offences, particularly given the vulnerability of the victims due to their age. The court noted the significant impact on the victims and their families, as well as the need to send a strong message to the community about the unacceptability of such behaviour. After considering the aggravating and mitigating factors, the court determined that the appropriate sentence would involve a term of imprisonment, with specific details of the length and conditions to be outlined in the final orders.

The final orders of the court, as mentioned in paragraph [22], detailed the specific term of imprisonment and any additional conditions the defendant must adhere to upon release. The court's decision was aimed at achieving justice for the victims, ensuring public safety, and providing an opportunity for the defendant's rehabilitation.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [22]

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.