R v Hunt

[2016] ACTSC 52

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

R v Hunt

Citation:

[2016] ACTSC 52

Hearing Date:

3 February 2016

DecisionDate:

16 February 2016

Before:

Penfold J

Decision:

See [51] – [55].

Catchwords:

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – sexual offences – act of indecency on child under 10 years – sexual intercourse with child under 10 years – act of indecency in the presence of child under 16 years – common assault – hardship to offender’s family arising from custodial sentence – offender’s prior contribution to community – delay in prosecution following initial complaint.

Legislation Cited:

Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), ss 26, 55(1), 61(1), 61(2)

Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT), ss 68D, 68E

Cases Cited:

R v Edwards (1996) 90 A Crim R 510

R v H [2015] ACTSC 221
R v Latona & McCabe [2012] ACTSC, Penfold J, 19 November 2012
R v TC [2011] ACTSC, Penfold J, 28 March 2011
R v Verdins (2007) 169 A Crim R 581
R v WR (No 4) [2015] ACTSC 211

R v WR (No 5) [2015] ACTSC 258

Parties:

The Queen (Crown)

Clyde Robert Hunt (Offender)

Representation:

Counsel

Ms S Gul (Crown)

Mr J Sabharwal (Offender)

Solicitors

ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)

Rachel Bird & Co (Offender)

File Numbers:

SCC 92 of 2015; SCC 94 of 2015

The charges

1. Clyde Hunt has been found guilty by a jury of four offences, as follows: 

(a)Count 1 charged an act of indecency on a child under 10 years, arising under s 61(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) and carrying a maximum penalty including 12 years imprisonment;

(b)Counts 2 and 3 charged sexual intercourse with a child under 10 years, arising under s 55(1) of the Crimes Act and carrying a maximum penalty including 17 years imprisonment;

(c)Count 4 charged one act of indecency in the presence of a child under 16 years, arising under s 61(2) of the Crimes Act and carrying a maximum penalty including 10 years imprisonment.

1. As well, I need to consider three charges of common assault under s 26 of the Crimes Act. Those charges, being summary offences, were not put to the jury. Instead, under s 68D of the Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT), I must deal with those matters if I consider it is in the interests of justice to do so and, if so, I must make findings on those charges by reference to the evidence given before the jury (s 68E of the Supreme Court Act).  Depending on my verdicts, I may also be obliged to sentence Mr Hunt for those offences. 

The offences

1. The indictment setting out the sexual offences specified a period from 1 January 2008 to 31 December 2009 in which the offences were said to have been committed.  The summary charges relate to the same period. 

1. Mr Hunt was an ACTION bus driver.  He had met the mother of the two complainants around 2004 or 2005,…