R v Jones

[2020] ACTSC 92

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

R v Jones

Citation:

[2020] ACTSC 92

Hearing Date:

17 April 2020

DecisionDate:

17 April 2020

Before:

Mossop J

Decision:

See [32]

Catchwords:

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and punishment – sentence – act of indecency on a person under 16 – touched victim on the buttocks three times in a shopping centre – no criminal history – offender diagnosed with autism – autism contributed to the offending – custodial sentence more onerous for offender – wholly suspended sentence

Legislation Cited:

Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), s 61(2)

Crimes (Child Sex Offenders) Act 2005 (ACT)
Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), s 13(3)(g), dictionary

Legislation Act2001 (ACT), ss 126(4), 132(1)

Cases Cited:

R v Jones [2014] ACTSC 119

R v Pham (Unreported, Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, Burns J, 23 October 2012)
R v Ridley [2014] ACTSC 382

Znotins v Harvey [2015] ACTSC 241

Parties:

The Queen (Crown)

Mark Jones (Offender)

Representation:

Counsel

R Roberts (Crown)

J Purnell SC (Offender)

Solicitors

 ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)

 Aulich Criminal Law (Offender)

File Number:

SCC 21 of 2020

MOSSOP J:

Introduction

1. The offender, Mark Jones, has pleaded guilty to one count of an act of indecency on a person under the age of 16 years, contrary to s 61(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), the maximum penalty being 10 years’ imprisonment (CC19/13449).

Facts

1. On 22 December 2019 the offender was at the Kmart store in Tuggeranong. He approached the victim, a 12-year-old boy, who was in the bicycle section of the store. The offender walked past the victim, reached out his right hand and touched the victim on the buttocks. At this time the victim had been Christmas shopping with his grandparents, sister and two cousins. He did not know the offender. He thought the touching was an accident.

1. Shortly after, the offender followed the victim to the toy section of the store. He touched the victim on the buttocks a second time. He touched the victim’s buttocks a third time shortly after. When the touching happened again the victim knew that it was not an accident. He felt shocked. He did not give the offender permission to touch his buttocks.

1. The victim walked towards the front of the store and stood beside the Kmart ‘giving tree’ with his family. He observed the offender hanging around the exit to the store. He told his grandmother what had happened and pointed at the offender. The offender left the store and the victim’s grandmother informed store staff about the incident. The staff contacted the shopping centre security who telephoned the police.

1. The incidents were captured on CCTV. The CCTV captures the offender lingering in the bicycle section of the store and consistently looking over at the victim and his family. It captures the offender walking behind the victim, reaching out his right hand and placing it on the victim’s buttocks. It also captures the victim standing…