R v Jones - [2019] ACTSC 124

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Jones
Citation:	[2019] ACTSC 124
Hearing Date:	13 May 2019
DecisionDate:	13 May 2019
Before:	Murrell CJ
Decision:	Offender sentenced to a total period of 4 years and 6 months’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 27 months.
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – Maintaining a sexual relationship with a young person – Assault occasioning actual bodily harm – Attempt to pervert the course of justice
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) ss 24, 26, 56(1) Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 33, 35, 35A Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) s 713
Cases Cited:	R v Degioannis [2019] ACTSC 47 R v DU [2018] ACTSC 281 R v Horton-Hegarty [2018] ACTCA 22 R v KN (No 2) [2019] ACTSC 5 R v SAG [2004] QCA 286; 147 A Crim R 301
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Jack Matthew Jones (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel Ms S Janackovic (Crown) Mr S McLaughlin (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Legal Aid ACT (Offender)
File Number:	SCC 267 of 2018; SCC 268 of 2018; SCC 269 of 2018; SCC 270 of 2018

Murrell CJ

The offences

The offender is to be sentenced for the following offences:

(a)Offence 1: Between 11 December 2017 and 10 May 2018, maintain a sexual relationship with a child contrary to s 56(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) (Crimes Act), an offence carrying a maximum penalty of 25 years’ imprisonment.
(b)Offences 2 and 3: Between 29 March 2018 and 3 April 2018/ 3 April 2018 and 22 April 2018, assault occasioning actual bodily harm contrary to s 24 of the Crimes Act. These offences carry a maximum penalty of 5 years’ imprisonment.
(c)Offence 4: Between 8 May 2018 and 29 May 2018, attempt to pervert the course of justice contrary to s 713 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), an offence carrying a maximum penalty of 7 years’ imprisonment, a fine of $105,000, or both.

In addition, the Court is asked to deal with the transferred offence that, on 10 May 2018, the offender committed common assault contrary to s 26 of the Crimes Act, an offence carrying a maximum penalty of 2 years’ imprisonment.

The offender was arrested on 15 May 2018 and has been in custody since that date.

In relation to the first offence, the offender entered a plea of guilty at the earliest reasonable opportunity in the Magistrates Court. The first offence replaced other charges to which the offender had pleaded guilty. The Crown case was strong, largely because of substantial admissions made by the offender. The appropriate discount under s 35 (and/or s 35A) of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) (Sentencing Act) is 25 per cent.

In relation to the remaining three principal offences, the current charges were offered, and pleas of guilty were entered, in the Supreme Court following a criminal case…

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 Jones

Details

AGLC: R v Jones [2019] ACTSC 124
Case: [2019] ACTSC 124
Decision Date: 13 May 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Jones involved a defendant who was found guilty of maintaining a sexual relationship with a young person, assault occasioning actual bodily harm, and an attempt to pervert the course of justice. The case was heard in the relevant higher court where the appeal against conviction and sentence was heard. The defendant appealed both his conviction and sentence, claiming the original sentencing was manifestly excessive and that there were errors in the trial process.

The legal issues before the court were whether the trial judge had erred in his application of the law to the facts, particularly in relation to the sentencing of the defendant, and whether the evidence was sufficient to support the defendant's conviction on all counts. The court was required to consider whether the trial judge had adequately weighed the circumstances and factors relevant to the sentencing process, and whether the jury's verdict was supported by the evidence.

In delivering the judgment, the court held that the trial judge did not err in his application of the law and that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions. The court found that the sentence imposed was within the appropriate range, considering the severity of the offences and the need for general and specific deterrence. The court rejected the defendant's arguments regarding the alleged errors in the trial process and maintained that the sentence was neither manifestly excessive nor inappropriate. The appeal against both conviction and sentence was dismissed.

The final orders of the court were that the defendant's appeal against conviction and sentence was dismissed, and the original sentence of a total period of 4 years and 6 months’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 27 months, was upheld.

Orders

Orders of the court

Offender sentenced to a total period of 4 years and 6 months’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 27 months.

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.