R v KC

Case [2020] ACTSC 94

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

R v KC

Citation:

[2020] ACTSC 94

Hearing Date:

20 February 2020

DecisionDate:

20 March 2020

Before:

Burns J

Decision:

See [68]–[73]

Catchwords:

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – three counts maintaining a sexual relationship with a young person – one count sexual intercourse without consent – finding of guilty by jury – where offending occurred in family context – last offending conduct occurred over 30 years ago – relevance of delay – offender demonstrated effective rehabilitation

Legislation Cited:

Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) ss 56, 92D

Cases Cited:

R v Degioannis [2019] ACTSC 47

R v EN [2019] ACTSC 354

R v King [2013] ACTCA 29

R v KN (No 2) [2019] ACTSC 5

R v Scheeren [2014] ACTSC 272

R v Sirl (No 3) [2019] ACTSC 355

R v Tully [2016] ACTCA 11

Parties:

The Queen (Crown)

KC (Offender)

Representation:

Counsel

P Dixon (Crown)

J Sabharwal (Offender)

Solicitors

ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)

Rachel Bird & Co (Offender)

File Number:

SCC 292 of 2018

BURNS J:

  1. KC, on 6 December 2019 you were found guilty by a jury of three counts of maintaining a sexual relationship with a young person (contrary to s 56 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) (the Crimes Act)) and one count of sexual intercourse without consent (contrary to s 92D of the Crimes Act). The maximum penalty prescribed for the offence of maintaining a sexual relationship with a young person is 25 years’ imprisonment. The maximum penalty prescribed for the offence of sexual intercourse without consent is 12 years’ imprisonment. These charges were Counts 1, 4, 9 and 10 on the Indictment. Other counts were alternatives and, as such, no verdicts were returned.

Factual background

  1. Briefly put, it was established that between 31 December 1979 and 1 January 1982, you were in a sexual relationship with ND and that during that time, you engaged in sexual acts with her and she was your niece (Count 1). At that time, she was a young person, being between the ages of 11 and 13 years.   

  1. It was further established that between 31 December 1979 and 1 January 1990, you were in a sexual relationship with UC and during that time, you engaged in sexual acts with her and she was your niece (Count 4). At that time, she was a young person, being between the ages of 5 and 15 years.

  1. It was further established that between 31 December 1979 and 8 May 1988 you were in a sexual relationship with NM and during that time, you engaged in sexual acts with NM who was your niece (Count 9). She was a young person at the time, aged between 7 and 15 years. 

  1. It was also established that when NM was 16 years of age, you performed cunnilingus on her without her consent (Count 10).

  1. Your parents married and had seven children. You were one of those…

Continue reading R v KC

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v KC [2020] ACTSC 94
Case
[2020] ACTSC 94
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v KC, the defendant stood accused of maintaining a sexual relationship with a young person over a period, as well as engaging in sexual intercourse without consent. The matter was heard in the relevant court of criminal jurisdiction. The crux of the dispute lay in determining the appropriate sentence for the defendant, who was found guilty on three counts of maintaining a sexual relationship and one count of sexual intercourse without consent, all of which occurred within a familial context and more than 30 years prior. The primary legal issues centred on the principles guiding sentencing in such cases, particularly the relevance of the delay in prosecution and the extent of the defendant's rehabilitation.

The court was tasked with balancing the gravity of the offences with the time elapsed since their commission and the defendant's demonstrated rehabilitation. It examined the impact of the delay on the fairness of the proceedings and the effectiveness of the rehabilitation, which was evidenced by the defendant's conduct and life circumstances over the past three decades. The court also considered the need for deterrence and the protection of the community, alongside the personal circumstances of the offender.

After careful deliberation, the court concluded that, while the offences were serious, the delay and the defendant's demonstrated rehabilitation warranted a sentence that recognised these factors. The court acknowledged the severity of the crimes but also the positive changes in the defendant's life and the reduced risk of reoffending. As a result, the court imposed a sentence that reflected these considerations, ensuring it was proportionate to the gravity of the offences while also taking into account the unique aspects of this case. The court's decision and the specific terms of the sentence can be found in paragraphs [68] to [73] of the judgment.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [68]–[73]

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.