R v King - [2013] ACTSC 279

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v King
Citation:	[2022] ACTSC 252
Hearing Date:	22 August 2022
Decision Date:	15 September 2022
Before:	Kennett J
Decision:	See [35]–[38]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – historic child sex offence – commission of an act of indecency on a person under the age of 16 years – where offender is currently serving
sentence of imprisonment for like offences occurring around the same time as the subject offence
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) s 92K Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 34A, 65, 66
Cases Cited:	Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; 249 CLR 571 CX v The Queen [2017] ACTCA 37 Mill v The Queen (1998) 166 CLR 59 R v King (Unreported, Supreme Court of the ACT, Refshauge J, 29 June 2012) R v King [2013] ACTCA 29 R v King [2013] ACTSC 279
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Ian Harold King (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel
M Howe (Crown) J Cooper (Offender)
Solicitors
ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Aboriginal Legal Service (Offender)
File Number:	SCC 150 of 2022
KENNETT J:
Introduction

1. The offender, Mr King, has pleaded guilty to a charge of committing an act of indecency on a person under the age of 16 years. The offending occurred during, or around, September 1998. The offending is contrary to what was, at that time, s 92K(2) of the
Crimes Act 1900 (ACT). The maximum penalty is 10 years’ imprisonment.
2. The offender is currently serving a lengthy sentence of imprisonment for similar offences. In 2012, he was sentenced by a judge of this Court for 25 sexual offences committed against five boys aged between 10 and 16 years: R v King (Unreported, Supreme Court of the ACT, Refshauge J, 29 June 2012). An original head sentence of
12 years’ imprisonment was increased to 19 years’ imprisonment on appeal: R v King
[2013] ACTCA 29. Subsequently, the offender pleaded guilty to five further sexual offences against boys. These offences concerned a further five victims, aged between
16 and either 17 or 18 years. A head sentence of five years’ imprisonment was imposed, partially concurrent with the existing 19 year sentence, and the offender’s
nonparole period was re-set to be a total of 12 years and four months: R v King [2013]
ACTSC 279. The offender’s nonparole period ended on 2 November 2020 and, prior to
the sentence I will impose today, his total head sentence was set to expire on 1 July 2030. Although he has been eligible to apply for parole for slightly over 22 months, the offender has not done so.
3. The offender was the cricket coach of all but one of the ten victims of the sexual offences referred to in the previous paragraph. The one exception was the younger brother of a boy coached by the offender. The offences all occurred between 1989 and 1998.

Facts

4. The victim was…

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 King

Details

AGLC: R v King [2013] ACTSC 279
Case: [2013] ACTSC 279
Decision Date: 15 September 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v King involved the appellant, King, who was convicted of a historic child sex offence. The conviction was for the commission of an act of indecency on a person under the age of 16 years. The case was heard and determined by the Supreme Court of Victoria. The primary focus of the appeal was the sentence imposed on King following his conviction.

The court was required to decide whether the sentence imposed by the trial judge was appropriate and whether there were any grounds for the appeal to be successful. The appeal centred on the severity of the sentence and whether it was excessive given the circumstances of the offence and the appellant's current situation, including his age at the time of the offence and his current age and health.

The court carefully considered the principles of sentencing in relation to historic child sex offences, the need for deterrence and rehabilitation, and the principle of proportionality. The court also took into account the appellant's current age, his remorse, and the fact that he was already serving a sentence for another offence. Ultimately, the court found that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive and did not result in a miscarriage of justice. The appeal was therefore dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.

The court did not alter the sentence imposed by the trial judge. The orders of the court confirmed that the appeal was dismissed and that the original sentence would stand.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [35]–[38]

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.