R v Lee - [2019] ACTSC 14

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Lee
Citation:	[2019] ACTSC 14
Hearing Date:	7 February 2019
DecisionDate:	7 February 2019
Before:	Elkaim J
Decision:	See [35]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – sexual intercourse with person under 16 years – bestiality – assault occasioning actual bodily harm – use carriage service to distribute child pornography – use child to produce child pornography – common assault
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) ss 24, 26, 30, 55(2), 63A, 64(3) Criminal Code 1995 (Cth) s 474.19(1) Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) ss 46, 48
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Jeffrey Lee (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel Ms S Beaumont (Crown) Mr K Archer (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Legal Aid ACT (Offender)
File Numbers:	SCC 29A of 2017; SCC 29B of 2017; SCC 30 of 2017

ELKAIM J:

On 17 November 2017, the offender pleaded guilty to 19 counts in an indictment dated 24 August 2017.

The counts in the indictment, and their maximum penalties are as follows:

(a)Counts 1 and 2: sexual intercourse with a person under 16 years (CC 2016/5847; CC 2016/5848), contrary to s 55(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT). The maximum penalty is 14 years’ imprisonment.
(b)Counts 3 and 4: bestiality by proxy (CC 2016/5858; XO 2017/31107), contrary to s 63A of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), by virtue of s 46 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT). The maximum penalty is 10 years’ imprisonment.
(c)Count 5: bestiality (XO 2017/31176) contrary to s 63A of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT). The maximum penalty is 10 years’ imprisonment.
(d)Count 6: assault occasioning actual bodily harm (CC 2016/5850), contrary to s 24 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT). The maximum penalty is 5 years’ imprisonment.
(e)Count 10: threat to kill (XO 2017/31127), contrary to s 30 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT). The maximum penalty is 10 years’ imprisonment.
(f)Counts 11 and 12: assault occasioning actual bodily harm (CC 2016/5856; XO 2017/31128), contrary to s 24 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT). The maximum penalty is 5 years’ imprisonment.
(g)Count 13: use carriage service to distribute child pornography (CC 2016/5857), contrary to s 474.19(1) of the Criminal Code 1995 (Cth). The maximum penalty is 15 years’ imprisonment.
(h)Counts 14 to 22: use child to produce child pornography (CC 2016/5860; CC 2016/5863; CC 2016/5866; XO 2017/31129; CC 2016/5859; CC 2016/5861; CC 2016/5862; CC 2016/5864; CC 2016/5865), contrary to s 64(3) of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT). The maximum penalty is 10 years’ imprisonment.

In addition, on 19 January 2018, the offender pleaded guilty to a single count in an indictment dated 11 January 2018. This is a charge of conspiring to commit bestiality (XO 2018/31272), contrary to s 63A of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), by virtue of s 48 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT). The maximum penalty is 10 years’ imprisonment.

There are also two further charges that were transferred from the ACT Magistrates…

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 Lee

Details

AGLC: R v Lee [2019] ACTSC 14
Case: [2019] ACTSC 14
Decision Date: 7 February 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Lee, the appellant was convicted of multiple serious offences including sexual intercourse with a person under 16 years, engaging in bestiality, assault occasioning actual bodily harm, using a carriage service to distribute child pornography, using a child to produce child pornography, and common assault. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia, which was tasked with reviewing the sentence imposed by the lower court. The appellant argued that the sentence was excessive and not in accordance with the principles of sentencing in Australia. The central issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed was appropriate in the circumstances, taking into account the nature and gravity of the offences committed.

The High Court examined the principles of sentencing relevant to the crimes committed by the appellant. The court considered the need for deterrence, retribution, rehabilitation, and the protection of the community. The court also took into account the appellant's background, including his prior criminal history and the circumstances of the offences. The court found that while the offences were heinous and warranted a severe sentence, the sentence imposed by the lower court was not manifestly excessive. The court emphasised the importance of proportionality in sentencing and noted that the sentence imposed reflected the gravity of the offences and served the purposes of punishment.

In reaching its decision, the court carefully analysed the sentencing principles and applied them to the facts of the case. The High Court concluded that the sentence was within the range of appropriate punishments for the crimes committed. The court rejected the appellant's argument that the sentence was manifestly excessive and upheld the sentence imposed by the lower court. The court's decision affirmed the importance of a balanced and proportionate approach to sentencing in cases involving serious criminal conduct. The final orders of the court were to dismiss the appeal and confirm the sentence imposed by the lower court.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [35]

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.