SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Case Title: | R v Lidden |
Citation: | [2024] ACTSC 297 |
Hearing Date: | 24 September 2024 |
Decision Date: | 27 September 2024 |
Before: | Taylor J |
Decision: | See [93]. |
Catchwords: | CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – use carriage service to groom a child – low objective seriousness – cognitive disability – Verdins principles – reduction in moral culpability – direct causal link between disability and offending – exceptional circumstances – recognizance release order |
Legislation Cited: | Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) ss 3, 16A, 17A, 19AC, 20(1)(b), 20AB Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) Criminal Code 1995 (Cth) s 474.27(1) |
Cases Cited: | Director of Public Prosecutions v Dalgliesh (a pseudonym) DPP v Williams [2024] ACTSC 283 Griffiths v The Queen [1989] HCA 39; 167 CLR 372 Hili v The Queen [2010] HCA 45; 242 CLR 520 Mertell v The King [2022] ACTCA 69 R vBredal [2024] NSWCCA 75 R v Gajjar [2008] VSCA 268; 192 A Crim R 76 R v MAK [2006] NSWCCA 381; 167 A Crim R 159 R v Tootell ex parte AG [2012] QCA 273 |
Parties: | Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Michael Lidden (Offender) |
Representation: | Counsel F Bruford (Crown) B Morrisroe (Offender) |
Solicitors
Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Hugo Law Group (Offender)
File Number: SCC 183 of 2024
TAYLOR J:
Introduction
1․ The offender, Michael Lidden, is to be sentenced for the following offence to which he entered a plea of guilty on 20 June 2024:
(a) CC2024/5484: use carriage service to groom a person under 16 years of age, contrary to s 474.27(1) of the Criminal Code 1995 (Cth) (the Criminal Code).
2․ The offence carries a maximum penalty of imprisonment for 15 years.
Facts
| 3․ | In July 2021, police obtained information in relation to online grooming of juvenile females via the social media platform known as Facebook by the offender. A review of police indices showed the offender has been involved in suspicious behaviour directed towards juvenile females in the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) and New South Wales (NSW). |
| 4․ | Further review of police indices showed the offender to be the current operator of a silver Toyota Hilux, bearing ACT registration [redacted]. The vehicle is registered in the offender’s father’s name. |
| 5․ | Between 18 and 27 March 2024, Australian Federal Police (AFP) Covert Online Operations utilising an Online Covert Persona (OCP) purporting to be a fourteen-yearold girl, conducted online engagement via Facebook messenger with a Facebook profile in the name of ‘Mick Lidden’. |
| 6․ | The… |
Continue reading R v Lidden
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Lidden [2024] ACTSC 297
- Case
- [2024] ACTSC 297
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court examined the nature of the offence and the defendant's cognitive disability, focusing on whether there was a direct causal link between the disability and the offending behaviour. It was noted that while the objective seriousness of the crime was relatively low, the defendant's cognitive disability significantly impacted his moral culpability. The court applied the Verdins principles, considering whether exceptional circumstances existed that warranted a reduction in sentence. The direct causal link between the disability and the offence, along with the exceptional circumstances, led the court to determine that a reduction in moral culpability was warranted. Consequently, the court decided to impose a recognizance release order rather than a custodial sentence, reflecting the defendant's cognitive disability and the overall circumstances of the case.
The Supreme Court of New South Wales, in its judgment, held that the defendant's cognitive disability warranted a reduction in moral culpability, and the exceptional circumstances of the case justified a departure from the usual sentencing principles. The court ordered that the defendant be released on a recognizance release order, subject to certain conditions, including supervision and adherence to a behavioural management plan. This outcome recognised the unique challenges faced by the defendant due to his cognitive disability while ensuring public safety and the proper administration of justice.
Orders
Orders of the court
See [93].
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.