R v Lindsay

Case [2020] ACTCA 25

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
COURT OF APPEAL

Case Title:

R v Lindsay

Citation:

[2020] ACTCA 25

Hearing Date:

5 May 2020

DecisionDate:

19 May 2020

Before:

Murrell CJ, Mossop J and Crowe AJ

Decision:

Appeal dismissed.

Catchwords:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL – Whether sentence manifestly inadequate – Sexual intercourse without consent – Where offender has mental health issues – Where mental health issues affect moral culpability

Legislation Cited:

Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) s 54(1)

Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) s 61I
Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 (NSW) ss 32, 33(1)(b)

Cases Cited:

Badans v The Queen [2012] NSWCCA 97

Dionnet v The Queen [2009] NSWCCA 85
Director of Public Prosecutions v Dalgliesh (A Pseudonym) [2017] HCA 41; 262 CLR 428
Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa [2010] NSWCCA 194; 79 NSWLR 1
Elturk v The Queen [2014] NSWCCA 61; 239 A Crim R 584
Elwood v The Queen [2019] NSWCCA 315
Muldrock v The Queen [2011] HCA 39; 244 CLR 120
Ngata v The Queen [2020] ACTCA 18
R v Aroub [2017] ACTSC 187
R v Bourke [2018] ACTSC 5
R v Buda-Kaa [2013] ACTCA 46
R v Daley [2010] NSWCCA 223
R v Duffy [2014] ACTCA 53
R v King [2008] ACTCA 12
R v Lindsay [2019] ACTSC 347
R v Miller [2019] ACTCA 25
R v Mooney (Victorian Court of Criminal Appeal, 21 June 1978)
R v MT [2014] ACTSC 162
R v Nicholas; R v Palmer [2019] ACTCA 36
R v Punna-Ophasi (ACT Supreme Court, Burns J, 5 October 2012
R v Rappel [2019] ACTCA 11
R v Stevens (No 3) [2017] ACTSC 297
R v SV [2016] ACTSC 211
R v Taylor [2015] ACTSC 43
R v UG [2020] ACTCA 8
R v Verdins [2007] VSCA 102; 16 VR 269
Veen v The Queen (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465

Parties:

The Queen (Appellant)

Timothy Lawson Lindsay (Respondent)

Representation:

Counsel

R Christensen (Appellant)

J Campbell (Respondent)

Solicitors

ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Appellant)

Legal Aid ACT (Respondent)

File Number:

ACTCA 58 of 2019

Decision under appeal: 

Court/Tribunal:             ACT Supreme Court

Before:  Elkaim J

Date of Decision:          11 December 2019

Case Title:  R v Lindsay

Citation: [2019] ACTSC 347

THE COURT

The appeal

  1. On 11 December 2019, Elkaim J (the sentencing judge) sentenced the respondent to two years’ imprisonment for the offence that, on 19 March 2019, he engaged in sexual intercourse without consent, contrary to s 54(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT). His Honour set a nonparole period of 17 months’ imprisonment: R v Lindsay [2019] ACTSC 347 (Lindsay). 

  1. The respondent entered a guilty plea prior to criminal case conferencing, for which the sentencing judge allowed a 20 per cent discount, i.e. the starting point for the sentence was two years and six months’ imprisonment.

  1. The offence carries a maximum penalty of 12 years’ imprisonment.

  1. The Crown appealed on the ground that the sentence was manifestly inadequate.

The offence

  1. At the…

Continue reading R v Lindsay

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Lindsay [2020] ACTCA 25
Case
[2020] ACTCA 25
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Crown appealed against the sentence imposed on the respondent, Lindsay, who had pleaded guilty to sexual intercourse without consent. The sentencing judge had taken into account the respondent's mental health issues when determining the appropriate penalty. The appeal concerned whether the sentence was manifestly inadequate given the nature of the offence and the respondent's mental health.

The central legal issue before the Court of Criminal Appeal was whether the sentencing judge had erred in law by imposing a sentence that was demonstrably too lenient, specifically considering the impact of the respondent's mental health issues on his moral culpability for the offence. The Court was required to assess whether the sentencing judge had given undue weight to the mental health issues, thereby failing to adequately reflect the seriousness of the sexual intercourse without consent charge.

The Court of Criminal Appeal affirmed the sentencing judge's approach, finding that the mental health issues of the respondent were relevant to his moral culpability and had been appropriately considered within the sentencing framework. The Court reiterated that while mental health issues do not excuse criminal conduct, they can be a mitigating factor in sentencing, influencing the degree of blameworthiness. The Court concluded that the sentence imposed was not manifestly inadequate and that the sentencing judge had exercised their discretion appropriately.

The appeal was dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed.

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.