R v MB - [2014] ACTSC 370

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v MB
Citation:	[2014] ACTSC 370
Hearing Date(s):	18 December 2014
DecisionDate:	18 December 2014
Before:	Refshauge J
Decision:	(1) It be declared that MB breached the Good Behaviour Order imposed on 3 July 2012. (2) The Good Behaviour Order made on 3 July 2012 be cancelled. (3) For the offence of using an electronic means to deprave on 10 December 2012, MB be sentenced to nine months’ imprisonment to commence on 16 June 2013, to take into account his pre-sentence custody, the periodic detention and the partial completing of the Good Behaviour Order. (4) For the offence of sexual intercourse with a person under sixteen years of age on 10 December 2011, MB be sentenced to eighteen months’ imprisonment to commence on 16 June 2013. (5) For the offence of using an electronic means to deprave on 29 December 2011, MB be sentenced to nine months’ imprisonment to commence on 16 June 2014. (6) For the offence of committing an act of indecency on the first complainant on 29 December 2011, MB be sentenced to twelve months’ imprisonment to commence on 16 August 2014. (7) For the offence of committing an act of indecency on the second complainant on 29 December 2011, MB be sentenced to twelve months’ imprisonment to commence on 16 August 2014. (8) For the offence of sexual intercourse with a young person under the age of sixteen years, namely, the first complainant, on 29 December 2011, MB be sentenced to twenty-two months’ imprisonment to commence on 16 October 2014. (9) For the offence of sexual intercourse with a young person under the age of sixteen years, namely, the second complainant on 29 December 2011, MB be sentenced to twenty-two months’ imprisonment to commence on 16 October 2014. (10) For the offence of committing an act of indecency on a person under the age of sixteen years, namely, the first complainant on 29 December 2011, MB be sentenced to twelve months’ imprisonment to commence on 16 December 2015. (11) The sentence be suspended on 18 December 2014 for a period of two years. (12) MB be required to sign an undertaking, under the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT), to comply with the offenders good behaviour obligations under that Act, for a period of two years from today with a probation condition that he be under the supervision of the Director-General, or her delegate, and obey all reasonable directions of that person delegated to supervise him until 2 July 2015.
Category:	Principal Judgment
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – Judgment and Punishment – Sentencing – Re-sentencing – Breach of Good Behaviour Order – Further offence committed
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT), ss 86(1), 110 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), s 17 Road Transport Act 2013 (NSW), s 110(4)
Cases Cited:	Guy v Anderson [2013] ACTSC 5 R v MB (Unreported, ACTSC, Refshauge J, 3 July 2012) R v Stone (1995) 85 A Crim…

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 MB

Details

AGLC: R v MB [2014] ACTSC 370
Case: [2014] ACTSC 370
Decision Date: 18 December 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v MB involved a defendant who was found to have committed several serious criminal offences. The accused, MB, had breached a Good Behaviour Order imposed in July 2012 by committing additional offences, including using an electronic means to deprave and sexual intercourse with a person under sixteen years of age. The matter was heard in a court of competent jurisdiction in Australia.

The legal issues before the court included whether MB had indeed breached the Good Behaviour Order and, if so, the appropriate sentence for the additional offences committed. The court was required to consider the seriousness of the offences, the need for deterrence, and the circumstances of MB’s previous offending. It was also necessary to balance the competing interests of punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation.

In determining the outcome, the court found that MB had indeed breached the Good Behaviour Order by committing the additional offences. The court took into account the pre-sentence custody and periodic detention that MB had already served, as well as the partial completion of the Good Behaviour Order. It was noted that MB had shown some remorse and had undertaken rehabilitation efforts. The court issued detailed sentencing orders for each offence, specifying the terms of imprisonment and the dates they were to commence. Additionally, MB was required to comply with an undertaking under the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) and remain under supervision for a specified period.

In conclusion, the court issued orders declaring the breach of the Good Behaviour Order, cancelling the order, and imposing specific sentences for each of the offences committed by MB. These sentences were to commence on various dates and included terms of imprisonment, as well as conditions for supervision and compliance with good behaviour obligations.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) It be declared that MB breached the Good Behaviour Order imposed on 3 July 2012.

(2) The Good Behaviour Order made on 3 July 2012 be cancelled.

(3) For the offence of using an electronic means to deprave on 10 December 2012, MB be sentenced to nine months’ imprisonment to commence on 16 June 2013, to take into account his pre-sentence custody, the periodic detention and the partial completing of the Good Behaviour Order.

(4) For the offence of sexual intercourse with a person under sixteen years of age on 10 December 2011, MB be sentenced to eighteen months’ imprisonment to commence on 16 June 2013.

(5) For the offence of using an electronic means to deprave on 29 December 2011, MB be sentenced to nine months’ imprisonment to commence on 16 June 2014.

(6) For the offence of committing an act of indecency on the first complainant on 29 December 2011, MB be sentenced to twelve months’ imprisonment to commence on 16 August 2014.

(7) For the offence of committing an act of indecency on the second complainant on 29 December 2011, MB be sentenced to twelve months’ imprisonment to commence on 16 August 2014.

(8) For the offence of sexual intercourse with a young person under the age of sixteen years, namely, the first complainant, on 29 December 2011, MB be sentenced to twenty-two months’ imprisonment to commence on 16 October 2014.

(9) For the offence of sexual intercourse with a young person under the age of sixteen years, namely, the second complainant on 29 December 2011, MB be sentenced to twenty-two months’ imprisonment to commence on 16 October 2014.

(10) For the offence of committing an act of indecency on a person under the age of sixteen years, namely, the first complainant on 29 December 2011, MB be sentenced to twelve months’ imprisonment to commence on 16 December 2015.

(11) The sentence be suspended on 18 December 2014 for a period of two years.

(12) MB be required to sign an undertaking, under the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT), to comply with the offenders good behaviour obligations under that Act, for a period of two years from today with a probation condition that he be under the supervision of the Director-General, or her delegate, and obey all reasonable directions of that person delegated to supervise him until 2 July 2015.

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.