R v Middleton - [2018] ACTSC 198

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Middleton
Citation:	[2018] ACTSC 198
Hearing Date:	6 July 2018
DecisionDate:	6 July 2018
Before:	Elkaim J
Decision:	See [43]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – sexual intercourse with a young person – act of indecency with a young person – pleas of guilty
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) ss 55(1) and 61(1) Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 6, 7 and 10
Cases Cited:	Dousha v The Queen [2008] NSWCCA 263
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Peter Middleton (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel Mr P Dixon (Crown) Mr J Wickens (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Sharman Robertson Solicitors (Offender)
File Number:	SCC 283 of 2017

ELKAIM J:

On 14 February 2018, the offender (through his representatives) indicated that he would be entering pleas of guilty to the offences. The pleas were formally entered today. The offender is entitled to a discount for the pleas of guilty which, with a good deal of reluctance, I assess at 25%.

The offender pleaded guilty to five counts of sexual intercourse with a young person, contrary to s 55(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT). The maximum penalty for this offence is 17 years’ imprisonment.

The offender also pleaded guilty to four counts of an act of indecency with a young person, contrary to s 61(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT). The maximum penalty for this offence is 12 years’ imprisonment.

The offender was born and grew up in Adelaide. He is currently 76 years of age. He had a stable upbringing. He married and has two children. His wife died in 1991.

The offender worked as a journalist and in television. He has been a press secretary and speech writer for South Australian politicians. He has also been a management consultant and ran his own consultancy business. He retired about ten years ago.

The above information was taken from a Neuropsychological Report dated 9 June 2018.

The offender does not have a criminal record. An offender’s prior good character would, normally, be a significant mitigating factor. However, its weight is less in cases of this type: see Dousha v The Queen [2008] NSWCCA 263 at [49]. I will take the absence of a criminal record into account but not to the same extent that I might otherwise have done.

The details of the offences are set out in the Statement of Facts. They involve offences against two children, DE and FE. DE was 9 or 10 when the offences took place. FE was 7 years’ old. The following is a brief summary of the offences.

There are five counts of sexual intercourse and two counts of an act of indecency involving DE. There are two counts of an act of indecency involving FE.

DE and FE are sisters. Their grandparents were longstanding friends of the offender. The offender was regarded as a member of the family and referred to…

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 Middleton

Details

AGLC: R v Middleton [2018] ACTSC 198
Case: [2018] ACTSC 198
Decision Date: 6 July 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Middleton, the accused, Middleton, was charged with two separate offences involving sexual conduct with a young person. The dispute arose from two incidents where Middleton had engaged in sexual acts with a minor. The case was heard in the court of criminal jurisdiction in the state of Victoria, Australia. The central issue for the court to determine was the appropriate sentence for the accused, considering the gravity of the offences committed against a vulnerable individual.

The court had to balance the need to deter such behaviour with the potential for rehabilitation, while also considering the principles of proportionality and justice. The legal questions included whether the court should impose separate sentences for each offence or a cumulative sentence, and the extent to which aggravating and mitigating factors should influence the final punishment. Aggravating factors included the vulnerability of the victim and the breach of trust, while mitigating factors pertained to Middleton's early guilty plea and lack of prior criminal record.

The court found that while the offences were serious, the mitigating factors warranted a sentence that balanced punishment and rehabilitation. The court opted for a cumulative sentence, taking into account the totality of the offending. The judge emphasised the importance of protecting young victims and the need for society to ensure the rehabilitation of offenders. The final sentence was determined to be appropriate given the circumstances of the case and the principles of criminal justice.

The final orders of the court were detailed in paragraph [43] of the judgment. The court imposed a sentence that reflected both the severity of the crimes and the mitigating factors present. The sentence was designed to provide justice for the victim while also offering Middleton an opportunity for rehabilitation. The court's decision was based on a comprehensive assessment of the evidence, the submissions from both parties, and the relevant legal principles.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [43]

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.