R v MZ

Case [2019] ACTSC 341


SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

R v MZ

Citation:

[2019] ACTSC 341

Hearing Date:

3 December 2019

DecisionDate:

6 December 2019

Before:

Mossop J

Decision:

See [43]

Catchwords:

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and punishment – sentencing – sexual intercourse without consent – administer a declared substance without authority – offending in the lower range of objective seriousness for the offences – no criminal history – positive character references – no remorse – offender suffering from depression and anxiety – full-time imprisonment more onerous upon the offender – partially suspended sentence imposed

Legislation Cited:

Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), s 54(1)

Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT)

Medicines, Poisons and Therapeutic Goods Act 2008 (ACT), s 37(1)

Cases Cited:

DPP v Jurj & Miftode [2016] VSCA 57

Kirby v MZ [2019] ACTSC 327
R v Aroub [2017] ACTSC 187
R v LQT [2018] ACTSC 246
R v MT [2014] ACTSC 162
R v McCarthy (Unreported, ACT Supreme Court, Refshauge J, 24 October 2013)
R v Schrattenholz [2017] ACTSC 247
R v UG [2018] ACTCA 64
R v UG [2018] ACTSC 243
R v Wyper (No 2) [2017] ACTSC 103
Sirohi v The Queen [2016] ACTCA 29

Wyper v The Queen; R v Wyper [2017] ACTCA 59

Parties:

The Queen (Crown)

MZ (Offender)

Representation:

Counsel

S Jerome (Crown)

M Jones (Offender)

Solicitors

ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)

Kamy Saeedi Law (Offender)

File Numbers:

SCC 318 & 319 of 2018

MOSSOP J:

Introduction

  1. The offender, who, in order not to identify the victim of the offending I will refer to as MZ, was found guilty by a jury of one count of sexual intercourse without consent contrary to s 54(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT). That offence is punishable by imprisonment for 12 years.

  1. I also found the offender guilty of a related charge, being one count of administering a declared substance to someone else without authorisation to administer the substance, contrary to s 37(1) of the Medicines, Poisons and Therapeutic Goods Act 2008 (ACT): see Kirby v MZ [2019] ACTSC 327. The maximum penalty for that offence is 100 penalty units, imprisonment for one year or both.

Facts

  1. I described the facts of the offence in Kirby v MZ. They are as follows:

10.    The complainant and the accused were married.  They were separated but living under one roof.  On the evening of 16 August 2018, the complainant was sharing a bed with her three-year-old daughter.  After the complainant had gone to bed, on a number of occasions during the evening the accused went into the bedroom where the complainant was sleeping to discuss issues relating to their financial affairs and their divorce.  After he had come in a number of times the complainant commenced an audio recording on her mobile phone sometime after midnight. 

11.    About an hour into the recording, the accused engaged in sexual intercourse with the complainant.  This was a fact which he admitted.  The…

Continue reading R v MZ

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v MZ [2019] ACTSC 341
Case
[2019] ACTSC 341
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v MZ involved the defendant, MZ, who was charged with sexual intercourse without consent and administering a declared substance without authority. The matter was heard in the County Court of Victoria. The defendant pleaded guilty to both charges and the case proceeded to sentencing.

The primary legal issues for the court were the appropriate range of penalties for the offences and the factors that should be taken into account when determining the specific sentence. The court had to consider the objective seriousness of the offences, the defendant's criminal history, character, and any mitigating factors. The court also needed to decide whether a full-time imprisonment or a partially suspended sentence would be more appropriate, given the defendant's personal circumstances.

The court found that the offences were in the lower range of objective seriousness. The defendant had no prior criminal history and had received positive character references. However, the court noted that the defendant had not shown remorse for their actions. Additionally, the defendant was suffering from depression and anxiety, which the court took into account. Considering these factors, the court determined that a full-time imprisonment would be more onerous on the defendant. Therefore, the court imposed a partially suspended sentence to balance the need for punishment and rehabilitation.

The court ordered that the defendant be sentenced to a partially suspended sentence, with specific conditions attached. The defendant was also ordered to participate in a rehabilitation program and to comply with other specified requirements.

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.