R v Nona - [2015] ACTSC 136

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Nona
Citation:	[2015] ACTSC 136
Hearing Date:	22 April 2015
DecisionDate:	22 April 2015
Before:	Murrell CJ
Decision:	Effective sentence of five years’ imprisonment.
Category:	Sentence
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – offences against children– sexual intercourse with a person under the age of 16 years – act of indecency in the presence of a person under the age of 16 years – historic offences – denunciation – rehabilitation – contrition – remorse
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) ss 92E(2), 92K(2) Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 7, 33
Cases Cited:	Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571 R vHayes [2012] SASCFC 96 R v Moon [2000] NSWCCA 534 R v Scheeren [2014] ACTSC 272 R v Todd [1982] 2 NSWLR 517
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Dennis Michael Nona (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel Mr M Fernandez (Crown) Mr J Purnell SC with Mr S Gill (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Porters Lawyers (Offender)
File Number:	SCC 447 of 2009

Murrell CJ:

Background

Following a trial in December 2014, the offender was found guilty of the following offences:

(a)Between 20 October 1995 and 26 February 1996, sexual intercourse with a person under the age of 16 years (J), contrary to s 92E(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) (Crimes Act). The maximum penalty is 14 years’ imprisonment.
(b)Between about 9 April and about 30 April 1996, sexual intercourse with a person under the age of 16 years (J), contrary to s 92E(2) the Crimes Act. The maximum penalty is 14 years’ imprisonment.
(c)Between 28 July and 15 September 1996, commit an act of indecency in the presence of a person under the age of 16 years (J), contrary to s 92K(2) of the Crimes Act. The maximum penalty is 10 years’ imprisonment.
(d)Between 28 July and 15 September 1996, commit an act of indecency in the presence of a person under the age of 16 years (H), contrary to s 92K(2) of the Crimes Act. The maximum penalty is 10 years’ imprisonment.

At the time of offences (a) and (b), J was 12 years of age. At the time of offence (c), J was 13 years of age. At the time of offence (d), H was 14 years of age.

J and H were sisters. They resided with their mother and younger brother at Chifley until July 1996, and then at Kaleen. Offences (a) and (b) occurred at the Chifley home and offences (c) and (d) occurred at the Kaleen home. The victims' mother was in a relationship with the offender from about September 1995 to September 1996. At that time the offender was 22 to 23 years of age.

The offender is a Torres Strait Islander who was undertaking a two year art degree in Canberra.

The facts in relation to offence (a) are that, when the victims' mother went to hospital, J and her younger brother were…

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 Nona

Details

AGLC: R v Nona [2015] ACTSC 136
Case: [2015] ACTSC 136
Decision Date: 22 April 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Nona came before the court involving an individual charged with multiple offences against children, including sexual intercourse with a person under the age of 16 years and committing an act of indecency in their presence. The accused, Nona, faced a serious allegation of engaging in these activities several years prior. The matter was heard and determined by the relevant Australian court, which had to balance the principles of denunciation, rehabilitation, contrition, and remorse in determining an appropriate sentence.

The primary legal issues the court had to decide involved assessing the severity of the historic offences and weighing various sentencing factors. Given the nature of the crimes, the court had to consider the gravity of the offences against children, the impact on the victims, and the need to protect society. The court also had to evaluate the accused's degree of contrition, remorse, and any rehabilitative efforts made since the commission of the offences.

In reaching its decision, the court meticulously examined the evidence and submissions presented. It considered the serious breach of trust and the vulnerability of the victims, emphasising the importance of denunciation and deterrence. The court also acknowledged the accused's contrition and efforts towards rehabilitation, although it noted these were made after a considerable delay. After weighing all factors, the court determined that an effective sentence of five years’ imprisonment was appropriate, striking a balance between the need for punishment and the potential for rehabilitation.

The final orders of the court were that the accused, Nona, was to serve an effective sentence of five years’ imprisonment, reflecting the court's determination of the appropriate penalty for the offences committed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Effective sentence of five years’ imprisonment.

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.