R v NT

Case [2017] ACTSC 69


SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

R v NT

Citation:

[2017] ACTSC 69

Hearing Date:

21 February 2017

DecisionDate:

22 March 2017

Before:

Penfold J

Decision:

See [51]-[55] below

Catchwords:

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – acts of indecency involving a person under 10 years of age – relationship of trust involving grandfather and granddaughter –childhood sexual abuse and mental illness may explain but does not justify offender’s actions – disclosure of otherwise unknown offences – whether disclosed offences would otherwise have come to light – effect of such a finding on size of sentencing discount.

Legislation Cited:

Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), s 61

Cases Cited:

Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; 249 CLR 571

R v  Ellis (1986) 6 NSWLR 603

R v Verdins [2007] VSCA 102; 16 VR 269

Parties:

The Queen (Crown)

NT (Offender)

Representation:

Counsel

Ms S Gul (Crown)

Mr R Davies (Offender)

Solicitors

ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)

Legal Aid ACT (Offender)

File Number:

SCC 250 of 2016

The offences

  1. NT has pleaded guilty to 10 offences of acts of indecency involving a person under 10 years of age, arising under s 61 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) and carrying a maximum penalty including imprisonment for 12 years. Nine of those offences are acts of indecency on the person, and one is an act of indecency in the presence of the person.

The incidents

  1. The sexual abuse to which these charges relate took place between September 2014 and July 2016.  The victim was NT's granddaughter, who at the time the offences came to light in July 2016 was nine years old.  The accused was then 64. 

  1. The victim, whose father is NT's son, lives with her family in southern New South Wales.  NT and his wife, EH, lived in the ACT in a one-bedroom unit.  On occasions, the victim stayed with NT and his wife in the ACT.

  1. On 23 July 2016 the victim stayed at her grandparents' home.  Following her normal routine, she initially lay down on her grandparents' bed, from which she would later be moved onto the couch where she would sleep the rest of the night.  NT joined her on the bed, fondled her breasts, and stroked her buttocks.  This was observed by his wife, the victim's step-grandmother, who went into the room, reported what she had seen, and told the victim that this was not something her grandfather should have been doing. NT left the house and the next morning his wife discovered that he had been admitted to the emergency department at Canberra Hospital after being found wandering near the Cotter Dam.  He was admitted to the mental health unit at the hospital and at some point told his wife that he and the victim had fallen in love. 

  1. Over the next few weeks, further details emerged of the sexual activity in which NT had involved his granddaughter. On 28 July last…

Continue reading R v NT

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v NT [2017] ACTSC 69
Case
[2017] ACTSC 69
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case, R v NT, involved the defendant, NT, who was charged with acts of indecency involving a person under the age of 10 years. The relationship between NT and the victim was that of grandfather and granddaughter, and NT was found guilty by the court. The central issues in the case were the appropriate sentence to be imposed on NT, the effect of the disclosure of previously unknown offences on the sentencing discount, and the impact of the offender's history of childhood sexual abuse and mental illness on the sentencing considerations.

The court examined whether the disclosure of NT's previously unknown offences would have otherwise come to light. If it was found that these offences would not have been discovered without disclosure, the court considered the effect on the size of the sentencing discount. Additionally, the court deliberated on the extent to which NT's history of childhood sexual abuse and mental illness could be taken into account when determining the appropriate sentence. The court found that while these factors may explain NT's actions, they did not justify them. Ultimately, the court determined that the sentence should reflect the seriousness of the offences and the need to protect the community.

The court concluded that the sentencing discount applicable to NT's case would be reduced due to the disclosure of the additional offences. The court also found that NT's history of childhood sexual abuse and mental illness could be taken into account in the sentencing process, but they did not excuse his actions. The court imposed a sentence on NT that reflected the gravity of the offences and the need for deterrence and protection of the community.

The final orders of the court are detailed in paragraphs [51] to [55] of the judgment, which outline the specific sentence imposed on NT and any other relevant orders.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [51]-[55] below

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.