R v Page - [2021] ACTSC 207

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Page
Citation:	[2021] ACTSC 207
Hearing Dates:	25 – 26 May; 12 July; 23 August 2021
DecisionDate:	30 August 2021
Before:	Burns J
Decision:	See [26]–[28]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – maintaining a sexual relationship with a young person – plea of guilty – disputed facts hearing – where offender 19 years old and victim 15 years old – where sexual relationship continued for nine months – where victim became pregnant as result of offence – where communications suggested degree of genuine affection between offender and victim – whether particular incident of sexual intercourse occurred where offender knew victim was not, in fact, consenting – consideration of full-time imprisonment – demonstrated commitment to rehabilitation
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) s 56(1)
Parties:	The Queen ( Crown) Darcy Edward Page ( Offender)
Representation:	Counsel A Chatterton ( Crown) B Morrisroe ( Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions ( Crown) Tim Sharman Solicitors ( Offender)
File Number:	SCC 171 of 2020

BURNS J:

Darcy Edward Page, on 25 May 2021 following negotiations between your lawyers and the Director of Public Prosecutions at a Criminal Case Conference, you entered a plea of guilty to one charge contrary to s 56(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) alleging that between 23 June 2018 and 24 February 2019 you maintained a sexual relationship with a young person (SCCAN 2020/147). The maximum penalty for that offence is

25 years’ imprisonment.

The facts

You met the victim in May 2018 when you were 18 and she was 15 years old. You were neighbours and you were also friends with the victim's brother. Because of your relationship with the victim's brother, you started spending time at their home. Shortly after you met the victim, you commenced contacting her via Facebook Messenger. You began exchanging messages, with some of the messages including love heart emoticons and kiss symbols. After a brief period exchanging messages, you and the victim began to spend time privately together during which you talked, kissed and hugged in an intimate way. These meetings were arranged either via Facebook or by text message.

At some stage after the commencement of your relationship with the victim but prior to you engaging in any sexual intercourse with her, you became aware that the victim was 15 years old. On your 19th birthday, you asked the victim to be your girlfriend. This was prior to any sexual activity taking place between you and the victim and at the stage when you were kissing and hugging intimately.

The first occasion of sexual activity with the victim occurred on 24 June 2018. You digitally penetrated her vagina with your fingers. You returned the following evening and engaged in the same conduct. The sexual activity progressed to penile/vaginal intercourse on 2 July 2018. At that time, the victim was aged about 15 years and

four months.

Your sexual…

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 Page

Details

AGLC: R v Page [2021] ACTSC 207
Case: [2021] ACTSC 207
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Page involved the offender, Darcy Edward Page, who was charged with maintaining a sexual relationship with a young person, contrary to s 56(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT). The offender, who was 19 years old at the time, had engaged in sexual activity with a 15-year-old victim over a period of nine months, resulting in her pregnancy. The legal issues before the court included whether the offender knew that the victim was not consenting during a particular incident of sexual intercourse, and if so, whether this constituted a significant aggravating circumstance warranting a harsher sentence. The court was also required to assess the objective seriousness of the offence and the subjective features of the offender, including his age, background, and remorse.

The court found that while the offender had engaged in approximately 30 episodes of sexual intercourse with the victim, it could not be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the offender knew the victim was not consenting during a particular incident of sexual intercourse. The court assessed the objective seriousness of the offence, taking into account the number of sexual encounters, the age difference between the offender and the victim, and the victim's resulting pregnancy and psychological issues. The court acknowledged the offender's young age at the time of the offence and the genuine affection between the offender and the victim, but also noted the significant moral culpability due to the offender's knowledge of the victim's age and the illegality of their relationship. The court took into account the offender's background, his current employment and family situation, and his demonstrated commitment to rehabilitation.

The court decided that a wholly suspended sentence with a Good Behaviour Order, including community service, was appropriate. The sentence was intended to satisfy the principles of general deterrence, denunciation, and punishment, while also considering the offender's age, background, and remorse. The offender was sentenced to two years' imprisonment, which was wholly suspended, and a Good Behaviour Order requiring the completion of 300 hours of community service within two years.

Orders