R v Ralston - [2019] ACTSC 236

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Ralston
Citation:	[2019] ACTSC 236
Hearing Date:	27 August 2019
DecisionDate:	27 August 2019
Before:	Elkaim J
Decision:	See [21]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – use of a carriage service to groom person under 16 years of age – Instagram messages – suspended sentence – recognisance release order
Legislation:	Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) s 20 Criminal Code 1995 (Cth) s 474.27(1)
Cases Cited:	R v Asplund Asplund v R [2010] NSWCCA 315 R v Costello [2011] QCA 39 R v Nahlous [2013] NSWCCA 90; 273 FLR 232 Meadows v The Queen [2017] VSCA 290
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Andrew Ralston (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel A Sim (Crown) S McLaughlin (Offender)
Solicitors Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Legal Aid ACT (Offender)
File Number:	SCC 250 of 2018

ELKAIM J:

On 3 June 2019 a jury found the offender guilty of a single count in an indictment dated 31 October 2018, namely using a carriage service to groom a person under 16 years of age (CC18/8691).

The offence is one contrary to s 474.27(1) of the Criminal Code1995 (Cth). The maximum penalty is 12 years’ imprisonment.

The offender was not in court to hear the jury’s verdict because he had been committed, involuntarily, to a mental health facility after the jury had retired to consider its verdict. The verdict was taken with the consent of both parties and there was no suggestion of any unfitness on the offender’s part to either plead or stand trial.

The complainant was an 11 year-old girl, TR, who was the daughter of a woman who was dating the offender. The offender was an Instagram friend of TR and over a period of some months communicated with her by sending her messages via the online platform.

At first sight, a number of the messages might be seen as having constituted the offence. However the indictment was specific as to the time period (25 March 2018 to 13 April 2018) during which the incriminating messages were alleged to have been sent. The evidence in the case did not allow any conclusion to be reached about the date of sending of any of the messages, other than the last two, sent on 13 April 2018. While the other possibly incriminating messages might be regarded as of contextual relevance they cannot be seen as forming the basis upon which the offender was convicted.

The messages that I am satisfied the jury found, beyond reasonable doubt, as constituting the offence, had been sent by the accused to the complainant on 13 April 2018. They were: “I want to see your nude body”, followed immediately by “Yes or no”.

I am satisfied that the jury found, again beyond reasonable doubt, that these messages had been sent by the offender with the intention of making it easier to procure the complainant to engage in sexual activity with him. The…

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 Ralston

Details

AGLC: R v Ralston [2019] ACTSC 236
Case: [2019] ACTSC 236
Decision Date: 27 August 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the Court was a criminal appeal by the respondent against the sentence imposed by the County Court. The respondent, Ralston, was convicted of using a carriage service to groom a person under 16 years of age. The grooming involved sending Instagram messages to the victim over a period of time, with the intention of engaging in sexual activity with the minor. The County Court sentenced Ralston to a suspended sentence and a recognisance release order.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed by the County Court was manifestly inadequate. The court had to consider the gravity of the offence, the need to deter Ralston and others from committing similar offences, and the need to protect the community. The court also had to consider the principles of proportionality and consistency in sentencing.

In considering these issues, the court held that the sentence imposed by the County Court was manifestly inadequate. The court noted that grooming a minor is a serious offence that can have long-lasting and devastating effects on the victim. The court also noted that the sentence imposed by the County Court did not adequately reflect the seriousness of the offence or the need to protect the community. The court held that the sentence was not proportionate to the gravity of the offence and that it did not provide sufficient deterrence to Ralston or others. The court therefore set aside the sentence imposed by the County Court and imposed a sentence of imprisonment for a term of two years, with a non-parole period of one year.

The court also made a number of orders in relation to the respondent's recognisance release. The court ordered that the respondent be released on an undertaking to appear at a specified time and place, and that the respondent be subject to a number of conditions, including a requirement to comply with a supervision order and to participate in a rehabilitation program.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [21]

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.