Legal Research
Cases
R v Ridley

R v Ridley

Case [2014] ACTSC 382 16 December 2014

Criminal Liability

Sentencing

Breach of Good Behaviour Order

Re-sentencing

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Mark Stephen Ridley
Citation:	[2014] ACTSC 382
Hearing Date(s):	15 December 2014
DecisionDate:	16 December 2014
Before:	Refshauge J
Decision:	1. Mark Stephen Ridley be convicted of committing an act of indecency in the presence of the victim on 4 May 2013. 2. Mark Stephen Ridley be sentenced to ten months imprisonment to commence on 16 December 2014. 3. That sentence be suspended from 16 December 2014 for twelve months. 4. Mark Stephen Ridley be required to sign an undertaking to comply with the offenders good behaviour obligations under the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT), for a period of two years with the following conditions: a. A probation condition that he accept supervision of the Director-General, or her delegate, for a period of two years, or such lesser period as the person supervising him considers appropriate, and obey all reasonable directions of that person especially, but not limited to, alcohol and other drug counselling and treatment; b. That he submit yourself for assessment of the ACT Corrective Services Adult Sex Offender Program and, if found suitable, undertake the Program to its completion; c. Perform seventy hours of community service work within twelve months from 16 December 2014. 5. The conviction imposed on 16 December 2014 breaches the good behaviour order made on 1 February 2013. 6. The good behaviour order made on 1 February 2014 be cancelled. 7. Mark Stephen Ridley be re-sentenced to imprisonment for six months to commence on 16 December 2014. 8. That sentence be suspended from 16 December 2014. 9. Mark Stephen Ridley be required to sign an undertaking to comply with the offenders good behaviour obligations under the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT), for a period of twelve months. 10. Mark Stephen Ridley attend at ACT Corrective Services at Eclipse House, London Circuit, Canberra City, within forty-eight hours.
Category:	Principal Judgment
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – Judgment and Punishment – Sentencing – Committing an act of indecency in the presence of another person CRIMINAL LAW – Judgment and Punishment – Re-sentencing following breach of Good behaviour order – Breach constituted by commission of further offence
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), s 60(1) Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), ss 7, 33(1), 35, 89(5)
Cases Cited:	Bombardieri v The Queen (2010) 203 A Crim R 89 Hili v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520 Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120 R v Ang (Unreported, ACTSC, Burns J, 6 June 2013) R v Dhaimat (Unreported, ACTSC, Burns J, 12 March 2014). R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346 R v Jerrard (1991) 56 A Crim R 297 R v Jones [2014] ACTSC 119 R v Miller [1995] 2 VR 348 R v Stone (1995) 85 A Crim R 436
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Mark Scott Ridley (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel Ms S McMurray (Crown) Mr R Davies (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Legal Aid…

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 Ridley

Details

AGLC: R v Ridley [2014] ACTSC 382
Case: [2014] ACTSC 382
Decision Date: 16 December 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Ridley involved Mark Stephen Ridley, who was convicted of committing an act of indecency in the presence of another person on 4 May 2013. The matter was heard and determined in the Magistrates Court of the Australian Capital Territory. The conviction arose from an incident where Ridley exposed himself in front of a woman, an act which he pleaded guilty to in court.

The legal issues that the court had to address included the sentencing for the initial offence of indecency, as well as the re-sentencing following Ridley's breach of a good behaviour order. The breach was constituted by the commission of a further offence. The court had to consider the appropriate punishment for the indecency offence and how the breach of the good behaviour order should impact the sentencing.

The court deliberated on the appropriate sentence for the act of indecency, taking into account the nature and circumstances of the offence. It was determined that a suspended sentence would be appropriate, allowing Ridley to avoid imprisonment if he complied with certain conditions over a set period. The court also considered the breach of the good behaviour order, which involved Ridley committing another offence. This breach resulted in the cancellation of the original good behaviour order and a re-sentencing for the indecency offence, again with a suspended sentence but for a shorter period, coupled with stricter conditions.

The final orders of the court included the conviction of Ridley for the act of indecency, a suspended sentence of ten months imprisonment, and the imposition of specific conditions under the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT). These conditions included probation, participation in a sex offender program, and community service. The court also addressed the breach of the good behaviour order by imposing a re-sentence of six months imprisonment, suspended from the same commencement date, and additional conditions for a shorter duration.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Mark Stephen Ridley be convicted of committing an act of indecency in the presence of the victim on 4 May 2013.

2. Mark Stephen Ridley be sentenced to ten months imprisonment to commence on 16 December 2014.

3. That sentence be suspended from 16 December 2014 for twelve months.

4. Mark Stephen Ridley be required to sign an undertaking to comply with the offenders good behaviour obligations under the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT), for a period of two years with the following conditions:

a. A probation condition that he accept supervision of the Director-General, or her delegate, for a period of two years, or such lesser period as the person supervising him considers appropriate, and obey all reasonable directions of that person especially, but not limited to, alcohol and other drug counselling and treatment;

b. That he submit yourself for assessment of the ACT Corrective Services Adult Sex Offender Program and, if found suitable, undertake the Program to its completion;

c. Perform seventy hours of community service work within twelve months from 16 December 2014.

5. The conviction imposed on 16 December 2014 breaches the good behaviour order made on 1 February 2013.

6. The good behaviour order made on 1 February 2014 be cancelled.

7. Mark Stephen Ridley be re-sentenced to imprisonment for six months to commence on 16 December 2014.

8. That sentence be suspended from 16 December 2014.

9. Mark Stephen Ridley be required to sign an undertaking to comply with the offenders good behaviour obligations under the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT), for a period of twelve months.

10. Mark Stephen Ridley attend at ACT Corrective Services at Eclipse House, London Circuit, Canberra City, within forty-eight hours.

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.

Actions

Citations

R v Ridley [2014] ACTSC 382

Most Recent Citation

R v Goboly [2016] ACTSC 322

Cases Citing This Decision

Director of Public Prosecutions v Hyatt [2025] ACTSC 103
Citation 1

…v Kilic [2016] HCA 48; 259 CLR 256 R v Olbrich [1999] HCA 54; 199 CLR 270 R v Palmer [2017] ACTSC 357 R v Pham [2015] HCA 39; 256 CLR 550 R v Ridley [2014] ACTSC 382 R v Srna [2018] ACTSC 337 R v Teel (a pseudonym) [2021] ACTSC 183 R v Teer [2019] ACTSC 334 R v Toumo’ua [2017] ACTCA 9; 12 ACTLR 103 R v UG [2018] A…
Director of Public Prosecutions v Alexander Waters (a pseudonym) [2025] ACTSC 84
Citation 2

…v EP (No 3) [2019] ACTSC 242 R v Horton-Hegarty [2018] ACTCA 22 R v Olbrich [1999] HCA 54; 199 CLR 270 R v Pham [2015] HCA 39; 256 CLR 550 R v Ridley [2014] ACTSC 382 R v SM [2021] NSWDC 786 R v SH [2015] ACTSC 25 R v Toumo’ua [2017] ACTCA 9; 12 ACTLR 103 R v Verdins [2007] VSCA 102; 16 VR 240 R v XX [2009] NSWCCA…
Director of Public Prosecutions v RR [2024] ACTSC 279
Citation 3

…2020] ACTSC 292 R v Kindl [2015] ACTSC 128 R v MAK [2006] NSWCCA 381; 167 A Crim R 159 R v MT [2014] ACTSC 162 R v Palmer [2017] ACTSC 357 R v Ridley [2014] ACTSC 382 R v Taylor [2015] ACTSC 43 R v Teel (a pseudonym) [2021] ACTSC 183 R v Toumo’ua [2017] ACTCA 9 R v UG [2018] ACTCA 64; 14 ACTLR 70 R v UG [2020] ACTC…
DPP v JJ (No 2) [2024] ACTSC 74
Citation 4

…232 R v Mills [2005] NSWCCA 175; 154 A Crim R 40 R v Murray [2016] ACTSC 173 R v Ogilvie (No 2) [2016] ACTSC 265 R v RMW [2016] NSWCCA 211 R v Ridley [2014] ACTSC 382 R v Shepheard [2008] ACTSC 116; 189 A Crim R 165 R v TL [2017] ACTCA 18 R v Toumo'ua [2017] ACTCA 9; 12 ACTLR 103 Saga v Reid [2010] ACTSC 59 Saipani…
R v Po'oi (No 6); Director of Public Prosecutions v Po'oi [2024] ACTSC 6
Citation 5

…R v Po'oi (No 3) [2021] ACTSC 354 R v Po'oi (No 4) [2022] ACTSC 198 R v Po’oi (No 5) [2023] ACTSC 413 R v Porter (No 3) [2022] ACTSC 236 R v Ridley [2014] ACTSC 382 R v Rosewarne [2021] ACTSC 217 R v Seymour [2021] ACTSC 152 R v Subasic (No 2) [2023] ACTSC 79 R v Swift [2007] VSCA 52; 15 VR 497 R v Tonna (No 2) [20…
R v West [2023] ACTSC 412
Citation 6 (Para 2)

…erence about the harm suffered by a victim from the fact that no Victim Impact Statement has been given. Further, however, as explained in R v Ridley [2014] ACTSC 382 at [43], the Court can draw reasonable inferences from the evidence to assess some of the harm done to a victim. The Court can also accept what harms…
R v Winters [2022] ACTSC 371
Citation 7 (Para 3)

…ct Statement, though without it, the Court can still appreciate, but only in general terms, the harm that such offences cause victims. See R v Ridley [2014] ACTSC 382 at [43].…
R v Peric (No 3) [2022] ACTSC 387
Citation 8

…son JJ, and Loveday AJ, 19 December 1994, unreported) R v McHughes [2021] ACTSC 92 R v Pearson [2020] ACTSC 375 R v Peric [2022] ACTSC 385 R v Ridley [2014] ACTSC 382 R v Smith [2020] ACTSC 277 Shaw v The Queen [2008] NSWCCA 58 Talukder v Dunbar [2009] ACTSC 42; 194 A Crim R 545…
R v Campbell [2021] ACTSC 359
Citation 9 (Para 1)

…effect on the victims, as far as the impact can be assessed in general terms, is taken into account: see R v JM [2014] ACTSC 380 at [51] , R v Ridley [2014] ACTSC 382 at [42].…
R v Childs [2021] ACTSC 170
Citation 10

…R v Ridley [2014] ACTSC 382…
R v Kelly [2020] ACTSC 292
Citation 11 (Para 1)

…v Tamawiwy (No 4) [2015] ACTSC 371, R v NO [2015] ACTSC 308, R v Kim [2015] ACTSC 182, R v Kindl [2015] ACTSC 128, R v SP [2015] ACTC 121, R v Ridley [2014] ACTSC 382, R v Catanzariti [2014] ACTSC 33 , R v GJ [2014] ACTSC 186, R v Randhir Singh; R v Ajitpal Singh [2014] ACTSC 250, R v Crawford (No 3) [2017] ACTSC 9…
R v Jones [2020] ACTSC 92
Citation 12 (Para 1)

…preme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, Burns J, 23 October 2012); Znotins v Harvey [2015] ACTSC 241; R v Jones [2014] ACTSC 119; R v Ridley [2014] ACTSC 382.…
R v Teer [2019] ACTSC 334
Citation 13 (Para 1)

…In respect of the indecency offence, counsel for the offender noted the observations of Refshauge J in R v Ridley [2014] ACTSC 382 at [36]:…
R v Goboly [2016] ACTSC 322
Citation 14 (Para 1)

…g may be an act of indecency, especially if it is full lips to lips, but, while not trivial, it is not the most serious act of indecency : R v Ridley [2014] ACTSC 382 at [36]. The introduction of Mr Goboly's tongue into QQ's mouth in the December incident did seem to me to make it somewhat more serious, but still a…

See all citing cases →

Cases Cited

R v Jones [2014] ACTSC 119
Citation 1 (Para 1)

…While again recognising the difficulties of relying on one case my attention was drawn by both counsel to the decision of R v Jones [2014] ACTSC 119, where the offender there was charged with the same offence there also constituted by masturbating in public. There are different features some more serious, some less…
Muldrock v The Queen [2011] HCA 39
Citation 2 (Para 1)

…of penalty of seven years imprisonment is attracted. It is, thus, a serious offence judged by the yardstick of that penalty. See Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120 at 133; [31].…
Hili v The Queen [2010] HCA 45
Citation 3 (Para 1)

…ombardieri v The Queen (2010) 203 A Crim R 89), but are nevertheless useful. They have, however only limited value as pointed out in Hili v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520 at 537; [54]-[55].…
Bombardieri v R [2010] NSWCCA 161
Citation 4 (Para 1)

…Such statistics do not, of course, set the boundaries for the range of a proper sentence ( Bombardieri v The Queen (2010) 203 A Crim R 89), but are nevertheless useful. They have, however only limited value as pointed out in Hili v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520 at 537; [54]-[55].…
R v Henry [1999] NSWCA 111
Citation 5 (Para 1)

…account for there is no doubt that he was, at either age, not in a position to make a sensible personal choice, as accepted as relevant in R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346 at 398; [273](c)(i). That he became a problem drinker is unsurprising, although one can never tell when a person will succumb to alcohol addiction. I…

Legislation Cited

Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) 33(1), 35, 7, 89(5)
5 mentions (from Para 1)
Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) 60(1)
2 mentions (from Para 1)
Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT)
1 mention