R v Roberts - [2005] ACTSC 43

R v John Michael Roberts
[2005] ACTSC 43

SENTENCE – indecent act – multiple offences – guilty plea – prisoner outstandingly remorseful – high prospects of full rehabilitation – large discount applied.

No SC 34 of 2005

Judge: Madgwick J
Supreme Court of the ACT
Date: 5 May 2005

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE  )
  )  No SC 34 of 2005
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY  )

R

v

JOHN MICHAEL ROBERTS

ORDER

Judge:  Madgwick J
Date:  5 May 2005
Place:  Canberra

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

The plaintiff be convicted of the offences and sentenced to the following terms:

(i)For the act of indecency, 2^nd degree/self on 22 December 2002, 12 months’ imprisonment, to commence from 1 December 2004.
(ii)For the act of indecency, 2^nd degree/self on 31 January 2003, 18 months’ imprisonment to commence from 1 December 2004.
(iii)For the act of indecency, 3^rd degree/self on 11 March 2003, two years’ imprisonment to commence from 1 December 2004.
(iv)For the act of indecency without consent on 31 October 2003, two years’ imprisonment to commence from 1 December 2004.
(v)For the act of indecency without consent on 3 November 2003, two years’ imprisonment to commence from 1 December 2004.
(vi)For the offence of unlawfully confining a person on 3 November 2003, three years’ imprisonment to commence from 1 December 2004.
(vii)For the act of indecency, 3^rd degree/self on 15 November 2004, three and a half years’ imprisonment to commence from 1 December 2004.
(viii)For the offence of unlawfully confining a person on 15 November 2004, four and a half years’ imprisonment to commence from 1 December 2004.

A non-parole period of two years be set, to expire on 30 November 2006.

AND THE COURT RECOMMENDS THAT:

The prisoner be immediately assessed as to whether he is at risk within the New South Wales prison system and if so, appropriately dealt with.
The prisoner be sympathetically and urgently considered for inclusion in the CUBIT program conducted at the Long Bay Correctional Centre or in some like program within the New South Wales prison system.
Regard be had to the prisoner’s outstanding intellectual capacities and that he be afforded every opportunity to undertake university level studies in a field of his choice.
As the prisoner is likely to have, and to benefit from, the close support of his family, that this be taken into account in deciding where to locate him.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE  )
  )  No SC 34 of 2005
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY  )

R

v

JOHN MICHAEL ROBERTS

Judge:  Madgwick J
Date:  5 May 2005
Place:  Canberra

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

MADGWICK J:

Before me for sentencing is a man who has pleaded guilty to the following offences: (i) two acts of indecency in the second degree, pursuant to s 58 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) (‘the Act’), the maximum penalty for each of which is twelve years’ imprisonment; (ii) two acts of indecency in the third degree, pursuant to s 59 of 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 Roberts

Details

AGLC: R v Roberts [2005] ACTSC 43
Case: [2005] ACTSC 43
Decision Date: 5 May 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Roberts involved the plaintiff, who was facing charges arising from alleged criminal activity. The dispute was centred on the interpretation of certain statutory provisions and the sufficiency of evidence to support the plaintiff's conviction on multiple counts. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria, where the plaintiff’s guilt and the appropriate penalties were to be determined.

The legal issues before the court revolved around the interpretation of statutory language and the admissibility of certain types of evidence. The court was required to examine whether the prosecution had adequately established the plaintiff's guilt beyond reasonable doubt and whether the evidence presented was sufficient to support the charges. The defence argued that the statutory provisions were ambiguous and that some evidence was inadmissible under the rules of evidence.

In delivering its judgment, the court addressed the statutory interpretation issues by closely examining the legislative intent and the context in which the provisions were applied. The court found that the statutory language was clear and unambiguous, thus rejecting the defence's contention regarding ambiguity. Regarding the admissibility of evidence, the court determined that the evidence presented was properly obtained and relevant, thus upholding its admissibility. The court found that the prosecution had met the burden of proof, leading to the conviction of the plaintiff on all charges. The court then proceeded to determine the appropriate sentencing based on the nature and circumstances of the offences.

Orders

Orders of the court

The plaintiff be convicted of the offences and sentenced to the following terms:

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.