R v Rogers - [2017] ACTSC 67

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Rogers
Citation:	[2017] ACTSC 67
Hearing Dates:	10 February 2017; 20 February 2017
DecisionDate:	17 March 2017
Before:	Penfold J
Decision:	See [58] - [66] below
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – act of indecency – indecent exposure – no physical contact – actions intended to offend and discomfort observers – subsequent actions relevant in assessing offender’s intentions – offender aware methamphetamine abuse might trigger psychotic attacks causing disinhibited or violent conduct – relevance of Verdins approach where offender knows likely impact of drug use on his mental stability and tendency to offend.
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), ss 60, 309, 393 Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT), s 90B Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT), s 68D
Cases Cited:	DPP v Kao [2009] VSCA 273 R v Verdins [2007] VSCA 102; 16 VR 269 The Queen v Shafik-Eid [2009] VSCA 217
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Jason Rogers (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel Ms T Skvortsova (Crown) Mr R Davies (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Legal Aid ACT (Offender)
File Numbers:	SCC 17 of 2012; SCC 268 of 2016; SCC 269 of 2016

The offences

Jason Rogers has pleaded guilty to two offences as follows:

(a)an act of indecency without consent arising under s 60 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) and carrying a maximum penalty including imprisonment for seven years; and
(b)indecent exposure arising under s 393 of the Crimes Act and carrying a maximum penalty including imprisonment for one year.

The first charge has been committed to this court for sentence, while the second has been transferred from the Magistrates Court for sentence under s 90B of the Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT) because it arose out of the same incident, and it can be dealt with in the Supreme Court under s 68D of the Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT) if I am satisfied that it is in the interests of justice to do so. In this case I am satisfied to that effect.

The commission of these offences, which I shall refer to as the “new offences”, on 17 October 2016 put Mr Rogers in breach of a two-year good behaviour order that I made in February 2016. That good behaviour order was made when I suspended the remaining 14 months of a sentence of imprisonment of 38 months that was originally imposed in April 2014 for three earlier offences, which I shall refer to as the “old offences”, and I note that the February 2016 date was the date on which I amended that good behaviour order. As it happened, by that stage Mr Rogers had already been referred to the court for earlier breaches of that good behaviour order, relating to failing to attend to supervision appointments as directed. He had also breached the good behaviour order, apparently, by the commission of a number of offences in New South Wales during 2016.

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 Rogers

Details

AGLC: R v Rogers [2017] ACTSC 67
Case: [2017] ACTSC 67
Decision Date: 17 March 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Rogers involved a dispute in the criminal law context, concerning the sentence to be imposed on the accused for acts of indecency. The matter was heard in the relevant Australian court, where the defendant was convicted of indecent exposure. The case required the court to determine the appropriate sentence for the defendant, who had a history of methamphetamine abuse and was aware that this could trigger psychotic attacks, potentially leading to disinhibited or violent conduct.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the defendant's awareness of the likely impact of his drug use on his mental stability and propensity to offend should be considered when determining his sentence. This was a matter of balancing the need to hold the offender accountable for his actions with the understanding that his actions were influenced by his drug use and its effects on his mental health. The court had to decide whether the approach in Verdins was applicable in this context, where the offender knew the likely impact of his drug use on his mental stability and tendency to offend.

The court found that the offender's awareness of the potential impact of his drug use on his mental state and conduct was relevant to the sentencing process. The court considered the defendant's methamphetamine abuse and his understanding of how it could lead to disinhibited or violent conduct, as well as the nature of the offence and the offender's intent. The court ultimately determined that the offender's knowledge of the likely impact of his drug use on his mental stability and propensity to offend should be taken into account in assessing his sentence. This approach was seen as a way to ensure that the offender is held accountable for his actions while also acknowledging the mitigating factors related to his drug use and mental health.

The court ordered that the sentence be determined in light of the offender's awareness of the potential impact of his drug use on his mental state and conduct. The specific sentence was outlined in the detailed orders from [58] to [66], which provided the rationale and reasoning behind the final decision. The court's approach aimed to balance the need for accountability with an understanding of the offender's circumstances, ensuring that the sentence was fair and appropriate given the unique factors present in this case.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [58] - [66] 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.