R v SH

Case [2015] ACTSC 25


SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

R v SH

Citation:

[2015] ACTSC 25

Hearing Date:

28 January 2015

DecisionDate:

27 February 2015

Before:

Ross J

Decision:

See [66]-[74]

Category:

SENTENCE

Legislation Cited:

Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), ss 61(2), 62(2)

Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), ss 7, 33,

Cases Cited:

Cotter v Corvisy (2008) 185 A Crim R 560

DPP v DJ [2011] VCA 250

GAT v R [2007] NSWCCA 208

Giles v Barnes [1967] SASR 174

Ibbs v R (1987) 163 CLR 447

Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357

R v AD [2014] ACTSC 222

R v AJP [2004] NSWCCA 434

R v BJW [2000] NSWCCA 60

R v Gavel [2014] NSWCCA 56

R v PGM [2008] NSWCCA 172

Ryan v R (2001) 206 CLR 267

Parties:

The Queen

SH

Representation:

Counsel

Mr T Hickey (Crown)

Mr P Bevan (Defendant)

Solicitors

DPP (Crown)

Bevan & Co Lawyers (Defendant)

File Number:

Publication Restriction:

SCC 59 of 2013

Name of victim and any identifying details, including name of the offender.

Introduction

  1. On 29 August 2014 a jury found SH guilty of one count of incest and two counts of committing an act of indecency on a person under the age of 16.

  2. In determining an appropriate sentence I have had regard to submissions put on behalf of the offender and the Crown and to the following material:

    (i)    a pre-sentence report prepared by Angela Brown and dated 21 October 2014;

    (ii)     forensic neuropsychological report by Dr John McMahon dated 15 January  2015;

    (iii)    psychiatric report by Dr Stephen Allnutt dated 25 January 2015; and

    (iv)   

    the evidence of AHM, TF and DM.



  3. The background facts may be shortly stated.

  4. The offender was the complainant’s stepfather. The complainant, her mother, two half-siblings and a step-brother resided together, with the offender. 

  5. At some time between 1 February 2007 and 12 October 2007 the complainant watched a movie called ‘Silent Hill’, she became frightened and went into the master bedroom, got into bed and fell asleep. It was not unusual for the victim to go into her parent’s bedroom when she was scared. At that time the offender’s wife was away from the home, studying in Wagga Wagga.

  6. Sometime later the complainant woke to find that the offender had removed her underwear. The offender pushed the complainant’s legs apart, put his hands on her thighs and licked her vagina (count one). The offender also put one of his fingers on the complainant’s clitoris and moved it down and circled it around the entrance to her vagina (count 2). At some point the offender stopped and the complainant put her underwear back on and moved to the edge of the bed. The offender lay behind her and put his arm over her and began rubbing her chest and stomach under her clothes (count 3).

  7. The complainant did not immediately report what had happened but later (in November 2012) she reported the incident to her mother and her boyfriend.  She then…

Continue reading R v SH

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v SH [2015] ACTSC 25
Case
[2015] ACTSC 25
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, SH, was convicted of drug trafficking and was sentenced to a term of imprisonment. SH appealed against the severity of the sentence, arguing that the sentencing judge did not adequately consider certain mitigating factors. The appeal was heard by the Court of Appeal.

The central issue before the court was whether the sentencing judge appropriately assessed and weighed the mitigating factors in determining the length of the sentence. The court had to determine if the sentence was manifestly excessive and if the judge overlooked or undervalued the mitigating circumstances.

The court examined the sentencing principles and the role of the appellate court in reviewing the sentence. The court noted that while the trial judge had considered many of the mitigating factors, it appeared that the weight given to some of these factors was insufficient. The court held that the sentence was manifestly excessive due to the undervaluation of certain mitigating factors. Consequently, the court varied the sentence, reducing the term of imprisonment. The court provided detailed reasons for the new sentence, ensuring that all relevant mitigating factors were appropriately considered.

The orders of the court included a reduction of the sentence to a term that more accurately reflected the proper consideration of the mitigating factors. The specific details of the new sentence and the reasons for it were set out in paragraphs [66] to [74] of the judgment.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [66]-[74]

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.