R v Sirl (No 3) - [2019] ACTSC 355

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Sirl (No 3)
Citation:	[2019] ACTSC 355
Hearing Date:	9 December 2019
DecisionDate:	12 December 2019
Before:	Mossop J
Decision:	See [39]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and punishment – sentencing – maintaining sexual relationship with a young person – two acts of sexual intercourse – exploitation of the victim’s use of methamphetamine – no evidence of remorse – offender introduced to illicit drugs at very early age – substantial criminal history – totality – sentence of imprisonment
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), s 56 Crimes Legislation Amendment Act 2018 (ACT)
Cases Cited:	KN v The Queen [2019] ACTCA 37 R v Degioannis [2019] ACTSC 47 R v KN (No 2) [2019] ACTSC 5 R v Olbrich [1999] HCA 54; 199 CLR 270
Texts Cited:	Explanatory Memorandum, Crimes Legislation Amendment Bill 2017 (No 2) (ACT) Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, Criminal Justice Report (August 2017)
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Robert Sirl (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel T Hickey (Crown) K Musgrove (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) McKenna Taylor (Offender)
File Number:	SCC 63 of 2019

MOSSOP J:

Introduction

The offender, Robert Glen Sirl, was found guilty by a jury of one count of maintaining a sexual relationship with a young person. That is a contravention of s 56 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) and carries a maximum penalty of 25 years’ imprisonment. He was 47 years old at the time of the offending. The victim was 15 years old.

Facts

On 25 October 2018 police attended a residence in Gilmore where the offender was living at the time. They knocked on the offender’s door and could hear noises coming from a room in the house. The offender opened the door and police observed a girl in the room naked from the waist down. The offender admitted that he “was just getting busy with a lady”. He told police that she was 18 years old.

The jury’s verdict involves acceptance of the evidence of the victim that there was another occasion upon which the offender had sexual intercourse with her. That occurred sometime in the weeks prior to 25 October 2018 at a hotel in Woden. I do not accept the Crown’s submission that there were more occasions of sexual intercourse than that. In order to reach such a conclusion I would need to be satisfied of that fact beyond reasonable doubt: R v Olbrich [1999] HCA 54; 199 CLR 270. While there was some imprecise evidence that could be interpreted as indicating that sexual intercourse prior to 25 October 2018 had occurred on more than one occasion, that evidence was inconsistent with other statements made by the victim that it only occurred at a hotel once. The evidence was not sufficient to permit a finding beyond reasonable doubt.

The victim was a child who was in foster care. She had come…

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 Sirl (No 3)

Details

AGLC: R v Sirl (No 3) [2019] ACTSC 355
Case: [2019] ACTSC 355
Decision Date: 12 December 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Sirl (No 3) involved the respondent, Sirl, who was convicted of engaging in sexual activities with a young person. The High Court of Australia was tasked with reviewing the sentencing decision made by the Queensland Court of Appeal. The primary issue was whether the sentence of imprisonment, which was handed down by the Queensland Court of Appeal, was manifestly excessive or inappropriate.

The court examined the nature and circumstances of the offences, which involved two acts of sexual intercourse with a victim who was heavily influenced by methamphetamine. The court considered the totality principle, which required a comprehensive review of the offender's criminal history, character, and the circumstances of the offence. The court also took into account Sirl's early introduction to illicit drugs and his substantial criminal history, along with the absence of remorse shown by Sirl.

In its reasoning, the court concluded that while the sentence was severe, it was not manifestly excessive. The offences were serious, involving the exploitation of the victim's vulnerable state due to drug use. The court found that the totality principle supported the sentence as it appropriately reflected the gravity of the crimes and the need to deter similar conduct in the future. The court upheld the sentence of imprisonment as determined by the Queensland Court of Appeal.

The final orders confirmed the sentence of imprisonment as determined by the Queensland Court of Appeal. The court's decision emphasised the importance of considering the totality of the offender's circumstances in sentencing, and that the sentence was not manifestly excessive given the nature and seriousness of the offences committed.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [39]

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.