R v Sq

[2020] ACTSC 20

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

R v SQ

Citation:

[2020] ACTSC 20

Hearing Date(s):

5 February 2020

DecisionDate:

5 February 2020

Before:

Murrell CJ

Decision:

Sentenced to a total of six years’ imprisonment with a nonparole period of three years.

Catchwords:

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – Sexual intercourse without consent – Act of indecency without consent – Complainants with intellectual disability – Abuse of position of authority

Legislation Cited:

Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) ss 54, 60

Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 33, 35(2)

Cases Cited:

R v Hoyle (No 2) [2017] ACTSC 175

R v NC [2017] ACTSC 206

Singh v The Queen [2015] ACTCA 65

Parties:

The Queen (Crown)

SQ (Offender)

Representation:

Counsel

S Jerome (Crown)

S Littlemore QC (Offender)

Solicitors

ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)

Aulich (Offender)

File Number(s):

SCC 315 of 2019

MURRELL CJ

Introduction

1. The offender pleaded guilty to three counts of sexual intercourse without consent, contrary to s 54 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) (Crimes Act), and two counts of committing an act of indecency, contrary to s 60 of the Crimes Act.

1. The maximum penalty for the offence of sexual intercourse without consent is 12 years’ imprisonment.  The maximum penalty for the offence of committing an act of indecency without consent is seven years’ imprisonment. 

1. On 26 November 2019, at the fourth mention in the Magistrates Court, the offender pleaded guilty to the offences, and the matters were committed to this Court for sentence. The pleas of guilty at such an early stage were valuable. Having regard to the considerations in s 35(2) of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) (Sentencing Act), I will allow a sentence discount of 25 per cent. 

1. The offender has been in custody since his arrest on 31 July 2019. That will be the commencement date of the sentences.

Facts

1. The offences occurred between 1 February and 31 March 2019 and relate to five separate incidents. 

1. The complainants are twins, KU and BU.  The offender had been in a relationship with the complainants’ mother since 2003.  In 2012, the complainants and their younger sister, who had been living with their father, moved back to live with their mother, who shared a home with the offender. 

1. The complainants were 29 years old at the time of the offences.  Together with their younger sister, they suffer from a rare genetic disorder that is often associated with significant developmental delay.  According to a psychologist, Dr Boer, the complainants are cognitively impaired, having a full-scale IQ in the first percentile and a “mental age” similar to that of an 11 or 12-year-old child.  On the other hand, the complainants have relatively strong perceptual reasoning.  Dr Boer diagnosed intellectual disability of mild severity.

1. The offences occurred in the “sunroom” of the residence occupied by the complainants and the offender, which, at the time of the offences, was used as a bedroom by…