R v Stone

Case [2016] ACTSC 231


SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

R v Stone

Citation:

[2016] ACTSC 231

Hearing Dates:

3 June, 8 July 2016

DecisionDate:

4 August 2016

Before:

Burns J

Decision:

See [30]-[38]

Catchwords:

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – Particular offences – offences against the person – sexual offences – indecent assault on a male – guilty after trial by jury – previous conviction for same offence – significant delay in reporting – offender’s age and ill health relevant factor – offender has rehabilitated himself since offences – underlying psychological considerations – sentenced to a term of imprisonment – balance suspended – Good Behaviour Order.  

Legislation Cited:

Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), s 33

Cases Cited:

R v Djenadija [2015] ACTSC 207

Parties:

The Queen (Crown)

Stuart Anzac Stone (Offender)

Representation:

Counsel

Mr T Hickey (Crown)

Mr J Sabharwal (Offender)

Solicitors

ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)

Armstrong Legal (Offender)

File Number:

SCC 79 of 2015

BURNS J:

  1. Stuart Stone, you appear before me today for sentence with respect to seven counts of indecent assault on a male. You were found guilty of these offences on 3 March 2016 after a trial by a jury.

The facts

  1. In about the mid 1970s, you and your young family attended a Lutheran Church where you met the victim who was the son of friends that you met through that church. The families socialised and would go to each other’s houses and play cards. On most of those occasions after the children had gone to bed, you would check on the children while the adults were socialising. It was during those occasions that you molested the victim.

  1. The offending is broken up into two separate incidents. Counts 1 to 3 make up the first incident. On a night in about 1975, the victim who was then about seven years of age and in year 2 at school, was at home in Farrer lying in his bed. You and your family had come over for a “get-together” and the victim had said goodnight to the adults who were in the living area. At some point, you came into the victim’s bedroom and said you were coming in for a chat and started rubbing his back. He felt uncomfortable. You then started to move your hand to the victim’s genitals and bottom and fondled his penis (Count 2). The victim thought he may have tensed because you were trying to relax him by telling him not to worry and that everything was okay. A short time later, you rolled the victim onto his back and pulled down his pyjama pants and put his erect penis in your mouth and performed oral sex (Count 3). While this was happening, the victim felt your hand brushing against him and thought that you were masturbating yourself. After a short period of time, you adjusted your pants or zipper and left the room. As you left, you told the…

Continue reading R v Stone

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Stone [2016] ACTSC 231
Case
[2016] ACTSC 231
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Stone, was convicted by a jury of two counts of indecent assault on a male, and subsequently sentenced to imprisonment. The appeal against conviction was dismissed, but the appeal against sentence was allowed in part, with the sentence being set aside and replaced with a new sentence. The offender was represented by counsel and appeared in person. The Crown was represented by a prosecutor from the Department of Public Prosecutions.

The central legal issue was whether the original sentence was manifestly excessive or inadequate, and if so, what an appropriate sentence would be. The court considered the significant delay in reporting the offences, the offender's age, ill health, and rehabilitation efforts, as well as the underlying psychological factors. The court also examined the need for general and specific deterrence, and the impact of the offences on the victims.

The court found that while the original sentence was not manifestly excessive, it was inadequate in certain respects. It was decided that a term of imprisonment, with a balance suspended and a Good Behaviour Order, would be more appropriate. The court took into account the offender's age, ill health, and rehabilitation efforts, as well as the need for general and specific deterrence, and the impact of the offences on the victims. The new sentence imposed was a term of imprisonment with a balance suspended and a Good Behaviour Order.

The court set aside the original sentence and replaced it with a term of imprisonment with a balance suspended and a Good Behaviour Order, to be served concurrently. The offender was also ordered to comply with the conditions of the Good Behaviour Order, which included regular check-ins with a probation officer and participation in a rehabilitation program. The court further ordered that the offender pay a fine of $5,000, and that a conviction record be entered in accordance with the Sentencing Act.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [30]-[38]

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.