R v Summerfield - [2017] ACTSC 321

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Summerfield
Citation:	[2017] ACTSC 321
Hearing Date:	23 October 2017
DecisionDate:	23 October 2017
Before:	Mossop J
Decision:	See [31]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and punishment – sentencing – sexual intercourse with a young person under the age of 16 years – offender and victims’ in relationship – significant age difference between offender and victims’ – offender impregnated one of the victims’ – diagnosis of a mild intellectual disorder reduces moral culpability – significant criminal history for a young offender – plea of guilty – sentenced to a period of imprisonment
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), s 55(2)
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Luke Summerfield (Defendant)
Representation:	Counsel Mr M Thomas (Crown) Ms B Dunne (Defendant)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Legal Aid ACT (Defendant)
File Number:	SCC 263 of 2017

MOSSOP J:

Introduction

The offender has pleaded guilty to five counts of sexual intercourse with a person under the age of 16 years. These offences arise from brief relationships with two girls. Each offence is contrary to s 55(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) and carries a maximum penalty of 14 years’ imprisonment.

Facts

The charges which the offender has pleaded guilty arise from his relationships with two girls who are referred to in these reasons as TT and TB respectively. TT was 15 years old at the time of the offences and TB was 13 years old at the time of the offences. The relationships involved sexual intercourse, including penile-vaginal sexual intercourse without the protection of a condom. One of the victims’, TB, became pregnant as a result of the offending conduct and had a termination.

Offences involving TT

The offender initially contacted TT via Facebook Messenger on 27 January 2016, and, from 31 January 2016, exchanged telephone calls and text messages. TT told the offender that she was 15 years old. The parties agree that she was in fact 15 years old. Her parents agreed that the offender could visit and stay overnight at their home. On the first visit, the offender and TT watched movies in the lounge room. After TT’s parents had gone to sleep, the offender and TT had penile-vaginal sexual intercourse. The offender did not use a condom and ejaculated. This gives rise to charge CC2017/4208. The following morning TT and the offender had sexual intercourse in her bedroom. This gives rise to charge CC2017/4209.

Subsequently at an “open mic night” at Garema Place, the offender introduced TT to a friend of his. That friend subsequently contacted the offender via Facebook and said that he should “dump her” because he alleged she was 13 years old. After a number of messages, the offender replied “Bro she loves me and I love her.”

On another visit to TT’s home, the offender asked her to give him a “blow job”. She did so until he ejaculated on her chest/breasts. TT agreed to the offender’s…

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 Summerfield

Details

AGLC: R v Summerfield [2017] ACTSC 321
Case: [2017] ACTSC 321
Decision Date: 23 October 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Summerfield, the respondent, Summerfield, was convicted of engaging in sexual intercourse with a victim who was under the age of 16 years. The court was required to determine an appropriate sentence for the respondent. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The main legal issues before the court were the appropriate weight to be given to the significant age difference between the respondent and the victim, the fact that the respondent was in a relationship with the victim, and the respondent's diagnosis of a mild intellectual disorder. Additionally, the court considered the respondent's significant criminal history and his guilty plea.

The court found that the significant age difference between the respondent and the victim was a relevant factor in determining the sentence. The court also found that the fact that the respondent was in a relationship with the victim was relevant to the degree of moral culpability. However, the court determined that the diagnosis of a mild intellectual disorder reduced the respondent's moral culpability. The court also considered the respondent's significant criminal history and his guilty plea, which were both mitigating factors. Ultimately, the court determined that a sentence of imprisonment was necessary to achieve the purposes of punishment and deterrence.

The court sentenced the respondent to a period of imprisonment, taking into account all the relevant factors. The court found that the appropriate sentence was one that balanced the need for punishment and deterrence with the mitigating factors present in the case. The court also considered the impact of the sentence on the victim and the community. The court determined that a period of imprisonment was the appropriate sentence for the respondent's offending.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [31]

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.