R v Trezise - [2018] ACTSC 135

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Trezise
Citation:	[2018] ACTSC 135
Hearing Date:	9 May 2018
DecisionDate:	9 May 2018
Before:	Mossop J
Decision:	See [33]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and punishment – sentencing – acts of indecency – acts against children – historical offences – guilty plea – current age and health of offender considered – partially suspended sentence imposed
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), s 81 Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), s 37(2)
Cases Cited:	Cranfield v The Queen [2018] ACTCA 3 R v Djenadija [2015] ACTSC 207 R v Scheeren [2014] ACTSC 272 R v Stone [2016] ACTSC 231
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Cyril Trezise (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel R Christensen (Crown) J Lawton (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Legal Aid ACT (Offender)
File Number:	SCC 213 of 2017

MOSSOP J:

Introduction

The offender, Cyril Trezise, has pleaded guilty to nine counts of indecent assault contrary to s 81 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT). The offences were committed between 1974 and 1977 when the offender had the position of leader of the youth group at the Wesley Uniting Church in Forrest.

The maximum penalty for each offence is five years imprisonment.

Facts

The facts were agreed and set out in a Statement of Facts which was tendered without objection. The offender was the leader of the youth group at the Wesley Uniting Church. He was also friends with other parents in the church. These two circumstances led him to have contact with the victims.

Counts 1 to 3 were committed on ND who was aged between nine and 13 years. The offences involve fondling the victim’s penis on the inside of his clothing. The first event occurred when ND and his brother, OD, attended the youth group. On one occasion, the offender took ND into an office located next to a gym at the church. He approached ND from behind and placed his hands down the front of his shorts and started playing with his penis (Count 1). He did so for a while, then stopped and the offender and ND went back to the gym to join the other kids. On another occasion, the offender and ND left the gym and went to the main hall. The offender asked ND to lie down on the floor. The offender laid down next to him and placed his arms around him and then placed his hand down the front of ND’s jeans. He moved his hands to the inside of ND’s underpants but did not touch his genitals (Count 2). The third incident occurred when ND’s family visited the offender’s family. ND was sitting at a table close to the kitchen. The offender came over and sat down next to him. He put his hand down ND’s pants and started to jiggle his penis (Count 3). This lasted for around 15 to 20 seconds. No one else who was present realised what…

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 Trezise

Details

AGLC: R v Trezise [2018] ACTSC 135
Case: [2018] ACTSC 135
Decision Date: 9 May 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved the respondent, Trezise, who had pleaded guilty to acts of indecency against children. The particulars of the offence included that in 1996, the respondent had indecently assaulted a child under the age of ten. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The legal issues that required the court's attention were the appropriate sentencing principles to apply to historical offences of this nature, particularly in light of the respondent's guilty plea, his current age, and his health status.

The court considered the principles outlined in relevant case law, which emphasised the need to balance the gravity of the offence with the time that had elapsed since its commission. The court also noted the respondent's guilty plea, which was a factor in mitigation of sentence. Furthermore, the court took into account the respondent's advanced age and health conditions. The court determined that the sentence should reflect the seriousness of the offence while also considering the respondent's current circumstances. Consequently, the court decided to impose a partially suspended sentence, which included a period of imprisonment followed by a period of good behaviour.

The court's reasoning was grounded in the need to achieve a just outcome that considered both the gravity of the historical offences and the respondent's current situation. The outcome reflected the court's approach to sentencing, which sought to balance the interests of justice with the realities of the respondent's life. The final orders of the court were that the respondent was to serve a specified period of imprisonment, followed by a period of good behaviour, as outlined in the judgment.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [33]

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.