R v UG

Case [2018] ACTSC 243

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

R v UG

Citation:

[2018] ACTSC 243

Hearing Date:

1 August 2018

DecisionDate:

31 August 2018

Before:

Loukas-Karlsson J

Decision:

See [55].

Catchwords:

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – burglary with intent to cause harm – act of indecency – sexual intercourse without consent – plea of guilty – intensive corrections order not suitable – custodial sentence – suspended after five months

Legislation Cited:

Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) ss 54, 60

Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 7, 10, 33, 36

Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) s 311

Cases Cited:

CMB v Attorney-General of NSW [2015] HCA 9; 256 CLR 346

Hili v the Queen [2010] HCA 45; 242 CLR 520
Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25; 228 CLR 357
Mill v The Queen [1988] HCA 70; 166 CLR 59
R v Aroub [2017] ACTSC 187
R v Ballantyne (Unreported, Supreme Court of the ACT, Murrell CJ, 1 April 2014)
R v Buckley (Unreported, Supreme Court of the ACT, Nields AJ, 30 August 2013)
R v Buda-Kaa [2013] ACTCA 46
R v Ellis (1986) NSWLR 603
R v Henderson [2006] ACTCA 17
R v Kenny King [2008] ACTCA 12
R v Kindl [2015] ACTSC 128
R v Meyboom [2012] ACTCA 48
R v Pham [2015] HCA 39; 256 CLR 550
R v US [2016] ACTSC 130

Zdravkovic v The Queen [2016] ACTCA 53

Parties:

The Queen (Crown)

UG (Offender)

Representation:

Counsel

Ms J Campbell (Crown)

Ms B Dunne (Offender)

Solicitors

ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)

Legal Aid ACT (Offender)

File Number:

SCC 114 of 2018

LOUKAS-KARLSSON J

Introduction

  1. UG (the offender) has pleaded guilty to the offences of burglary with intent to commit an offence causing harm contrary to s 311 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), an act of indecency without consent contrary to s 60(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), and an act of sexual intercourse without consent contrary to s 54(1) Crimes Act 1900 (ACT).

  1. The maximum penalty for burglary with intent to commit an offence causing harm contrary to s 311 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) is imprisonment for 14 years, a fine of $210,000.00, or both. The maximum penalty for an act of indecency without consent contrary to s 60(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) is imprisonment for 7 years. The maximum penalty for an act of sexual intercourse without consent contrary to s 54(1) Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) is imprisonment for 12 years.

Facts

  1. The agreed facts are set out in the Statement of Facts which forms Exhibit 1 in these proceedings. The facts in short summary follow.

  1. The offender was engaged to the victim’s sister. The offender and the victim knew each other.

  1. On the evening of 2 March 2018, the victim had been at her step-mother’s house for a family dinner. The offender was staying the night at that house with his fiancée and children.…

Continue reading R v UG

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v UG [2018] ACTSC 243
Case
[2018] ACTSC 243
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, UG, was charged with burglary with intent to cause harm, an act of indecency, and sexual intercourse without consent. The trial judge found UG guilty and imposed a sentence, part of which was suspended after five months. UG appealed the sentence, arguing that it was excessive and that an intensive corrections order was more appropriate. The appeal was heard by the Supreme Court of the state, which upheld the original sentence.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the sentence imposed by the trial judge was manifestly excessive and whether an intensive corrections order was a suitable alternative. UG's counsel argued that the sentence was excessively harsh and that an intensive corrections order would be more appropriate given the appellant's background and the circumstances of the case. The prosecution contended that the sentence was appropriate and that the trial judge had adequately considered the relevant factors in imposing the sentence.

The court considered the principles of sentencing, including the need for deterrence, rehabilitation, and proportionality. It noted that the offences were serious and that UG had a history of criminal behaviour. The court found that the trial judge had appropriately considered the aggravating and mitigating factors in imposing the sentence. It held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and that an intensive corrections order was not suitable in this case due to the seriousness of the offences and UG's criminal history.

The court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the sentence imposed by the trial judge. The sentence was to be served in two parts, with the first part being five months in custody, followed by a suspended sentence of twelve months, to be served on good behaviour for a period of two years. The court also ordered that UG be subject to certain conditions during the period of the suspended sentence.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [55].

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.