R v Versteeg (No 2) - [2020] ACTSC 273

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Versteeg (No 2)
Citation:	[2020] ACTSC 273
Hearing Date:	11 September 2020
DecisionDate:	25 September 2020
Before:	Burns J
Decision:	See [56]–[60]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – sexual intercourse without consent – act of indecency without consent – pleas of guilty – disputed facts hearing for sexual intercourse without consent charge – moral culpability – relevance of offender’s ADHD and cannabis use at time of offending – consideration of Intensive Correction Order – consideration of general and specific deterrence – relevance of offender’s minimisation of offending
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) ss 54(1), 60(1)
Cases Cited: Parties:	R v Versteeg [2020] ACTSC 180 The Queen (Crown) Jake Elias Versteeg (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel R Christensen (Crown) M Jones (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Kamy Saeedi Law (Offender)
File Number:	SCC 320 of 2019

BURNS J:

Jake Versteeg, on 10 June 2020 you entered pleas of guilty to one charge of engaging in sexual intercourse without consent contrary to s 54(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) (the Crimes Act) and one charge of committing an act of indecency without consent contrary to s 60(1) of the Crimes Act.

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

Each of these offences occurred on 3 June 2018. You were originally charged with these two offences in the ACT Magistrates Court on 1 July 2019, having been arrested by police on 30 June 2019. You entered pleas of not guilty in the ACT Magistrates Court and on 28 November 2019 you were committed for trial to this Court.

On 30 January 2020, the Crown filed an indictment containing one charge of engaging in sexual intercourse without consent and two charges of committing an act of indecency without consent. On 24 February 2020, Murrell CJ listed the charges for trial commencing in the week of 8 June 2020. The trial was listed to commence before me on 9 June 2020 as a judge alone trial.

Negotiations took place between your counsel and counsel for the Crown on the morning of 9 June 2020, following which I was advised that you would plead guilty to two charges on the indictment and that there would be a disputed facts hearing.

On 10 June 2020 you were arraigned on Counts 1 and 3 on the indictment, being charges of engaging in sexual intercourse without consent and committing an act of indecency without consent respectively. You entered pleas of guilty.

After hearing evidence on 10 and 11 June 2020, I adjourned the matter until

8 July 2020. On that date, I handed down my findings of fact and my associated reasons. At the request of your counsel, I ordered that you be assessed for an

Intensive Correction Order. The…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Versteeg (No 2) and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2020] ACTSC 273
Decision Date: 25 September 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Versteeg (No 2) involved the respondent, Versteeg, who had been charged with multiple offences including sexual intercourse without consent and acts of indecency without consent. The dispute arose from the sentencing process, where Versteeg had previously pleaded guilty to these charges. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The court needed to determine the appropriate sentence considering the facts of the case, including the disputed facts concerning the charge of sexual intercourse without consent, and the mitigating factors presented by the defence such as the respondent's ADHD and cannabis use at the time of the offences.

The primary legal issue the court had to decide was the appropriate sentence for Versteeg, taking into account the nature of the offences, the circumstances under which they were committed, and the relevant mitigating factors. The court considered the principles of general and specific deterrence in determining the sentence. It also examined the relevance of Versteeg's ADHD and cannabis use at the time of the offending, as well as the moral culpability of the respondent, and whether an Intensive Correction Order was appropriate.

The court carefully weighed the aggravating and mitigating factors before deciding on the sentence. It took into account Versteeg's minimisation of the offending and the need to ensure that the sentence reflected the gravity of the crimes. After considering all the evidence and arguments, the court determined the appropriate sentence for Versteeg. The court considered it necessary to impose a sentence that served the purposes of punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation, while also considering the specific circumstances of the case.

The final orders were made at [56]–[60], where the court detailed the specific sentence imposed on Versteeg, taking into account all the factors discussed during the hearing.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [56]–[60]

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.