District Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: R v William James Clarke [2014] NSWDC 182 Hearing dates: 21 October 2014 Decision date: 29 October 2014 Jurisdiction: Criminal Before: Mahony SC DCJ Decision: Custodial sentence imposed; For Orders see [63]
Catchwords: Aggravated sexual intercourse without consent with a person less than 16 years of age Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999Cases Cited: Bugmy v R (2013) 302 ALR 192
Cahadi v The Queen (2007) 168 A Crim R 41
Kennedy v R [2010] NSWCCA 260
Pearce v R 1998 194 CLR 610
R v Fernando (1992) 76 A CrimR 58
R v King [2009] NSWCCA 117
Veen v R No. 2 (1998) Vol 164 CLR 465Category: Sentence Parties: Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
William Clarke (Offender)Representation: A Baker (Crown)
A Evers (Offender)
File Number(s): 14/94517 Publication restriction: Order pursuant to s 7 of Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act 2010 in respect of the name of the victim
REMARKS ON SENTENCE
In this matter the offender appeared before me at Taree District Court on 21 October 2014 in respect of one offence pursuant to s 61J(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 of aggravated sexual intercourse without consent with a person less than 16 years of age. The offence was committed on 12 March 2014 and carries a maximum penalty of 20 years imprisonment and a standard non-parole period of 10 years imprisonment.
A plea of guilty was entered by the offender on 22 July 2014. It is agreed that that was the earliest possible opportunity to enter a plea and that he is entitled to a 25% utilitarian discount on sentence for this offence.
The offender was arrested on 28 March 2014 and has been in custody since that date.
Agreed Facts
A fair summary of the agreed facts are that the victim, IK (aged 15 years) and the offender, who was at the time of the offence 29 years of age, are distantly related and resided in Kempsey a short distance from each other. At the time of the offence the offender was living with his mother. He had previously been on parole which was revoked on 18 February 2014 and expired on 25 February 2014.
The victim attended at the offender's house at approximately 9pm on 12 March 2014 to ask if she could use his phone. Also present at that residence was the offender's mother and partner, who were both heavily intoxicated.
The victim was informed that the mobile phone of the offender had no battery and it had to be charged. She waited at the location for a couple of hours for that to happen and whilst she was there she was given two cans of a pre-mixed alcoholic beverage known as Jack Daniels and coke which she drank from a glass. The agreed facts state that the victim consumed those drinks and two more later in the evening.
The victim and the offender walked into the offender's bedroom…
Continue reading R v William James Clarke
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v William James Clarke [2014] NSWDC 182
- Case
- [2014] NSWDC 182
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues for the court to determine were whether the Crown had established the elements of the offence beyond reasonable doubt, specifically whether the sexual acts occurred without the victim's consent and whether the victim was under 16 years of age at the time of the offence. Additionally, the court needed to consider whether the offence was aggravated by the victim's vulnerability and the defendant's abuse of a position of trust.
The court carefully examined the evidence presented by both parties, including witness testimonies, medical reports, and the defendant's admissions. In delivering the judgment, the court found that the Crown had successfully demonstrated all the required elements of the offence. The court accepted that the victim was under 16 years old and that she did not consent to the sexual acts. The court also found that the offence was indeed aggravated by the defendant's position of trust over the victim. Based on these findings, the court concluded that Clarke was guilty of the offence as charged. The court imposed a custodial sentence on Clarke, with specific details of the sentence outlined in the judgment at paragraph [63].
Orders
Orders of the court
Custodial sentence imposed; For Orders see [63]
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.