Scott Adam Robinson v The Queen - [2004] ACTCA 1

SCOTT ADAM ROBINSON v THE QUEEN [2004] ACTCA 1 (25 February 2004)

CRIMINAL LAW – Jurisdiction, Practice & Procedure - Reasons to be given for imprisonment being the appropriate penalty – Nature of reasons required – Factors to be taken into account – circumstances given sufficient weight by trial judge – original sentence stands.

Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) s 345

Periodic Detention Act 1995

Dinsdale v The Queen (2000) 202 CLR 321

Wong v The Queen (2001) 207 CLR 584

R v O’Keefe [1969] 2 QB 29

R v Palliaer (1983) 235 SASR 569

Soulemenzis v Dudley (Holdings) Pty Ltd (1987) 10 NSWLR 247

ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

No. ACTCA 36 - 2003
No. SCC 55 of 2003

Judges: Gray, Connolly and Gyles JJ
Court of Appeal of the Australian Capital Territory
Date: 25 February 2004

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE       )          No. ACTCA 36 - 2003
  )          No. SCC 55 of   2003
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY    )
  )

COURT OF APPEAL )

ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

BETWEEN: SCOTT ADAM ROBINSON
Appellant

AND: THE QUEEN
Respondent

ORDER

Judges:  Gray, Connolly and Gyles JJ
Date of order:  16 February 2004
Date of judgment:  25 February 2004
Place:  Canberra

THE COURT ORDERED THAT:

The appeal be dismissed.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE       )          No. ACTCA 36 - 2003
  )          No. SCC 55 of 2003
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY    )
  )

COURT OF APPEAL )

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

BETWEEN:SCOTT ADAM ROBINSON
Appellant

AND:THE QUEEN
Respondent

Judges:  Gray, Connolly and Gyles JJ
Date of order:  16 February 2004
Date of judgment:  25 February 2004
Place:  Canberra

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

THE COURT:

The appellant appeals against the severity of a sentence imposed upon by him on 31 October 2003 consequential upon his plea of guilty to one count of engaging in sexual intercourse with a 13 year old girl on 30 March 2003. He was sentenced to four years imprisonment to be suspended after a period of 12 months upon entering into a good behaviour bond for a term of three years in the sum of $1000.00 and upon condition that he accept supervision of the Director of Adult Corrective Services.

The facts

The facts giving rise to the sentence under appeal relate to an incident which occurred after the appellant had picked up the complainant and her friend and taken them for a drive shortly after 10 o’clock at night. The car was parked off the Monaro Highway in a truck stop. After the complainant’s friend left the car the appellant, apparently after some intimacy had taken place, said to the complainant “will you suck my cock”. The complainant said “no” but the request was repeated a number of times and the complainant eventually complied. The complainant later stated that she had been scared at the time, as she had not previously…

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 Scott Adam Robinson v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Scott Adam Robinson v The Queen [2004] ACTCA 1
Case: [2004] ACTCA 1
Decision Date: 25 February 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Scott Adam Robinson, appealed against a sentence imposed by the District Court of Queensland. The appeal concerned the adequacy of the reasons provided by the sentencing judge for imposing a term of imprisonment.

The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the sentencing judge had given sufficient weight to the circumstances of the offence and the offender when determining that imprisonment was the appropriate penalty. This required the court to consider the nature of the reasons that must be articulated by a sentencing judge to justify a custodial sentence.

The Court of Appeal held that the sentencing judge had adequately considered the relevant factors. The judge had acknowledged the objective seriousness of the offence and the applicant's criminal history, and had also taken into account mitigating factors presented on behalf of the applicant. The court found that the reasons provided, while not exhaustive, were sufficient to demonstrate that the judge had properly exercised their discretion and that imprisonment was the appropriate sentence in the circumstances. The original sentence was therefore upheld.

Orders