Sluggett v The King - [2024] NTCCA 6

CITATION:Sluggett v The King [2024] NTCCA 6
PARTIES:SLUGGETT, Shane
v

THE KING

TITLE OF COURT:  COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
JURISDICTION:  CRIMINAL APPEAL from the SUPREME COURT exercising Territory jurisdiction
FILE NO:CA 10 of 2023 (22131037)
DELIVERED:  17 April 2024
HEARING DATE:  16 April 2024
JUDGMENT OF:  Grant CJ, Brownhill and Riley JJ
CATCHWORDS:

CRIME – Appeals – Appeal against sentence – Misapplication of principle – Manifest inadequacy
Whether sentencing Judge erred in taking into account decision in The Queen v Nabegeyo (2014) 34 NTLR 154 – Nabegeyo concerned standards of punishment for offence of sexual intercourse without consent involving highly intoxicated and/or sleeping victims – Nabegeyo useful yardstick against which to examine appropriate sentence – Whether sentence manifestly excessive – Sentence of imprisonment for five years and eight months not manifestly excessive – Not so far outside range as to bespeak error – Sentencing Judge took into account objective circumstances and relevant subjective circumstances – Applications dismissed.

Criminal Code 1983 (NT) s 192

Barbaro v The Queen (2014) 253 CLR 58, BM v The Queen [2023] NSWCCA 68, Forrest v The Queen [2017] NTCCA 5, Ibbs v The Queen (1987) 163 CLR 447, The Queen v Kilic (2016) 259 CLR 256, The Queen v Nabegeyo (2014) 34 NTLR 154, referred to.
REPRESENTATION:
Counsel
Applicant:JCA Tippett KC
Respondent:  LJ Auld
Solicitors
Applicant:Maleys Barristers & Solicitors
Respondent:  Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions
Judgment category classification:    B
Number of pages:  7

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
OF AUSTRALIA
AT DARWIN
Sluggett v The King [2024] NTCCA 6

CA 10 of 2023 (22131037)
BETWEEN:

SHANE SLUGGETT
Applicant

AND:

THE KING
Respondent

CORAM: GRANT CJ, BROWNHILL & RILEY JJ
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Delivered on 17 April 2024)
THE COURT:

After a trial, a jury found the applicant guilty of one count of sexual intercourse without consent contrary to s 192(3) of the Criminal Code 1983 (NT).
The circumstances of the offending
The circumstances of the offending were that the applicant, who was 50 years old, and the victim, who was 31, had been friends for about a year. The applicant and his partner had a party at their home and the victim attended. She became significantly intoxicated, to the point where she needed help walking. The applicant and another person helped the victim to the spare room and put her to bed, where she fell asleep. Some hours later, the applicant went into the spare bedroom. He inserted at least one finger into the victim’s vagina, digitally penetrating her vagina whilst stimulating her clitoris with his thumb. This lasted for at least some minutes. The victim thought she was being stimulated by her boyfriend and became aroused. When she woke up and saw the applicant, she was shocked and left. The applicant knew the victim was asleep and therefore could not and did not consent. The victim suffered Post Traumatic Stress Disorder as a consequence of 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.

Continue reading Sluggett v The King

Details

AGLC: Sluggett v The King [2024] NTCCA 6
Case: [2024] NTCCA 6
Decision Date: 17 April 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of *Sluggett v The King* concerned an appeal against a conviction for murder. The appellant, Sluggett, was convicted of murder in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The Crown alleged that Sluggett had intentionally caused the death of the deceased.

The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the trial judge had erred in law by failing to adequately direct the jury on the defence of provocation. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the evidence presented at trial was capable of supporting a finding that the appellant had acted under a sudden or temporary loss of self-control induced by provocation, thereby reducing the charge from murder to manslaughter.

The Court of Appeal examined the evidence relating to the events preceding the death, including the deceased's conduct towards the appellant. The judges considered the legal definition of provocation as established in common law and its application to the facts. They concluded that there was sufficient evidence of provocation to warrant a jury's consideration of that defence. Consequently, the court found that the trial judge's directions on provocation were inadequate, as they did not sufficiently explain to the jury how the evidence could support such a defence.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, quashed the conviction for murder, and ordered a new trial.

Orders