The Queen v Leach, Martin

[1979] FCA 125

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTR2.LIA

N.7 .

o........ .......DISTRICT REGISTRY

l ~ ~ N E C R L

........ .......	DIVISION
N o of Act ion of ........ .

qflrnrJ L G A W

TI T LE OF ACTION .m. .w%s.. . *:?.<. ........ ........ ........ ........ .....

14. 11. 7q 23. 11 79

D a t e ( s ) of h e a r i n g ........ ........ ..... Date judgmenc d e l i v e r e d ........ ..

Counsel. and	(	........ ........ ........ ........ ........ .. ..._.	W Q	F-	U L	P. C A U E W t J	.
(
(

S o l i c i t o r s f o r (

3. w 9 n a s

Counsel and	(	........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ....
( (

S o l i c i t o r s	f o r	(
(

.-G U /U&

Signed ........ ........ ........ ........ .....

3. 12 7'?.

Date : ........ ........ ..

(NO'rE: To he i icspatched t o I ' r incipal licg.1.~ l r y , Sydney ior

on-forvard lng t o l a w publishers)

CATCHWORDS

Crirnlnal law - croom armed1 agalnst leniency of sentence - rape at knlfe point - breaking and entering and commlttlng a felony (rape) - suspended sentence inadequate - retributive

and deterrent aspects glven lnsufficlent weight - imprisonment

substituted for suspended sentence

The Queen v. Martin Leach

NTG No.22 of 1979.

Corarn: St-John, Fisher, and Gallop JJ.

Darwin

23 November, 1979.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA 1 1

NORTHERN TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY 1 No NTG 22 of 1979.

1

GENERAL DIVISION 1

BETWEEN : THE QUEEN

Appellant

AND : MARTIN LEACH

Respondent

ORDER

JUDGES MAKING ORDER :	St.John, Fisher and Gallop JJ.
DATE OF ORDER :	23 November, 1979
WHERE MADE :	Darwin
The Court orders that:

1. The appeal is allowed.

2. The respondent is imprisoned on each charge for a perlod of three years, such sentences to be served concurrently with a non-parole period of one year and six months.

I N THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA 1 1

NORTHERN TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY ) No. NTG 2 2 o f 1979.

1

GENERAL DIVISION 1

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREPIE COURT

OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY OF

AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN :

THE QUEEN

Appel lant

AND :

MARTIN LEACH

Respondent

23 November, 1979 ST.JOHN, FISHER AND GALLOP JJ.

Thls i s a Cror-rn appea l a g a i n s t sen tence imposed by t h e Supreme

Court of t h e Northern Territory of A u s t r a l i a f o l l o v ~ i n g

conv ic t ions on t h e j u r y ' s v e r d i c t s a t t h e respondent ' s t r i a l

on an ind ic tment charg ing him wi th t h e fo l lowing o f f ences :

i

Count 1:	Rape on 3 May,	1979 a t Room 10 , 2 Searcy S t r e e t ,	I !
I

Darwin of Sandra Ann Gibbs.

I

Count 2: Rape on t h e same n i g h t a t Room 6 , 2 Searcy S t r e e t ,

Daniin of t h e same woman. ' 1

Count 3 .

Burglary on the same n igh t a t Darwin i n t h a t he

broke and entered the dwelling house of the same

woman namely Room 10, with i n t e n t t o commit a

felony there in , namely rape.

Count 4 :

Breaking and enter ing and c o m i t t i n g a felony i n

t h a t he broke and entered the dr-relling house of the

same woman and committed a felony there in namely

rape upon the same woman.

Upon h i s arraignment, the respondent pleaded not g u i l t y t o

each charge. The jury returned verd ic t s of g u i l t y of the

rape a l leged i n Count 1, not g u i l t y of the rape m Count 2 ,

not g u i l t y of the charge of burglary a l leged i n Count 3 and

g u i l t y of the charge.of breaking and enter ing and committing

a felony al leged i n Count 4. On the count of rape on which the

jury found the respondent g u i l t y , the court imposed a sentence

of th ree years ' imprisonment wi th hard labour and on the

count of breaking and enter ing and committing a felony i n the dwelling house the court imposed a sentence of tsielve months' imprisonment, both sentences t o be served concurrently, and

f ixed a non-parole period of two years . The court suspended

the operat ion of those sentences upon the respondent enter ing

i n to a recognisance s e l f i n the sum of $500 with one sure ty of

a s imi la r amount, conditioned t h a t he be of good behaviour f o r

a period of th ree years , t h a t he submit himself t o the

supervision of a probation o f f i c e r and t h a t during the period

of the th ree years he seek such treatment a s D r Lopes may

advise and obey h i s d i rec t ions as t o such treatment.

~ h c grounds o f appca l r e l i e d upon by t h e Crown a s set o u t in

t h e n o t i c e o f appea l h e r e i n a r e t h a t t h e l e a r n e d t r i a l judge

erred i n :

\ a ) imposing a m a n i f e s t l y inadequa te sen tence upon t h e

respondent ;

rb) lmposing a sen tence s o l e n i e n t t h a t it d ~ d n o t accord

wi th t h e g e n e r a l moral s e n s e o f t h e community;

\ c ) imposing a s en t ence s o l e n i e n t t h a t it d i d n o t g i v e

proper c o n s i d e r a t i o n t o t h e d e t e r r e n t a s p e c t o f sen tenc ing ;

id) f a i l i n g t o g i v e proper c o n s i d e r a t i o n t o t h e r e t r i b u t i v e

a s p e c t of s en t enc ing ;

re) f a i l i n g t o g i v e proper r e g a r d t o t h e respondent ' s p r i o r

conv ic t ions . . .

The f a c t s proved by t h e Crown and accep ted by t h e j u ry i n t h e i r

v e r d i c t s o f g u i l t y on t h e 1st and 4 th Counts w e r e c l e a r and t h e

s en t enc ing judge accep ted t h e necessary i m p l i c a t i o n o f t h o s e

f a c t s . It was necessary f o r him t o do s o because t h e r e 17as a

range of p e n a l t i e s a v a i l a b l e . The maximum p e n a l t y p r e s c r i b e d

f o r bo th these o f f e n c e s i s imprisonment f o r l i f e w i th hard

labour . Such a p e n a l t y r e f l e c t s t h e s e r i o u s n e s s o f t h e cr imes.

The judge ' s t a s k was t o a s s e s s t h e g r a v i t y o f t h e crimes

committed and t o p l a c e them somewhere i n t h e s c a l e of a l l cr imes

of r a p e and bu rg l a ry t o a s c e r t a i n whether t h e y were more o r l e s s

s e r i o u s ca ses . I n o t h e r words h i s t a s k was t o determine t h e

real c u l p a b i l i t y of t h e respondent s o a s t o dec ide whether he

I

should be given a de te rmina te s en t ence w i t h a s p e c i f i c a t i o n of t

some non-parole p e r l o d , a s opposed t o t h e i nde t e rmina t e sen tence

of l i f e imprisonment. The most s eve re p e n a l t y o f l i f e

imprisonment should be r e se rved f o r t h e m o s t s e r i o u s ca ses .

The f a c t s proved by t h e Crown and accepted by t h e j u ry i n

r e l a t i o n t o t h e 1st and 4 th Counts were a s fol lows. The

respondent and t h e p r o s e c u t r i x w e r e l i v i n g i n s e p a r a t e rooms a t

a boarding house a t 2 Searcy S t r e e t , Darwin. They were acqua in ted

w i t h each o t h e r b u t , it appears , were n o t p a r t i c u l a r l y good

f r i e n d s . The p r o s e c u t r i x was 18 y e a r s o f age on 3 Hay, 1979 and

t h e respondent was 20 y e a r s o f age. A f t e r she a r r i v e d home from

work on t h a t day, t h e p r o s e c u t r i x accepted an i n v i t a t i o n from t h e

respondent t o have c o f f e e i n h i s room s o t h a t he could t a l k t o

!

h e r about h i s w i f e having r e c e n t l y l e f t him. \Actua l ly t h e lady

r e f e r r e d t o a t t h a t s t a g e was n o t h i s w i f e b u t subsequent ly and

a f t e r t h e commission o f t h e o f f e n c e s t h e respondent and t h e lady

r e f e r r e d t o were r e c o n c i l e d and married.) The p r o s e c u t r i x and

t h e respondent had c o f f e e i n - t h e r e sponden t ' s room from about

5.45 p.m. u n t i l 6.45 p.m. o r t he reabou t s . She then l e f t t h e

respondent and ultimately a r r i v e d back a t h e r own room. During

t h e evening t h e respondent a t t empted t o induce t h e p r o s e c u t r i x

t o come back t o h i s room by p u t t i n g n o t e s through t h e louvres t o

h e r room. There w e r e about s i x such i n v i t a t i o n s b u t she ignored

them. She went t o bed s h o r t l y a f t e r midnight. A t about 5 a.m.

i

t h e respondent broke and e n t e r e d h e r room by manipulat ing t h e

lock t o t h e room ~ 7 1 t h a k n i f e . On e n t e r i n g he v e n t t o t h e bed

where t h e p r o s e c u t r i x was s l e e p i n g and p u t h l s hand over h e r

mouth and a k n i f e t o h e r t h r o a t . When she awoke, she managed

t o ask what i t was t h a t t h e respondent wanted and he took h i s

hand from h e r mouth. There w a s then some s h o r t conversa t ion and

t h e respondent k i s s e d and ca re s sed t h e p r o s e c u t r i x and t r i e d t o

. . . / 5

remove h e r p a n t s , which was t h e on ly c l o t h i n g t h a t she was

v e a r i n g a t t h e t i m e . She r e s i s t e d him and a t one s t a g e he t r i e d

t o c u t t h e p a n t s o f f w i th t h e kn i f e . The g i r l r7as very

f r i g h t e n e d and made it p l a i n t o t h e accused t h a t she d i d n o t

want t o have i n t e r c o u r s e w i t h him. So as t o c r e a t e an opportunity

t o escape s h e t o l d t h e accused t h a t she would remove t h e p a n t s

h e r s e l f . A t t h e same t i m e she t r i e d t o g e t t h e k n i f e b u t it

s l i p p e d and f e l l t o t h e f l o o r . She t r i e d t o go t o t h e door, bu t

he s tepped i n f r o n t o f h e r and pushed h e r back on t h e bed. A s

he d i d so h e r p a n t s came o f f . H e t hen f o r c i b l y had i n t e r c o u r s e

I

w i t h t h e g l r l . A f t e r the i n t e r c o u r s e t h e respondent asked t h e

I

g i r l if she v~ou ld come t o h i s room t o t a l k t o him about h i s break

i

I

r up wi th h i s ' w i f e ' . The d re s sed h e r e s e l f i n a sa rong , p icked

I I up h e r key and went t o t h e r e s p o n d e n t ' s room e i t h e r w i t h him o r

ahead o f him. The evidence is n o t c l e a r whether t hey went

i t o g e t h e r o r s e p a r a t e l y . When t h e y were i n t h e respondent ' s room

1 and a f t e r some f u r t h e r d i s c u s s i o n , a f u r t h e r a c t o f i n t e r c o u r s e

I took p l ace . Th i s was t h e a c t which founded t h e second charge of

r ape a l l e g e d i n t h e ind ic tment and t h e charge o f which t h e

respondent was a c q u i t t e d by t h e ju ry . A s p a r t o f t h e Crown case

l e a d i n g t o t h e r e sponden t ' s conv ic t ions f o r r ape and break ing and

e n t e r i n g t h e dwel l ing house and committing t h e fe lony o f r ape

t h e r e i n \ t h e 1st and 4 th Coun t s ) , t h e l u r y had be fo re it evidence

of a r eco rd o f i n t e r v i e w between t h e respondent and Detective

Constable Lethbr idge conducted on 4 May, 1979 . I n t h a t i n t e rv i ew

t h e respondent admi t ted t h a t he had broken and e n t e r e d t h e g i r l ' s

bedroom by s l i p p i n g t h e c a t c h on t h e bedroom door w i th t h e a i d

o f t h e k n i f e , e n t e r e d t h e bedroom, p u t h i s hand over h e r mouth l

i n case she screamed, and had t h e k n i f e i n h i s hand h e l d about

I

I

I	. . ./6	I
I

I

e i g h t inches from h e r body. H e admi t ted t h a t she had submit ted t o

s e x u a l i n t e r c o u r s e t h e first t i m e i n h e r room because he had t h e

k n i f e i n h i s hand. The k n i f e which was produced by t h e Crown on

t h e hea r ing o f t h e appea l was a l a r g e pocket-knife measuring

seven inches long i n i t s extended p o s i t i o n wi th a very sha rp p o i n t .

The respondent ' s own assessment t o p o l i c e was t h a t she had

submit ted through f e a r . He admit ted t h a t t h e g i r l was f r i g h t e n e d ,

t h a t he had raped h e r and i n va r ious o t h e r ways desc r ibed t h e a c t

of i n t e r c o u r s e i n h e r room a s having taken p l a c e w i thou t h e r

consen t and because she was f r i gh t ened . The respondent gave sworn

evidence b e f o r e t h e j u r y , i n which he a l l e g e d t h a t he had broken

and e n t e r e d t h e g i r l ' s room by us ing t h e k n i f e t o s l i p t h e c a t c h

I

r

on t h e door. He e n t e r e d t h e room, approached h e r bed and because I

he thought she was going t o scream he covered h e r mouth w i t h h i s

hand and was ho ld ing t h e k n i f e i n h i s l e f t hand, probably e i g h t

o r twelve inches away from h e r body. H e denied it was anywhere

I

nea r h e r neck.	H e took h i s hand away when she had calmed down.
H i s defence v ~ a s	t h a t t h e g i r l n o t on ly consented t o i n t e r c o u r s e , I

b u t was a ve ry a c t i v e and co-operat ive p a r t n e r . This ve r s ion o f

t h e f a c t s was obvious ly r e j e c t e d by t h e ju ry .

i

I n h i s remarks on pas s lng sen tence t h e l e a r n e d Chief J u s t i c e d i d

n o t a d v e r t t o a l l t h e f a c t s which must have been found by t h e

j u ry , b u t adve r t ed s u f f i c i e n t l y t o such f a c t s as were i m p l i c i t

i n t h e v e r d i c t s . There i s no th ing i n what H i s Honour s a i d which

could be cons t rued a s be lng l n c o n s l s t e n t w l t h t h e j u r y ' s v e r d l c t .

H i s remarks w e r e :

"You w e r e l i v l n g i n a boarding house i n Darwin i n which t h e

p r o s e c u t r i x a l s o l i v e d .

"Af t e r t r y l n g t o i n t e r e s t h e r and at tract h e r attentions I n

r a t h e r c h i l d i s h ways, you armed y o u r s e l f w i th a k n i f e trhlch

you used t o s p r i n g t h e lock on t h e p r o s e c u t r i x ' s door. The

v e r d i c t of t h e j u r y means t h a t a t t h e t i m e you broke i n you

had no i n t e n t i o n of committing a f e lony b u t t h a t a f t e r you

e n t e r e d t h e room, t h a t i n t e n t i o n was formed. You t h r e a t e n e d

t h e g i r l w i th t h e k n i f e and raped h e r .

Not long a f t e rwards , t h e g i r l accompanied you t o your own

room u p s t a i r s where a f u r t h e r a c t o f i n t e r c o u r s e occur red .

The j u r y found t h a t t h i s subsequent a c t d i d n o t constitute

rape , which v e r d i c t m i t i g a t e s , t o some e x t e n t , t h e

s e r i o u s n e s s	o f	t h e . f i r s t	one."
. .

I n The Queen v. T a i t and B a r t l e y (1979) 24 A.L.R. 473 t h e c o u r t

s e t o u t t h e p r i n c i p l e s governing t h e review of t h e s en t enc ing

d i s c r e t i o n p a r t i c u l a r l y i n t h e c a s e o f an appea l by t h e Crown on

t h e ground t h a t t h e s en t ence is inadequate . The p r i n c i p l e s were

repea t ed i n The Queen v. H a l l \an unrepor ted d e c i s i o n d e l i v e r e d

on 2 8 June , 1979) .

It i s unnecessary t o r e p e a t what w a s set o u t i n t h o s e ca ses . I t

i s s u f f i c i e n t t o observe t h a t t h e c o u r t w i l l on ly I n t e r f e r e i f it

be shown t h a t t h e s en t enc ing judge was i n e r r o r i n a c t i n g on a

wrong p r i n c i p l e o r i n misunderstanding o r wrongly a s s e s s i n g some

s a l i e n t f e a t u r e o f t h e evidence. The e r r o r may appear i n what

t h e judge s a i d i n t h e proceedings o r t h e s en t ence I t s e l f may be

s o exces s ive o r Inadequate as t o man i f e s t such e r r o r . A s

i n d i c a t e d i n t h o s e c a s e s , t h e r e l e v a n t p r o v i s i o n s of t h e Fede ra l

Court of A u s t r a l i a Act do n o t p rov ide any b a s l s f o r d i s t i n g u i s h i n g

between t h e g e n e r a l p r l n c l p l e s t o be a p p l i e d by t h e c o u r t on a

Crown appea l a g a i n s t sen tence and t h e p r i n c i p l e s t o b e app l i ed

on an appea l a g a i n s t sen tence by a convic ted person. There a r e

I n Crown appea l s s p e c i a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n s which may apply , b u t

none o f t h o s e s p e c i a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n s a p p l i e s i n t h e c i rcumstances

o f t h l s appea l (see Harris v. R. (1954) 90 C.L.R. 652 which was

fol lowed by t h i s c o u r t i n IZovac v. R. (1977) 15 A.L.R. 637, c i t ~ n g

Cranssen v. R. (1936) 55 C.L.R. 509 and see g e n e r a l l y Skinner v. R.

(1913) 16 C.L.R. 336 a t 339-34U;R. v. Withers (1925) 25 S.R. (N.S.W.)

382 a t 394; Whi t taker v. R. (1928) 4 1 C.L.R. 230 a t 249; I .

G r i f f l t h s v. R. (1977) 15 A.L.R. 1 a t 15-17).

I n t h e l l g h t o f t h e s e p r i n c i p l e s w e . . t u r n t o t h e e x e r c i s e o f t h e

sentencing d i s c r e t i o n i n t h e p r e s e n t appeal . The Crown submitted

t h a t t h e l e a r n e d sen tenc ing judge imposed sen tences s o m a n i f e s t l y

inadequate a s t o c a l l f o r t h e i n t e r v e n t i o n o f t h i s c o u r t . It w a s

submi t ted t h a t H i s Honour's error is man i f e s t from t h e i n h e r e n t

n a t u r e o f t h e o f f e n c e s themselves , t h e c i rcumstances surrounding

t h e commission o f t h e o f f e n c e s , t h e c h a r a c t e r o f t h e respondent ,

p a r t i c u l a r l y when c o n s i d e r a t i o n i s given t o h i s p r i o r conv ic t ions

and t h e f a i l u r e t o a d v e r t t o t h e r e t r i b u t i v e and d e t e r r e n t a s p e c t s

o f punishment. The t h r u s t of t h e Crown's submission was t h a t HIS

Honour gave t o o much weight t o t h e r e fo rma t ive a s p e c t o f

punishmenb and i n s u f f i c i e n t weight t o t h e r e t r i b u t i v e and d e t e r r e n t

a s p e c t s . The f a c t s o f t h e o f f e n c e s proved by t h e Crown and

accepted by t h e j u r y a r e grave indeed. H i s Honour deemed it

a p p r o p r i a t e t o c o n s i d e r t h e j u r y ' s v e r d i c t o f n o t g u i l t y i n r e s p e c t

o f t h e second count i n h i s de t e rmina t ion o f t h e o f f ences of which

t h e respondent had been found g u i l t y . A s t o t h i s m a t t e r , H i s

Honour s a i d :

" t h e j u ry found t h a t t h r s subsequent a c t d i d n o t c o n s t i t u t e

r a p e , rrhich v e r d i c t m i t i g a t e s , t o some e x t e n t , t h e

s e r i o u s n e s s o f t h e f i r s t one".

P l a i n it i s t h a t t h e du ty of t h e s en t enc ing judge i s t o form h i s

own view o f t h e f a c t s and t o dec ide how s e r i o u s t h e crime i s t h a t

has been committed and how s e v e r e l y o r how l e n i e n t l y he should

d e a l w i t h t h e o f f ende r . The l e a r n e d judge m forming h i s view

o f t h e f a c t s , must n o t , o f cou r se , form a view which c o n f l i c t s

w i t h t h e v e r d i c t of t h e l u r y , bu t s o long a s he keeps w i t h i n

t h o s e l i m i t s it i s f o r him and fo r him a lone t o form h i s

judgmenk o f t h e f a c t s iR . .v . Webb l19711 V.R. 147 a t Pages 152-153

c i t i n g R. v. ~ a r r i s t 1 9 6 1 ) V.R. 236 a t 237). I n t h e p r e s e n t ca se

t h e j u ry was n o t s a t i s f i e d beyond reasonable doubt t h a t t h e

respondent had raped t h e g i r l i n h i s room. WJat H i s Honour meant

by h i s obse rva t ion t h a t t h e v e r d i c t m i t i g a t e s t o some e x t e n t t h e

s e r i o u s n e s s o f t h e r ape o f which he w a s convic ted was t h a t t h e

harm, p h y s i c a l o r p sycho log ica l , t o t h e g i r l could n o t have been

very g r e a t , a s w i t h i n a very s h o r t t ime a f t e r t h a t o f f ence had

been committed upon h e r t h e g i r l engaged i n sexua l i n t e r c o u r s e

w i t h t h e respondent i n circumstances which were i n s u f f i c i e n t t o I

war ran t a conv ic t ion . Indeed, i n h i s remarks on sen t ence , t h e i

l e a r n e d judge a t a l a t e r p o i n t s a i d t h a t t h e p r o s e c u t r i x s u f f e r e d

l i t t l e , i f any, p h y s i c a l harm al though she must have been

f r i g h t e n e d . This f i n d i n g was f avourab le t o t h e respondent and

was c e r t a i n l y suppor t ab l e by t h e evidence and t h e j u r y ' s v e r d i c t

o f a c q u i t t a l on t h e second count.

One o f t h e arguments advanced on t h e h e a r i n g of t h i s appea l by

t h e Crown w a s t h a t H i s Honour e r r e d i n i gno r ing t h e p r i o r

conv ic t ions o f t h e respondent. P a r t o f t h e m a t e r i a l produced

by t h e Crovm f o r t h e a s s i s t a n c e o f t h e s en t enc ing judge was a

document p u r p o r t i n g t o be a r eco rd o f conv ic t ions r e l a t i n g t o t h e

respondent. Th i s r eco rd , however, was d e f e c t i v e . It d i d n o t even

s p e c l f y t h e c o u r t s i n which t h e conv ic t ions were recorded and when

t h e document was u l t i m a t e l y i nc luded i n t h e appea l r eco rd be fo re

t h i s c o u r t , it was d i f f i c u l t t o i n t e r p r e t . I n any even t t h e

l ea rned sen tenc ing judge regarded i t s c o n t e n t s as i r r e l e v a n t f o r

t h e purposes o f sen tence . P7e do n o t t h i n k t h a t t h i s c o u r t ought

t o t a k e any d i f f e r e n t course . W e t a k e t h e oppor tun i ty t o s t a t e

t h a t i n t h i s r e s p e c t t h e Crovrn f a i l e d t o g i v e t h a t degree o f

a s s i s t a n c e t o t h e s en t enc ing c o u r t whlch t h a t c o u r t w a s e n t l t l e d

t o expect . There was inc luded i n t h e r eco rd o f conv ic t ions a

conv ic t ion f o r burg la ry . Obviously a p r i o r conv ic t ion f o r

b u r g l a r y would have been a r e l e v a n t matter f o r t h e s en t enc ing

judge, y e t t h e Crown f a i l e d t o prove it proper ly . It would n o t

be proper f o r t h i s c o u r t now t o t a k e t h a t conv ic t ion i n t o account .

A s w a s s a i d i n R. v. T a i t and B a r t l e y i supra) a t page 477 t h e r e

would be few c a s e s where t h e a p p e l l a t e c o u r t would i n t e r v e n e on

an appea l a g a i n s t sen tence t o c o r r e c t an a l l e g e d e r r o r by

increasing t h e sen tence i f t h e Crovm had n o t done what was

reasonably r e q u i r e d t o a s s i s t t h e s en t enc ing judge t o avoid t h e

e r r o r o r i f t h e defendant w e r e unduly p r e j u d i c e d i n meeting f o r

t h e f i r s t t ime on appeal t h e t r u e ca se a g a i n s t him.

There w a s p s y c h i a t r i c and psychologica l m a t e r i a l b e f o r e t h e l ea rned

sen tenc ing judge i n t h e form of w r i t t e n r e p o r t s . The r e p o r t of

t h e s e n i o r s p e c i a l i s t p s y c h i a t r i s t	D r W.P.	Lopes	o f	t h e Department	i
of Hea l th , Darwin opened as follov7s:

"This i s a very immature young man who c l i n i c a l l y does n o t

show any evidence o f mental i l l n e s s . H i s "depress ive"

moods a r e a r e f l e c t i o n o f h i s l i f e long p e r s o n a l i t y d i so rde r . ,

Head i n j u r y has an e f f e c t o f exace rba t ing t h e s e abnormal

behaviour t endenc ie s which has occur red i n t h i s case .

The overdose w i t h Valium would have had t h e same d i s i n h i b i t i n g

e f f e c t a s a l c o h o l , and t h e r e f o r e he i s f u l l y r e s p o n s i b l e f o r

h i s a c t i o n s .

Fu ture prognos is is u n c e r t a i n h e r e because o f h i s l i f e - l o n g

. .

p e r s o n a l i t y d i f f i c u l t i e s , and whatever s en t ence t h e c o u r t

p r e s c r i b e s I would l i k e him t o undergo p s y c h i a t r i c

c o u n s e l l i n g the rapy w i t h	a	view	t o improving	h i s	s o c i a l
behaviour .

There i s s t i l l hope hope \ s i c ) here!"

M r R.W. Da~ison o f t h e Department o f Health Psychology S e c t i o n ,

Darwin H o s p i t a l , summarized h i s psychological examination o f

t h e respondent a s fo l lows:

" I n summary t h e test r e s u l t s sugges t p e r s o n a l i t y d i f f i c u l t i e s

c e n t e r i n g around emotional l a b i l i t y , i n a p p r o p r i a t e r e a c t i o n s

t o s t r e s s and an extreme s e l f d i r ec t edness . I n view o f t h e

c o n f i g u r a t i o n o f s c o r e s ob ta ined from both tests and t h e

ob ta ined l i f e h i s t o r y t h e s e d i f f i c u l t i e s appear t o be long

s t a n d i n g and s t a b l e . It i s beyond doubt t h a t Mar t in ' s

r e c e n t a c c i d e n t , t h e c i rcumstances of h i s r e h a b i l l t a t l o n ,

h l s t r l a l and subsequent charge have exacerba ted h i s

under ly ing p e r s o n a l i t y problems. However, i t can on ly

be c o n j e c t i v e ( s i c ) t o comment on t h e e x t e n t o f t h i s

i n f luence .

Fu ture p rospec t s f o r M r Leach w i l l be a primary func t ion

of p sycho log ica l t rea tment /he lp t o change t h e abovementioned

behavioura l t endenc ies . With such a s s i s t a n c e and t h e

p o s s i b l e s t a b i l i s i n g i n f l u e n c e o f fami ly responsibilities

he may b e a b l e t o favourably modify h i s behaviour ,

p a r t i c u l a r l y h i s r e a c t i o n t o stress. However, a t p r e s e n t

a p p r o p r i a t e s o c i a l behaviour appears t o be p o s i t i v e l y

r e l a t e d t o f avourab le e x t e r n a l even t s . A s such e x t e r n a l

e v e n t s become &favourab le it i s l i k e l y t h a t i n a p p r o p r i a t e

s o c l a l behaviour o f some form, and c e r t a i n l y n o t n e c e s s a r i l y

r ape , w i l l fo l low i n consequence.

From a psychologica l v i ev~po in t no prognos is can be c e r t a i n .

But t h i s d i r e c t r e l a t i o n s h i p between behaviour and e x t e r n a l

e v e n t s w i l l l i k e l y remain	i n t h e absence o f	psychologica l
he lp . "

But t h e r e was no th ing i n t h e p s y c h i a t r i c and psychologica l

ev idence which tended t o reduce t h e r e sponden t ' s culpability

f o r h l s crimes. H i s p e r s o n a l i t y d i s o r d e r d i d n o t r ende r him

any l e s s t han f u l l y r e spons ib l e . The d i s i n h i b i t i n g e f f e c t of

t h e overdose o f valium, se l f - induced a s it was, a f f o r d s no

ground f o r m i t i g a t i o n o f p e n a l t y i n h i s case .

Having cons idered t h e op in ions set o u t above, t h e sentencing

judge s a i d :

"You a r e a young man wl th a number o f problems. You have

q u i t e a s eve re p e r s o n a l i t y d i s o r d e r o f a dep res s ive n a t u r e .

You have no r e l e v a n t record .

Not long be fo re t h e i n c i d e n t s which gave rise t o t h e s e

charges many t h i n g s have combined t o go wrong f o r you. You

s u f f e r e d head i n j u r i e s i n a motor v e h i c l e a c c i d e n t which

a f f e c t e d your p h y s i c a l c a p a b i l i t i e s and c o n t r i b u t e d t o your

depress ion . A c h i l d has been born o f your de f a c t o r e l a t i o n -

s h i p w i t h a young woman. Because o f your disabilities you

f e l t i ncapab le of p rope r ly looking a f t e r t h e c h i l d and t h e

mother, from whom you were t h e n p a r t e d . I am d e l i g h t e d t o

know t h a t you have come t o g e t h e r a g a i n and a r e now marr ied.

I n t h i s mar r iage , and i n t h e p s y c h i a t r i c t r e a t m e n t

recommended by D r Lopes, a r e your main hopes f o r

r e h a b i l i t a t i o n . It i s cons idered u n l i k e l y t h a t you w i l l

o f f end i n t h i s way aga in . The p r o s e c u t r i x s u f f e r e d l i t t l e ,

i f any, p h y s i c a l harm, a l though she must have been

f r i g h t e n e d . You have been i n custody f o r something over

f i v e weeks awa i t i ng t r i a l and f o r more t h a n two months

s i n c e t h e j u r y ' s v e r d i c t . Having given anxious cons ide ra t ion

t o t h e whole m a t t e r , I have come t o t h e conclusion t h a t

s en t ences o f imprisonment a r e war ran ted b u t i n view o f your

youth, t h e unusual n a t u r e o f t h e r ape and t h e o t h e r m a t t e r s

p u t t o me by M r Waters, on your b e h a l f , r easons e x i s t

whereby I can suspend t h e o p e r a t i o n o f t h o s e s en t ences . "

I t seems c l e a r t h a t t h e respondent impressed t h e l e a r n e d

sen tenc ing 3udge a s a young man w i t h d i s t i n c t d i s o r d e r s o f

p e r s o n a l i t y . H i s Honour c l e a r l y h e l d t h e view t h a t t h e

respondent was capable o f be ing r e h a b i l i t a t e d provided he had

t h e suppor t of a p roba t ion o f f i c e r and p s y c h i a t r i c t rea tment .

The p s y c h i a t r i c and psychologica l evidence was n o t t e s t e d i n

any way, and i n t h e c i rcumstances , a l though it appears a l i t t l e

u n s a t i s f a c t o r y , t h i s c o u r t should n o t make a f l n d i n g c o n t r a r y

t o H i s Honour's conc lus ion a s t o t h e r e sponden t ' s p rospec t s o f

r e h a b i l i t a t i o n . There a r e , however, o t h e r f a c t o r s t o b e

cons idered i n f i x i n g an a p p r o p r i a t e sen tence s o as t o d i scha rge

t h e t r u e f u n c t i o n o f t h e c r i m i n a l law and t h e purposes o f

punishment, namely t h e p r o t e c t i o n o f s o c i e t y . The n a t u r e and

t y p e o f o f f e n c e , a s w e l l as t h e f a c t o r s pe r sona l t o t h e o f f e n d e r

have t o be t aken i n t o account. Courts have n o t i n f r e q u e n t l y

a t tempted a n a l y s i s o f t h e s e v e r a l a s p e c t s o f punishment

( R . v. Goodrich ~ 1 9 5 2 ) 70 N.N. 4 2 ) where r e t r i b u t i o n de t e r r ence

and re format ion a r e s a i d t o be i t s t h r e e f o l d purposes (Channon v. R. j

~ 1 9 7 8 ) 2 0 A.L.R. 1 a t Page 5 ) . I n endeavouring t o s t r i k e a

ba lance between t h e s e va r ious c o n s i d e r a t i o n s H l s Honour seems

t o have given cons ide rab le weight t o t h e respondent ' s p rospec t s

o f r e h a b i l i t a t i o n b u t h i s remarks on sen tence do n o t exp res s h i s

havlng given s u f f i c i e n t weight t o t h e o t h e r a s p e c t s o f r e t r i b u t i o n

and de t e r r ence . N e do n o t doubt t h a t H i s Honour d i d have r ega rd

t o t h e s e f a c t o r s , b u t looking a t a l l t h e c i rcumstances of t h e

t h e o f f ences and t h e r e s p o n d e n t ' s an t eceden t s and p e r s o n a l i t y ,

we a r e l e f t w i t h t h e impress ion t h a t he a t t a c h e d f a r t o o much

weight t o t h e r e sponden t ' s p r o s p e c t s o f r e h a b i l i t a t i o n .

The	r e s u l t o f	t h e s en t ences imposed was	n o t t o p rov ide w e l l -	i
I

deserved punishment n o r t o r e f l e c t t h e g e n e r a l moral sense o f

the commun2ty (Channon v. R. C19781 20 A.L.R. l). In our judgment the sentencing discretion has miscarried and this court should intervene.

As the two offences arose out of the same set of facts cited with approvai in R. v. Prindable (1979) 23 A.L.R

and rrithin a very limited time it is appropriate to

order that any sentences to be served in respect of those

offences be served concurrently. Having determined to

review the sentencing discretion this court is required

to consider what sentence would represent the appropriate,

duly proportionate and properly balanced sentence (per

665 at page 670). Paying due regard to all the circumstances,

including the youth of the respondent and the absence of

physical harm to the girl, we propose to impose a head sentence

of three years' imprisonment on each charge and order that

the sentences be served concurrently. We turn to the

specification of a non-parole period. In the Northern

Territory of Australia a judge sentencing a convicted person

in relation to offences involving a term of imprisonment

of twelve months or longer is required to specify a non-

parole period except where the court considers the nature

of the offence or offences or the antecedents of the offender

do not warrant the specifying of a lesser term of imprisonment

or if the offender is sentenced to imprisonment for life;

see the Parole of Prisoners Ordinance 1976 (N.T.).

In this matter we consider that His Honour's views about

the respondent's prospects of rehabilitation can properly

be reflected in the specification of a non-parole period.

The capacity in the respondent to reform is a most

material matter in the decision to fix a non-parole

period and the legnth of the period (see Power v. R. (1974)

131 C.L.R. 623 at 629; 3 B.L.R. 553 at 557). In the

present case His Honour specified a non-parole period of two years. In our vier7 this does not make due provision for the operation of the parole system. The respondent

was in custody for something over five weeks awaiting trial

and for a further two months after the jury's verdict

awaiting sentence. - We would propose to reflect those

periods of custody and the judge's assessment of the

respondent's rehabilitation prospects in the specification

of a non-parole period.

!

The judgment of the court is that the appeal is allowed and

that the respondent be imprisoned on each charge for a

period of three years, the sentences to be served concurrently

and we specify a period of one year and six months during

which the respondent xiill not be eligible to be released on	I
parole.	I