The Queen v NQ - [2015] ACTSC 308

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	The Queen v NQ
Citation:	[2015] ACTSC 308
Hearing Date(s):	12 October 2015
DecisionDate:	14 October 2015
Before:	Robinson AJ
Decision:	See [16] - [19]
Category:	Sentence
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – particular offence – offences against the person – sexual offences – act of indecency – assault with intent to engage in sexual intercourse
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) ss 60(1), 53(1) Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) s 12
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) NQ (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel Ms J Campbell (Crown) Mr A Fraser (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Armstrong Legal (Offender)
File Number(s):	SCC 183 of 2015

ROBINSON AJ:

This published version has been edited in accordance with s 40(1) of the Evidence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1991. The original text has been de-identified and contains deletions, substitutions and paraphrasing.

NQ, the offender, pleaded guilty in the Magistrates Court to the following:

(a)An act of indecency in contravention of s 60(1) of the Crimes Act 1900.
(b)Unlawful assault with intent to engage in sexual intercourse in contravention of s 53(1) of the Crimes Act 1900.

These offences carry maximum penalties of 7 years and 12 years imprisonment respectively.

Following his pleas of guilty the offender was committed to the Supreme Court for sentence.

It was conceded by the Crown that the offender pleaded guilty at the first reasonable opportunity and that his pleas demonstrated remorse and that he fully cooperated with police in relation to the investigation of the offences.

I intend to allow an approximate 25% discount for the utilitarian value of this plea and the remorse associated with it.

The offender was in custody for 1 day before he obtained bail.

The offences

A short summary of the offences can be taken from the statement of facts tendered at the hearing:

The offender and the complainant WQ are married and live together at [suburban Canberra]. They have been in a relationship for 17 years and have 3 children.
On the evening of Friday 10 July 2015 the offender and the complainant were drinking alcohol and watching television together. Just before 11pm the complainant got up to prepare for bed. The offender said “Don’t go, stay and help out.” The offender indicated to his open fly on his pants and the complainant understood this to be him requesting oral sex.
The complainant said “No I have a busy day tomorrow and I am really tired.” The complainant then left the lounge room and went to bed.
The offender continued to watch television for a further 5 minutes, then walked into the bedroom. The complainant was in bed and the offender walked to the edge of the bed and said “Suck my cock.”
The complainant said “No” and the offender repeated “Suck my cock.”
The complainant continued to refuse and the offender started to get angry and demanded “Do it now and…

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 The Queen v NQ

Details

AGLC: The Queen v NQ [2015] ACTSC 308
Case: [2015] ACTSC 308
Decision Date: 14 October 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Queensland, the matter of The Queen versus NQ came before the Court to determine an appropriate sentence for the defendant. NQ was charged with committing an act of indecency and assaulting with intent to engage in sexual intercourse, following incidents that occurred in 2019. The court was tasked with considering the severity and nature of the offences, as well as the defendant's background, to determine a suitable sentence.

The primary legal issues before the Court involved assessing the gravity of the offences, the impact on the victims, and the defendant's culpability. The Court had to balance the need for punishment and deterrence against the potential for rehabilitation and reintegration into society. The Court also considered the sentencing principles and guidelines applicable to similar offences in Queensland.

In delivering the judgment, the Court meticulously examined the facts of the case, the evidence presented, and the submissions made by both parties. The Court found that the offences were of significant seriousness due to the nature of the acts committed and the impact on the victims. The defendant's lack of remorse and the need to protect the community were also key factors in the Court's deliberations. Ultimately, the Court decided that an appropriate sentence would be one that reflected the gravity of the offences while also considering the defendant's potential for rehabilitation. The Court imposed a custodial sentence with specific conditions to ensure the defendant's reintegration into society and protection of potential future victims.

The Court ordered that NQ be imprisoned for a term of six years, with a non-parole period of four years, and directed that the defendant participate in specified rehabilitation programs while in custody. The Court also imposed a number of additional orders, including a sex offender registration requirement and a restraining order prohibiting contact with the victims.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [16] - [19]

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.