The Queen v Trickey - [2008] NFSC 1

SUPREME COURT OF NORFOLK ISLAND
The Queen v Trickey [2008] NFSC 1
CRIMINAL LAW – sentence – sexual intercourse without consent – complainant intellectually disabled – vulnerability of victim as aggravating factor – hardship to third parties as mitigating factor
Criminal Law Act 1960 (NI) s 93D
Sentencing Act 2007 (NI) ss 5(1)(a), 5(1)(c) 92(1) and 100
THE QUEEN v NORMAN LINDSAY TRICKEY
SCC1 OF 2007
WEINBERG CJ
15 APRIL 2008
SYDNEY (HEARD ON NORFOLK ISLAND)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NORFOLK ISLAND

CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

SCC1 OF 2007

BETWEEN:

THE QUEEN

AND:

NORMAN LINDSAY TRICKEY
Respondent

JUDGE:

WEINBERG CJ

DATE OF ORDER:

15 APRIL 2008

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY (HEARD ON NORFOLK ISLAND)

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.For the offence of sexual intercourse without consent contrary to s 93D of the Criminal Law Act 1960 (NI), Norman Lindsay Trickey be imprisoned for a term of three years and ten months, the commencement date of that sentence being 15 April 2008.
2.A non-parole period of one year and eleven months be fixed, the commencement date of that non-parole period being 15 April 2008.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NORFOLK ISLAND

CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

SCC1 OF 2007

BETWEEN:

THE QUEEN

AND:

NORMAN LINDSAY TRICKEY
Respondent

JUDGE:

WEINBERG CJ

DATE:

15 APRIL 2008

PLACE:

SYDNEY (HEARD ON NORFOLK ISLAND)

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Norman Lindsay Trickey, you have been convicted by a jury in the Supreme Court of Norfolk Island on one count of sexual intercourse without consent contrary to s 93D of the Criminal Law Act 1960 (NI). The maximum penalty for that offence is imprisonment for twelve years. You are now to be sentenced.
The essential facts may be stated briefly. At about 6 pm on Sunday 25 February 2007, Priscilla Davies, a young woman then aged twenty-five, went to your home at Collins Head Road on Norfolk Island. She went at your invitation. You had suggested to her earlier that day that she might join you for dinner. You had an ulterior purpose. You intended to have sexual intercourse with her.
Priscilla Davies is intellectually disabled. She was injured in a car accident at a very young age and sustained brain damage. She has been assessed as mildly retarded and as having an IQ of 69. You yourself described her as being “slow”. She had no previous sexual experience. She had no idea of what you had in mind when you suggested that she come for dinner.
Your wife Phyllis suffers from emphysema and a number of other serious illnesses. On the day in question, she was in hospital. You took advantage of her absence from home when you arranged for Priscilla to visit you. That was shameful conduct on your part. However, my task is to sentence you for your criminal behaviour and not for your moral failings.
When Priscilla arrived at your home, you offered her some wine. You showed her your garden and took her through the maze that you had created as a tourist attraction. You returned to 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 The Queen v Trickey

Details

AGLC: The Queen v Trickey [2008] NFSC 1
Case: [2008] NFSC 1
Decision Date: 15 APRIL 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the Supreme Court of Norfolk Island was between the Queen and Norman Lindsay Trickey, who was charged with the offence of sexual intercourse without consent. The court was tasked with determining Trickey's sentence for his conviction under section 93D of the Criminal Law Act 1960 (NI). The matter was heard on Norfolk Island but presided over in Sydney.

The legal issues before the court involved assessing the severity of the offence and the appropriate sentence to be imposed on Trickey. The court had to consider the gravity of the crime, the impact on the victim, and relevant sentencing principles and precedents. Additionally, the court needed to establish the non-parole period for Trickey's sentence, which is the minimum time he must serve before becoming eligible for parole.

The court, presided over by Weinberg CJ, found Trickey guilty of the offence and determined that a sentence of three years and ten months was appropriate. The judge also set a non-parole period of one year and eleven months, both periods commencing from 15 April 2008. The court's decision was based on the seriousness of the offence, the need for deterrence, and the rehabilitation of the offender. The court took into account the impact of the crime on the victim and the principles of justice and public protection in reaching its conclusion.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. For the offence of sexual intercourse without consent contrary to s 93D of the Criminal Law Act 1960 (NI), Norman Lindsay Trickey be imprisoned for a term of three years and ten months, the commencement date of that sentence being 15 April 2008.

2. A non-parole period of one year and eleven months be fixed, the commencement date of that non-parole period being 15 April 2008.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NORFOLK ISLAND

CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

SCC1 OF 2007

BETWEEN:

THE QUEEN

AND:

NORMAN LINDSAY TRICKEY

Respondent

JUDGE:

WEINBERG CJ

DATE:

15 APRIL 2008

PLACE:

SYDNEY (HEARD ON NORFOLK ISLAND)

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.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NORFOLK ISLAND
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION	SCC1 OF 2007

BETWEEN:	THE QUEEN
AND:	NORMAN LINDSAY TRICKEY Respondent

JUDGE:	WEINBERG CJ
DATE OF ORDER:	15 APRIL 2008
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY (HEARD ON NORFOLK ISLAND)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NORFOLK ISLAND
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION	SCC1 OF 2007

JUDGE:	WEINBERG CJ
DATE:	15 APRIL 2008
PLACE:	SYDNEY (HEARD ON NORFOLK ISLAND)