Van Eyle v McFarlane

Case [2025] ACTSC 4


SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

Van Eyle v McFarlane

Citation: 

[2025] ACTSC 4

Hearing Date: 

28 January 2025

Decision Date: 

29 January 2025

Before:

Mossop J

Decision: 

(1)  The appeal is dismissed.

(2)  The sentence imposed by the Magistrates Court on 26 April 2024 is varied so that it commences on 15 January 2025 and ends on 14 November 2025 but is otherwise confirmed.

Catchwords: 

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – Appeal against sentence imposed by magistrate – whether magistrate erred in treating sexual gratification as an aggravating factor – whether sexual gratification an “inherent characteristic” of an act of indecency – sexual gratification not an inherent characteristic of act of indecency – magistrate did not err

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – whether magistrate erred in not having regard to delay between offence and sentencing – delay itself not mitigatory – sufficient reasons given to demonstrate that magistrate engaged with case presented

Legislation Cited: 

Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), s 60

Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), s 33(3)

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), s 21A(2)

Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT), Pt 3.10.2

Working with Vulnerable People (Background Checking) Act 2011 (ACT), s 42C

Cases Cited: 

AB v R [2013] NSWCCA 160; 233 A Crim R 205

Couloumbis v R [2012] NSWCCA 264

DPP v Liu [2024] ACTCA 23

Elyard v R [2006] NSWCCA 43

House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499

Ingham v R [2011] NSWCCA 88

Jolly v R [2013] NSWCCA 76; 229 A Crim R 198

Lee v R [2019] NSWCCA 15

Mammoliti v Callaghan [2022] ACTSC 259
McFarlane v Van Eyle
[2022] ACTCA 68

NC v The Queen [2017] ACTCA 31

Porter v The Queen [2024] ACTCA 9; 21 ACTLR 122

R v Harkin (1989) 38 A Crim R 296

R v Olbrich [1999] HCA 54; 199 CLR 270

Scook v The Queen [2008] WASCA 114; 185 A Crim R 164

McFarlane v Van Eyle [2022] ACTCA 68

Van Eyle v McFarlane [2022] ACTSC 1

Van Eyle v McFarlane [2024] ACTSC 50

Zreika v R [2012] NSWCCA 44; 223 A Crim R 460

Parties: 

Timothy Van Eyle ( Appellant)

Amy McFarlane ( Respondent)

Representation: 

Counsel

P Edmonds ( Appellant)

S Janackovic ( Respondent)

Solicitors

Canberra Criminal Lawyers ( Appellant)

ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

File Number:

Decision Under Appeal: 

SCA 24 of 2024

Court/Tribunal:           Magistrates Court of the ACT

Before:   Magistrate Campbell

Date of Decision:       26 April 2024

Case Title:                  McFarlane v Van Eyle

Court File Number:     CAN 2500/2019

MOSSOP J:  

Introduction

1․This is an appeal against a sentence imposed by the Magistrates Court. On 26 April 2024, a magistrate convicted the appellant, Timothy Van Eyle, and sentenced him to 10 months’ imprisonment for the offence of committing an act of indecency without consent on 21 January 2019. The sentence was to be suspended after the offender served…

Continue reading Van Eyle v McFarlane

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Van Eyle v McFarlane [2025] ACTSC 4
Case
[2025] ACTSC 4
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Van Eyle v McFarlane, the appellant sought to appeal the sentence imposed by a magistrate following a conviction for an act of indecency. The dispute centred on the sentence's appropriateness, specifically questioning whether the magistrate erred by considering sexual gratification as an aggravating factor and whether the delay between the offence and sentencing warranted a lesser penalty. The matter was heard in the higher court, which had jurisdiction to review the magistrate's decision.

The court addressed two primary legal issues. Firstly, it examined whether sexual gratification constituted an inherent characteristic of the act of indecency, which could not be considered an aggravating factor. Secondly, it assessed whether the magistrate erred by not treating the delay between the commission of the offence and sentencing as a mitigating factor. The court needed to determine whether these considerations were correctly applied or misapplied by the magistrate in arriving at the sentence.

The court found that sexual gratification was not an inherent characteristic of the act of indecency and, therefore, could not serve as an aggravating factor. The court further held that the delay between the offence and the sentencing did not inherently mitigate the sentence, and sufficient reasons were provided to show that the magistrate had engaged with the case. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was confirmed with a modification to the commencement and end dates.

The court's final orders were that the appeal be dismissed and that the sentence imposed by the Magistrates Court on 26 April 2024 be varied to commence on 15 January 2025 and end on 14 November 2025, with all other terms of the sentence remaining unchanged.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) The appeal is dismissed.

(2) The sentence imposed by the Magistrates Court on 26 April 2024 is varied so that it commences on 15 January 2025 and ends on 14 November 2025 but is otherwise confirmed.

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.