Citation: [2003] NSWCCA 411
Court: NSW Court of Criminal Appeal
Date: 21 November 2003
Judges: Handley JA, Grove J, Adams J
Background
The respondent, a nineteen-year-old man, was in a relationship with a fifteen-year-old complainant. Following an overnight stay together, an argument broke out when the complainant attempted to leave. The respondent detained her by locking doors, blocking her path and physically assaulting her, and later pursued her on a pushbike, threw the bike at her and smashed her mobile phone.
The respondent made full admissions to police and pleaded guilty to several charges, including detention for advantage under s 86(1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1900. In his police interview, he explained that he detained the complainant because he did not want her to leave and wanted to resolve matters between them.
The District Court declined to accept the guilty plea on the detention charge. The primary judge held that the particularised "advantage," namely psychological gratification or satisfaction, did not fall within the meaning of s 86(1)(b). The Director of Public Prosecutions appealed that ruling to the Court of Criminal Appeal.
Legal Issues
- Whether psychological gratification or satisfaction constitutes an "advantage" within the meaning of s 86(1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1900
- Whether the District Court erred in declining to accept the guilty plea on the detention for advantage charge on that basis
Decision
Adams J, with whom Handley JA and Grove J agreed, allowed the appeal. The court held that the question was already addressed by binding authority. In Shane Michael Rowe (1996) 89 A Crim R 467, Hunt CJ at CL had expressly stated that forcing a complainant to talk to a kidnapper would amount to an advantage under the section because it would give the offender psychological satisfaction. That statement was directly on point.
The court noted that the precise scope of s 86(1)(b) is not easy to define, and that its approach has been to examine whether particular factual circumstances fall within the provision. Applying that approach, Adams J found the present facts squarely within the principle stated in Rowe.
The respondent's counsel did not argue that Rowe was wrongly decided. Adams J observed that any reconsideration of Rowe would require a bench of five judges, not three, and that this was not an occasion calling for that step. On that basis, the District Court's ruling could not stand.
Orders Made
- The appeal was allowed.
- The District Court's order, requiring committal proceedings on the detention for advantage charge to be continued before a Magistrate, was vacated.
- The matter was relisted for mention in Wollongong District Court on 3 December 2003.
Key Takeaways
- The Court of Criminal Appeal confirmed that psychological gratification or satisfaction is capable of constituting an "advantage" for the purposes of s 86(1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1900, applying the earlier decision in Shane Michael Rowe.
- A guilty plea to detention for advantage under s 86(1)(b) was wrongly rejected by the District Court where the particularised advantage was the offender's psychological satisfaction in preventing the complainant from leaving.
- Under the Court of Criminal Appeal's approach to s 86(1)(b), the precise scope of the provision is assessed by reference to the specific facts of each case against the text of the section.
- Reconsideration of a Court of Criminal Appeal decision (here, Rowe) requires a five-judge bench; a three-judge bench will not undertake that exercise unless there is a proper occasion for it.
- In allowing the appeal, the court vacated the committal order and returned the matter to the District Court, rather than dealing with the guilty plea itself.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Legislation
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 86(1)(b)
Cases
- Regina v Robson and Collett (1978) 2 NSWLR 73
- Regina v Collett and Robson (unreported, CCA, 7 June 1979)
- Shane Michael Rowe (1996) 89 A Crim R 467