Sexual Penetration of a Child – Accused Intellectually Disabled

GavelThis is a case of sexual penetration of a child involving an accused that is intellectually disabled.

Our client was charged with sexually penetrating his half sister on two occasions. Both he and his half sister are intellectually disabled, and our client was also a young man and his sister was under 16. Hester Kelly represented him at the Melbourne County Court on the following charges:

The matter proceeded as a further plea and sentence. Hester made submissions as to why the client should not receive a conviction, primarily focussing on the client’s youth and his reduced moral culpability for the offending. Traditionally, the charges that our client pleaded guilty to would result in a prison sentence. However his age and intellectual disability reduced his culpability for the behaviour.

A community corrections order with a justice plan would allow the client to get assistance in the community and to focus on rehabilitation. Rehabilitation is one of the key sentencing principles when it comes to dealing with young offenders, including with people accused of sexual penetration of a child and who are intellectually disabled.

The client ultimately received a community corrections order with a justice plan without conviction.

 


Hester KellyHester Kelly

Hester is based at our Melbourne office and was admitted to practice in 2014. She previously worked as an Associate to Judge Howard in the County Court of Victoria and was also a solicitor advocate at another Melbourne criminal law firm before becoming a member of Doogue + George.

Hester graduated with First Class Honours in Law in 2012 from Monash University, with a degree in Bachelor of Arts / Bachelor of Laws. She completed two internships at the Castan Centre for Human Rights Law and has volunteered with the HIV/Aids Legal Centre in Melbourne.

Visit this page to know more about Hester.

DISCLAIMER: This is a real case study of an actual case from our files. Details pertaining to the client have been changed to protect their privacy. The sentence imposed and the charge have not been altered. These case studies are published to demonstrate real outcomes and give an indication of possible tariffs in Court. We do not guarantee a similar case on these charges will get the same result. Please note that we post results at our discretion, therefore while many case studies are average results, others are notable for their exceptional outcomes. PUBLISHED 23/06/2017