Adrian Robert Finley v The Queen

The appellant, Adrian Robert Finley, was convicted on one count of indecent act with a child under 16, two counts of production of child pornography, one count of using a carriage service for child pornography, one count of theft, one count of possession of child pornography, and one summary offence of ‘upskirting’. Finley pleaded guilty to all charges. The appellant sought leave to appeal against his sentence, arguing that it was manifestly excessive. The court was required to determine whether the sentence imposed by the primary judge was manifestly excessive and, if so, whether the appellant was entitled to leave to appeal.

The court noted that the appellant had pleaded guilty to all charges and had no prior convictions. It found that the appropriate starting point for the overall sentence was 17 months’ imprisonment, but this was increased to 23 months due to the seriousness of the offending. The court considered the moderate-high risk of reoffending, the appellant’s limited insight, and the importance of general deterrence in determining the overall sentence. The court found that the sentence of 3 years and 5 months with a non-parole period of 2 years and 6 months was within the range of appropriate sentences for the offending. The court held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and that the appellant was not entitled to leave to appeal.

The court refused leave to appeal, holding that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and that the appellant had not established that the primary judge’s sentence was palpably wrong. The court also noted that the sentence reflected the gravity of the offending and the need for general deterrence. The overall sentence was within the range of appropriate sentences for the offending, and the court was satisfied that the primary judge had properly exercised his or her discretion in imposing the sentence. The appellant’s application for leave to appeal was therefore refused.