F v CDG

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

F v CDG [2017] QSC 111

PARTIES:

F

(applicant)

v
CDG

(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

No 12035 of 2016

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Originating Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

  Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

10 February 2017

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

10 February 2017

JUDGE:

Justice Boddice

ORDER:

Delivered ex tempore on 10 February 2017:

1.   The contempt is proven beyond reasonable doubt.

2.   The respondent is punished for that contempt by imprisonment for eight months.

3.   The sentence commences 10 February 2017.

CATCHWORDS:

COURTS AND JUDGES – CONTEMPT – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – where the applicant applies for the respondent to be punished for contempt pursuant to s 199 of the Crime and Corruption Act 2001 (Qld) – whether the respondent has committed a contempt of the commission – whether the respondent should be punished

Crime and Corruption Act 2001 (Qld) s 199

O’Connor v Witness I [2014] QSC 82

COUNSEL:

M J Copley QC for the applicant

B Mumford for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Deputy Official Solicitor for the Crime and Corruption Commission for the applicant

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Legal Service for the respondent

1. The applicant makes application for the respondent to be punished for contempt, pursuant to section 199 of the Crime and Corruption Act 2001 (Qld). The application is made pursuant to the issuing of a certificate of contempt dated 18 November 2016.

2. The contempt is said to have arisen in the following circumstances.  In October 2016, Queensland Police received information that the respondent had, through the use of internet facilities, sent images of a child to others and had procured images of children.

3. The allegations are that he had engaged in discussions with children - there is discussion with an eight year old child - and had procured that child to send indecent images of herself and procured her to perform sexual acts on herself via Skype. The respondent was a holder of a blue card in Queensland at the time of the alleged conduct. 

4. Subsequent to the commencement of that investigation, police executed search warrants on the respondent’s office and home.  Those warrants required the respondent to provide certain electronic information.  The respondent was not cooperative.  However, police were able to access some of those devices. 

5. That access revealed there were significant contacts via Skype with individuals, many of whom were believed to be children, together with hundreds of conversations and 500 videos of Skype contact.  The vast majority of that contact was believed to be with children and involved the respondent encouraging children to undress and perform sexual acts.

6. The respondent was subsequently arrested and charged with a number of offences in relation to the use of a carriage service, the possession of child exploitation material and disobedience of a lawful order.  He was remanded in custody and has remained in custody in respect of those offences. 

7. Subsequent to his arrest, the applicant commenced an investigation which involved the holding of closed hearings, pursuant to the provision of the