Legal Research
Cases
James v The Queen

James v The Queen

Case [2015] NSWCCA 97 15 May 2015

Criminal Liability

Sentencing

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: James v R [2015] NSWCCA 97
Hearing dates: 1 July 2013, 8 May 2015
Date of orders: 15 May 2015
Decision date: 15 May 2015
Before: Hoeben CJ at CL at [1]
Fullerton J at [1]
Schmidt J at [1]
Decision:
Leave to appeal be allowed, but the appeal be dismissed.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - sentence appeal - 16 offences relating to the possession and transmission of child pornography - using a carriage service to cause offence - whether sentencing judge erred in assessing objective seriousness of offences - whether sentences are manifestly excessive
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth)
Crimes Legislation Amendment (Sexual Offences Against Children) Act 2010 (Cth)
Cases Cited: Cargnello v Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) [2012] NSWCCA 162
Franklin v R [2013] NSWCCA 122
Kentwell v The Queen [2014] HCA 37; 313 ALR 451
McCarthy v R [2011] NSWCCA 64
Minehan v R [2010] NSWCCA 140; 201 A Crim R 243
MPB v R [2013] NSWCCA 213
Postiglione v The Queen (1997) 189 CLR 295
R v Booth [2009] NSWCCA 89
R v De Simoni [1981] HCA 31; 147 CLR 383; 5 A Crim R 329
R v Gent [2005] NSWCCA 370; 162 A Crim R 29
R v Jarrold [2010] NSWCCA 69
R v Knight (2005) 155 A Crim R 252 at [112] and R v MAK (2006) 167 A Crim R 159
Ranguihuna v R [2105] NSWCA 48
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Paul Stephen James (Applicant)
The Crown (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
A Miller (Applicant)
C O’Donnell (Crown)
Solicitors:
Hammond Solicitors (Applicant)
Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)

File Number(s): 2010/154421
Publication restriction: None
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court of NSW

Jurisdiction:

Criminal Law

Date of Decision:

04 November 2011

Before:

Cogswell DCJ

File Number(s):

2010/154421

Judgment

THE COURT: The applicant seeks leave to appeal against the sentences imposed in the District Court on 4 November 2011 after a jury convicted him of sixteen offences relating to the possession and transmission of multiple still images and multimedia files of child pornography or child abuse material contrary to the Criminal Code Act1995 (Cth) (“the transmission counts”) and the Crimes Act1900 (NSW) (“the possession count”). He was also convicted of using a carriage service to cause offence contrary to s 474.17(1) of the Criminal Code Act (“the Criminal Code”).
The first of the transmission offences, committed on 13 April 2010, attracted a maximum penalty of 10 years under s 474.19(1)(a)(iii) of the Criminal Code with the balance of the transmission offences, committed on various days between 2 May 2010 and 2 June 2010, committed in breach of the same section, attracting a maximum penalty of 15 years imprisonment. The maximum penalty for that offence was increased from 10 to 15 years by the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Sexual Offences Against Children) Act2010 (Cth), effective from 15…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading James v The Queen

Details

AGLC: James v The Queen [2015] NSWCCA 97
Case: [2015] NSWCCA 97
Decision Date: 15 May 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant was convicted of 16 offences relating to the possession and transmission of child pornography. The appellant appealed against his sentence, arguing that the primary judge erred in assessing the objective seriousness of the offences and that the sentence was manifestly excessive. The appeal was heard in the High Court of Australia. The central legal issues were whether the primary judge erred in assessing the objective seriousness of the offences and whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. The court examined the primary judge's assessment of the objective seriousness of the offences and the principles governing sentencing for such offences. It considered the nature and extent of the offending, the degree of harm caused, and the need for deterrence and denunciation. The court found that the primary judge did not err in assessing the objective seriousness of the offences. It held that the primary judge's assessment was well-reasoned and based on an appropriate consideration of the relevant factors. The court also held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. It found that the sentence reflected the gravity of the offences and was within the range of sentences that could be considered appropriate for such offences.

The appeal was dismissed. The court's decision affirmed the importance of a careful and principled approach to sentencing in cases involving serious sexual offences against children. It highlighted the need for courts to consider the objective seriousness of the offences, the degree of harm caused, and the broader purposes of sentencing, including deterrence and denunciation. The court's decision provides guidance for sentencing courts in similar cases, ensuring that sentences are proportionate to the gravity of the offences and the need to protect society.

Orders