Legal Research
Cases
Jeffery v The Queen

Jeffery v The Queen

Case [2021] NSWCCA 221 10 September 2021

Sentencing

Mens Rea & Intention

Unconscionable Conduct

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available

Medium Neutral Citation: Jeffery v R [2021] NSWCCA 221
Hearing dates: 6 August 2021
Date of orders: 10 September 2021
Decision date: 10 September 2021
Before: Bathurst CJ at [1]
Beech-Jones J at [2]
Fagan J at [54]
Decision:
(1) Application for leave to appeal against sentence granted.
(2) Appeal dismissed.

Catchwords:
SENTENCING – solicitation and possession of child pornography – applicant used social media to solicit 12 year old girl to provide photographs using threats of exposure – two aggregate sentences imposed – sentencing judge accepted applicant affected by mental illness but did not accept causally connected to offending – whether erred in failing to find causal connection – whether sentencing judge misapplied principles concerning mentally ill offenders – no error established – whether sentence manifestly excessive – leave to appeal granted but appeal dismissed.

Legislation Cited:
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

Cases Cited:
Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571; [2013] HCA 37
Craft v R [2021] NSWCCA 131
DPP (Cth) v De La Rosa [2010] NSWCCA 194; (2010) 79 NSWLR 1
Hili v The Queen; Jones v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520; [2010] HCA 45
House v R (1936) 55 CLR 501
R v Asplund [2010] NSWCCA 316
R v Qutami [2001] NSWCCA 353
R v Tahiraj [2004] QCA 353
Tector v R [2008] NSWCCA 151

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Christopher Jeffery (Applicant)
Regina (Crown)
Representation:
Counsel:
S Fraser (Applicant)
D Berents (Crown)
Solicitors:
Aboriginal Legal Service (Applicant)
Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)

File Number(s): 2018/91675
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Date of Decision:

26 June 2020

Before:

N Williams DCJ

File Number(s):

2018/91675

Judgment

BATHURST CJ: I agree with the orders proposed by Beech-Jones J and with his reasons.
BEECH-JONES J: This is an application for leave to appeal against two aggregate sentences imposed on the applicant, Christopher Jeffrey, for offences involving the solicitation and possession of child pornography.
Following a trial in the District Court at which he was found guilty of four counts on an indictment, on 26 June 2020 the applicant was sentenced to two partially accumulated aggregate sentences pursuant to s 54A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (the “Sentencing Act”). The offences, their maximum penalty, the indicative sentences and the sentencing judge’s finding of objective seriousness were as follows:

Count

Offence

Maximum Penalty

Indicative Sentences

Objective Seriousness

1

Use carriage service to solicit child pornography – Criminal Code (Cth), s 474.19(1)

15 years imprisonment

6 years

6 months

Above the midrange of objective seriousness

2

Possessing child pornography with an intention of using that material, Criminal Code - s 474.19

15 years imprisonment

4 years

9 months

Below the midrange of objective seriousness

3

Possess Child Abuse Material – Crimes Act 1900, s 91H(2)

10 years imprisonment

2 years

Below the midrange of objective seriousness

4

Possess Child Abuse Material – Crimes Act 1900,…

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 Jeffery v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Jeffery v The Queen [2021] NSWCCA 221
Case: [2021] NSWCCA 221
Decision Date: 10 September 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Jeffery was sentenced to imprisonment after being found guilty of soliciting and possessing child pornography. He used social media to engage a 12-year-old girl, threatening her with exposure if she did not comply. Two aggregate sentences were imposed, and the sentencing judge acknowledged that Jeffery was affected by mental illness but did not find this causally connected to his offending behaviour. Jeffery appealed on the grounds that the judge erred in not finding a causal connection between his mental illness and his offending and that the judge misapplied principles concerning mentally ill offenders. Additionally, Jeffery argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive.

The court reviewed the evidence and found that the sentencing judge was correct in their assessment that there was no causal connection between Jeffery's mental illness and his offending behaviour. The judge had considered all relevant evidence and expert opinions, and the court found no basis to interfere with this finding. The court also found that the sentencing judge did not misapply principles concerning mentally ill offenders. The judge had considered the appropriate principles and applied them correctly to the facts of the case. Finally, the court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The judge had considered all relevant factors and had imposed a sentence that was proportionate to the seriousness of the offending.

The appeal was dismissed, but leave to appeal was granted due to the significance of the legal issues raised. The court's decision reinforces the importance of correctly applying sentencing principles, particularly in cases involving mentally ill offenders, and ensures that sentences are proportionate to the seriousness of the offending.

Orders