R v Aniezue

Case [2016] ACTSC 82


SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

R v Aniezue

Citation:

[2016] ACTSC 82

Hearing Date:

5 April 2016

DecisionDate:

11 April 2016

Before:

Refshauge J

Decision:

1.    Arinze Aniezue is convicted of using of using a carriage service to transmit indecent communications to a person whom you believe to be under the age of 16 years (XO 16/3). 

2.    Arinze Aniezue is sentenced to 10 months imprisonment, to commence on 12 November 2015, to take into account pre-sentence custody. 

3.    Arinze Aniezue be released forthwith upon giving security by recognizance in the sum of $500 with a condition that he be of good behaviour for 18 months and that he, for that period or such lesser period as the person supervising him considers appropriate, be on probation; that is, to be under the supervision of the Director-General or her delegate. 

Catchwords:

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentencing – using a carriage service to transmit indecent communications to a person under the age of 16 years – Facebook messages – principles in indecent communications cases

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentencing – extra curial punishment– ‘unlawful non-citizen’ – deportation imminent

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentencing – backdating of sentence – immigration detention – custody ‘in relation to the offence’ – ‘in relation to’ – detention a consequence of offending

Legislation Cited:

Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)

Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), ss 7, 63
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)
Judiciary Act1903 (Cth), s 68
Migration Act 1958 (Cth),

Criminal Code 1995 (Cth), s 474.27A

Cases Cited:

Cameron v The Queen (2002) 209 CLR 339

Da Costa Junior v The Queen [2016] VSCA 49
Einfeld v The Queen (2010) 266 ALR 598
Gordon (1994) 71 A Crim R 459
Guden v The Queen (2010) 28 VR 288
In the Marriage of Aldred (1984) 9 Fam LR 539
Islam v The Queen [2014] ACTCA 2
Konamala v The Queen [2016] VSCA 48
O'Grady v The Northern Queensland Company Ltd (1990) 169 CLR 356
Perlman v Perlman (1984) 155 CLR 474
Rosser v Donges [1990] 1 Qd R 490
R v Asplund (2010) 216 A Crim R 48
R v Budd (Unreported, District Court of New South Wales, Charteris DCJ, 2 October 2007),
R v De Simoni (1981) 147 CLR 383
R v DF (No 2) (2012) 257 FLR 31
R v Fearne [2014] ACTSC 172
R v Harris (Unreported, District Court of Queensland, Farr SC DCJ, No 904 of 2014, 20 August 2014)
R v Hutton (Unreported, Supreme Court of the Northern Territory, Barr J, SC 21403858, 19 June 2014)
R v Llewellyn (Unreported, District Court of Queensland, Koppenol DCJ, 9 February 2012).
R v Nahlous (2013) 228 A Crim R 503
R v Pham (2015) 325 ALR 400
R v Rivkin (2003) 198 ALR 400
R v Ross-Jones; Ex parte Green (1984) 156 CLR 185
R…

Continue reading R v Aniezue

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Aniezue [2016] ACTSC 82
Case
[2016] ACTSC 82
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The court heard an appeal by Arinze Aniezue against a conviction for using a carriage service to transmit indecent communications to a person under the age of 16 years. The matter was before the Court of Appeal. The primary judge found the appellant guilty of using a carriage service to transmit indecent communications to a minor, and sentenced him to a term of imprisonment. The appellant appealed on the grounds that the primary judge erred in not granting him credit for time spent in immigration detention, and that the sentence was excessive. The appeal was dismissed.

The court was required to determine whether the appellant should receive credit for time spent in immigration detention and whether the sentence was appropriate. The court considered the relevant principles for sentencing in indecent communications cases, including the need to protect children from harmful communications and the deterrent effect of the sentence. The court also considered the extra-curial punishment of the appellant, who was an unlawful non-citizen with imminent deportation.

The court found that the primary judge did not err in not granting the appellant credit for time spent in immigration detention. The court found that the detention was not a consequence of the offending, but rather a consequence of the appellant’s unlawful presence in Australia. The court found that the sentence was appropriate, taking into account the seriousness of the offending and the need to protect children from harmful communications. The court found that the primary judge had adequately considered the relevant principles and had not erred in sentencing the appellant to a term of imprisonment. The appeal was dismissed.

The court made no orders varying the sentence of the appellant. The appellant remains convicted of using a carriage service to transmit indecent communications to a person under the age of 16 years and is subject to the sentence of 10 months imprisonment, to commence on 12 November 2015, to take into account pre-sentence custody.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Arinze Aniezue is convicted of using of using a carriage service to transmit indecent communications to a person whom you believe to be under the age of 16 years (XO 16/3).

2. Arinze Aniezue is sentenced to 10 months imprisonment, to commence on 12 November 2015, to take into account pre-sentence custody.

3. Arinze Aniezue be released forthwith upon giving security by recognizance in the sum of $500 with a condition that he be of good behaviour for 18 months and that he, for that period or such lesser period as the person supervising him considers appropriate, be on probation; that is, to be under the supervision of the Director-General or her delegate.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.