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 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 |
Continue reading R v Aniezue
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Aniezue [2016] ACTSC 82
- Case
- [2016] ACTSC 82
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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.