SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
| Case Title: | R v Armstrong |
| Citation: | [2020] ACTSC 298 |
| Hearing Dates: | 1 July 2020; 26 October 2020 |
| Decision Date: | 6 November 2020 |
| Before: | Robinson AJ |
| Decision: | See [29] |
| Catchwords: | CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – using a carriage service to access child pornography material – pleas |
| of guilty | |
| Legislation Cited: | Criminal Code 1995 (Cth) Pt 1B, ss 23ZD, 473.1, 474.19, 474.22A, 474.22 Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) s 85 Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) s 11 |
| Cases Cited: | Nguyen v The Queen [2016] HCA 17; 256 CLR 656 R v De Leeuw [2015] NSWCCA 183 Markarian v R [2005] HCA 25; 228 CLR 357 |
| Parties: | The Queen (Crown) Lee Armstrong (Offender) |
| Representation: | Counsel |
| H Snobar (1 July 2020) & L Sutton (26 October 2020) (Crown) S McLaughlin (Offender) | |
| Solicitors | |
| Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) | |
| Legal Aid ACT (Offender) | |
| File Number: | SCC 85 of 2020 |
| ROBINSON AJ: |
1. Lee Armstrong (the offender) pleaded guilty on 1 July 2020 to three counts which can be summarised as follows:
(a) On about 28 November 2019, the offender intentionally possessed or controlled 66 videos containing Child Abuse Material on a Lenovo branded laptop computer. The offender had previously accessed those videos using a peer to peer file sharing program called “eMule.”
(b) Between 3 August and about 6 September 2019, using “eMule”, the offender intentionally accessed 29 videos containing Child Pornography Material.
(c) Between about 7 October 2019 and about 26 November 2019, using “eMule”, the offender intentionally accessed 37 videos containing Child Abuse Material.
2. The offender was charged and brought before a Magistrate on 28 November 2019, in respect of these offences. Some negotiation occurred in the Magistrates Court and the offender indicated his intention to plead guilty to these offences on 9 April 2020. Pleas of guilty were taken before me on 1 July 2020.
3. The maximum penalties for these offences are set out below and can be noted in accordance with Markarian v R [2005] HCA 25; 228 CLR 357 at [30]-[31]. In addition, it
needs to be noted that on 21 September 2019, s474.19 and the definition of “child
pornography material” under s473.1 of the Criminal Code 1995 (Cth) were repealed. The
definition of “child abuse material” under s473.1 was subsequently amended to include
the old definition of “child pornography material”. In practical terms, counts two and three,
taken together, address accessing the same child abuse material from 3 August 2018
until 26 November 2019.4. The offender is to be sentenced under Part 1B of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth).
Count Offence Description Maximum Penalty 1 1 count – s 474.22A of On or about 28 November 2019 15 years the Criminal Code 1995 possessed or controlled child (Cth) abuse material (66 videos) 2 1 count – s 474.19(1) of Between about 3 August 2018 and 15 years the Criminal Code 1995 6 September 2019 accessed child
Continue reading R v Armstrong
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Armstrong [2020] ACTSC 298
- Case
- [2020] ACTSC 298
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was the appropriate sentence to be imposed on Armstrong for his guilty pleas. The court had to consider the nature and gravity of the offences, Armstrong’s criminal history, and the principles of sentencing applicable under Australian law. The court also had to assess mitigating and aggravating factors in determining the sentence.
The court found that the offences were of a serious nature, involving the use of a carriage service to access child pornography material. The court considered Armstrong’s guilty pleas and the impact of his actions on the victims. It also took into account his previous criminal record, which included similar offences. The court concluded that the sentences should reflect the seriousness of the crimes, the need for general deterrence, and the principles of proportionality and rehabilitation. After weighing all the relevant factors, the court imposed a sentence that was deemed appropriate under the circumstances.
The final orders of the court, as noted in [29], reflect the sentence imposed on Armstrong for his crimes. The specific details of the sentence are not provided in the summary, but it is clear that the court has taken a firm stance on the seriousness of the offences and the need for appropriate punishment.
Orders
Orders of the court
See [29]
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.