R v Armstrong

Case [2020] ACTSC 298


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pornography material” under s473.1 of the Criminal Code 1995 (Cth) were repealed.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

Details
AGLC
R v Armstrong [2020] ACTSC 298
Case
[2020] ACTSC 298
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Commonwealth of Australia against Armstrong, the dispute centred around a criminal case involving the use of a carriage service to access child pornography material. Armstrong had entered pleas of guilty to charges under the Criminal Code Act 1995, specifically for accessing child pornography material using a carriage service. The case was heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, where the sentencing for these criminal offences was determined.

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.