Legal Research
Cases
R v Blick

R v Blick

Case [2024] NSWDC 569 29 November 2024

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Blick [2024] NSWDC 569
Hearing dates: 25 November 2024
Date of orders: 29 November 2024
Decision date: 29 November 2024
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Newlinds SC DCJ
Decision:
After a deduction of 25% for the early guilty plea, the Offender is sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 6 years, to commence 2 February 2022 and expire 1 February 2028.
There will be a minimum non-parole period of 4 years, to commence 2 February 2022 and expire 1 February 2026.
The first date the Offender will be eligible for parole is 1 February 2026.

Catchwords:
CRIME — Child sex offences — Child abuse material — Using carriage service for child pornography material or child abuse material
SENTENCING — Federal offences — Proper approach to mandatory minimum head sentences pursuant to s 16AAB of Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)

Legislation Cited:
Child Protection (Offender Registration) Act 2002 (NSW)
Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) s 16A(2); s 16AAB; s 16AAC; s 17A(1)
Criminal Code 1995 (Cth) s 474.22(1)

Cases Cited:
Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571
DPP v Latham [2009] TASSC 101
Elias v R (2013) 248 CLR 483
Hurt v The King; and Delzotto v The King [2024] HCA 8
Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357
McGregor v R [2024] NSWCCA 200
R v CaccioIa (1998) 104 ACrimR 178
R v Delzotto [2021] NSWDC 3
R v Hurt [2019] ACTSC 148

Category: Sentence
Parties: Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Adam Ross Penn Blick (Offender)
Representation:
Counsel:
A N Williams (Crown)
E James (Offender)
Solicitors:
CDPP (Crown)
Simon Joyner Lawyers (Offender)

File Number(s): 2022/30935
Publication restriction: Nil

JUDGMENT

Overview

Adam Ross Penn Blick ("the Offender") has pleaded guilty to, and is to be sentenced for, the following offence:

Seq

Offence

Description

Mandatory Minimum Head Sentence

Maximum Penalty

2

S 474.22(1), Criminal Code 1995 (Cth)

Between about 2 December 2021 and about 2 February 2022 at Burwood in the state of New South Wales, did access material using a carriage service, the material being child abuse material.

4 years imprisonment

15 years imprisonment

As at 29 November 2024, the Offender has spent 2 years, 9 months, and 27 days in custody solely referable to this offence. The Crown accepts that it is appropriate to backdate any sentence to 2 February 2022.
This is not the first time the Offender has been before the Courts for this type of offence. He does have a significant record of like offending. At the time of his arrest, he was on parole for a similar offence and was arrested as a consequence of a routine check by police as he was a registered person pursuant to the Child Protection (Offender Registration) Act 2002 (NSW) (“CPOR”).

General sentencing principles

The offence carries a maximum penalty of 15 years' imprisonment, which provides an unequivocal indication that the offending is viewed by Parliament as being of the utmost seriousness and provides a “yardstick”: Elias v R

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 R v Blick

Details

AGLC: R v Blick [2024] NSWDC 569
Case: [2024] NSWDC 569
Decision Date: 29 November 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Regina versus Blick, the defendant was convicted for possessing child pornography and using a carriage service to transmit child abuse material, offences under Australian criminal law. The case was heard in a federal court, where the defendant’s sentence was to be determined. The primary legal issues revolved around the appropriate application of mandatory minimum sentences for these types of offences, particularly in light of statutory provisions outlined in the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth).

The court was tasked with interpreting and applying section 16AAB of the Crimes Act, which imposes mandatory minimum sentences for serious offences involving child abuse material. The legal debate centred on how the court should balance the statutory requirements with the principles of proportionality and individualised sentencing. The court needed to consider the nature and gravity of the crimes, the offender's culpability, and any mitigating or aggravating factors. Additionally, the court had to assess the impact of the early guilty plea on the sentencing.

The court determined that, after taking into account the early guilty plea, which warranted a 25% reduction in the sentence, the offender should serve a total imprisonment term of six years, with a non-parole period of four years. The sentencing decision was based on a careful consideration of the statutory minimum sentences, the nature of the offences, and the offender's personal circumstances. The court concluded that the sentence, with the specified reductions and parole eligibility, was just and appropriate under the circumstances.

Orders

Orders of the court

After a deduction of 25% for the early guilty plea, the Offender is sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 6 years, to commence 2 February 2022 and expire 1 February 2028.

There will be a minimum non-parole period of 4 years, to commence 2 February 2022 and expire 1 February 2026.

The first date the Offender will be eligible for parole is 1 February 2026.

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.

Actions

Citations

R v Blick [2024] NSWDC 569

Most Recent Citation

R v Kirkby [1998] QCA 445

Cases Citing This Decision

R v BEER [2007] SASC 353
Citation 1 (Para 10)

…that the appeal Court would think that, even though it was made out, no different sentence should be imposed. [1] R v Raad (2006) 15 VR 338. See also R v Blick (1999) 108 A Crim R 525; R v Mai [2000] VSCA 184 at [21].…
R v Jung [2006] NSWSC 658
Citation 2

…80 I have, in considering the application of s.137, also had regard to the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeal in Regina v. Blick (2002) 111 A. Crim. R. 326, in particular, at 333.…
Samuels v The State of Western Australia [2005] WASCA 193
Citation 3 (Para 3)

…particular grounds there was a reasonable prospect of success, he or she did not think the appeal would, or should succeed (see Callaway JA in R v Blick (1999) 108 A Crim R 525 at [19]). Because the new provisions are not a consolidation of pre‑existing legislation, and given the different wording and legislative…
R v Kirkby [1998] QCA 445
Citation 4 (Para 13)

…In R v Blick (1830),[16] Blick was charged with receiving stolen brass and the indictment stated that “one Edwin Smith, at the General Quarter Sessions etc. was convicted of stealing brass, fixed in the church-yard at Minchinhampton, that being a ‘place dedicated to public use’ and that the prisoner received it, kn…

See all citing cases →

Cases Cited

McGregor v The King [2024] NSWCCA 200
Citation 1 (Para 17)

…inal Appeal in NSW has considered and explained the High Court’s decision, in particular dealing with its practical application in McGregor v R [2024] NSWCCA 200 (“ McGregor ”).…
Hurt v The King [2024] HCA 8
Citation 2 (Para 17)

…ecently considered the operation of s 16AAB generally and in particular how it interrelates with s 17A(1) in Hurt v The King; and Delzotto v The King [2024] HCA 8 (“ Hurt and Delzotto ”). Even more recently, the Court of Criminal Appeal in NSW has considered and explained the High Court’s decision, in particula…
R v Delzotto [2021] NSWDC 325
Citation 3 (Para 72)

…he mandatory minimum regime and are therefore of limited, if any, weight. Two of them are the decisions of R v Hurt [2019] ACTSC 148 and R v Delzotto [2021] NSWDC 325, the subject of the High Court's consideration this year. Each case, of course, turns on its own facts but I have done my best to try and be consiste…
R v Corak-Phan [2021] NSWDC 3
Citation 4

…e King [2024] HCA 8 Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357 McGregor v R [2024] NSWCCA 200 R v CaccioIa (1998) 104 ACrimR 178 R v Delzotto [2021] NSWDC 3 R v Hurt [2019] ACTSC 148 Category: Sentence Parties: Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Adam Ross Penn Blick (Offender) Representation: Coun…
R v Hurt [2019] ACTSC 148
Citation 5 (Para 72)

…the Crown. Some of them predate the mandatory minimum regime and are therefore of limited, if any, weight. Two of them are the decisions of R v Hurt [2019] ACTSC 148 and R v Delzotto [2021] NSWDC 325, the subject of the High Court's consideration this year. Each case, of course, turns on its own facts but I have d…
Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37
Citation 6 (Para 50)

…bined, can be causally connected to the offending. I do not consider his background falls into the category described in cases like Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571, but I do accept it was very difficult and there is a direct nexus between it and his offending.…
Elias v The Queen [2013] HCA 31
Citation 7 (Para 4)

…des an unequivocal indication that the offending is viewed by Parliament as being of the utmost seriousness and provides a “yardstick”: Elias v R (2013) 248 CLR 483 at [127].…
DPP v Latham [2009] TASSC 101
Citation 8 (Para 7)

…n indicator, it has been held that the type of material and degree of its depravity is the primary focus, and quantity is secondary: see DPP v Latham [2009] TASSC 101 at [35].…
Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25
Citation 9 (Para 18)

…hed in the same way as the statutory maximum penalty, in that they both fix “ends" of the sentencing yardstick referred to in Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357. This has two consequences. First, it confines the power of a sentencing Court, so as to prohibit it from imposing a sentence less than the statutory m…

Legislation Cited

Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) 16A(2)
2 mentions (from Para 14)

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Blick [2024] NSWDC 569
Hearing dates:	25 November 2024
Date of orders:	29 November 2024
Decision date:	29 November 2024
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Newlinds SC DCJ
Decision:	After a deduction of 25% for the early guilty plea, the Offender is sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 6 years, to commence 2 February 2022 and expire 1 February 2028. There will be a minimum non-parole period of 4 years, to commence 2 February 2022 and expire 1 February 2026. The first date the Offender will be eligible for parole is 1 February 2026.
Catchwords:	CRIME — Child sex offences — Child abuse material — Using carriage service for child pornography material or child abuse material SENTENCING — Federal offences — Proper approach to mandatory minimum head sentences pursuant to s 16AAB of Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)
Legislation Cited:	Child Protection (Offender Registration) Act 2002 (NSW) Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) s 16A(2); s 16AAB; s 16AAC; s 17A(1) Criminal Code 1995 (Cth) s 474.22(1)
Cases Cited:	Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571 DPP v Latham [2009] TASSC 101 Elias v R (2013) 248 CLR 483 Hurt v The King; and Delzotto v The King [2024] HCA 8 Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357 McGregor v R [2024] NSWCCA 200 R v CaccioIa (1998) 104 ACrimR 178 R v Delzotto [2021] NSWDC 3 R v Hurt [2019] ACTSC 148
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Adam Ross Penn Blick (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel: A N Williams (Crown) E James (Offender) Solicitors: CDPP (Crown) Simon Joyner Lawyers (Offender)
File Number(s):	2022/30935
Publication restriction:	Nil

Seq	Offence	Description	Mandatory Minimum Head Sentence	Maximum Penalty
2	S 474.22(1), Criminal Code 1995 (Cth)	Between about 2 December 2021 and about 2 February 2022 at Burwood in the state of New South Wales, did access material using a carriage service, the material being child abuse material.	4 years imprisonment	15 years imprisonment