R v Bolton

Case [2024] ACTSC 314

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

R v Bolton

Citation: 

[2024] ACTSC 314

Hearing Date: 

24 September 2024

Decision Date: 

17 October 2024

Before:

McWilliam J

Decision: 

Term of imprisonment of 1 year and 11 months, released on recognizance after 7 weeks.

Catchwords: 

CRIMINAL LAW – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – possession of child abuse material – using carriage service to access child abuse material – where offender has disabilities from stroke suffered subsequent to offending – whether intensive correction order appropriate – full time imprisonment and release on recognizance ordered

Legislation Cited: 

Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) ss 16A, 16A(1), 16A(2), 16A(2AAA), 16AB(3), 17A(1), 17A(2)(a), 19(5), 19(6), 19AC, 20(1)(b)(iii), 20(1B), 20AB(1)(b)

Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) ss 474.22(1), 474.22A(1)

Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 29(1)(b), 78(6)

Sentencing Act 1991 (VIC) s 44(1)

Cases Cited: 

Boulton v The Queen; Clements v The Queen; Fitzgerald v The Queens [2014] VSCA 342; 46 VR 308

Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa [2010] NSWCCA 194; 79 NSWLR 1

Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v Garside; Director of Public Prosecutions v Garside [2016] VSCA 74; 50 VR 800

Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v Thomas; Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v Wu [2016] VSCA 237; 53 VR 546

Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v Watson [2016] VSCA 73; 259 A Crim R 327

Fedele v The Queen [2015] NSWCCA 286; 257 A Crim R 78

Hili v The Queen; Jones v The Queen [2010] HCA 45; 242 CLR 520

James v The Queen [2009] NSWCCA 62

McLeod v The Queen [2018] ACTCA 59

Mertell v The King [2022] ACTCA 69

Minehan v The Queen [2010] NSWCCA 140; 201 A Crim R 243

Muldrock v The Queen [2011] HCA 39; 244 CLR 120

Peters v The Queen [2018] NSWCCA 126

R v Cardwell [2021] QCA 112

R v Cobcroft (No 2) [2022] ACTSC 15

R v Cusack [2021] ACTSC 75

R v Davison [2020] ACTSC 272

R v De Leeuw [2015] NSWCCA 183

R v De Simoni [1981] HCA 31; 147 CLR 383

R v Guode [2020] HCA 8; 267 CLR 141

R v Howe [2017] QCA 7

R v Hutchinson [2018] NSWCCA 152

R v Kelly (Edward); R v Sandford [2000] 1 QB 198

R v Porte [2015] NSWCCA 174; 252 A Crim R 294

R v Tootell; Ex parte A-G (Qld) [2012] QCA 273

R v Verdins; R v Buckley; R v Vo [2007] VSCA 102; 16 VR 269

R v Walker [2019] ACTSC 172

R v Wicks [2005] NSWCCA 409

Xiao v The Queen [2018] NSWCCA 4; 96 NSWLR 1

Texts Cited:

Explanatory Memorandum, Crimes Legislation Amendment (Sexual Crimes Against Children and Community Protection Measures) Bill 2019 (Cth)

Parties: 

Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) ( Crown)

Steven John Bolton ( Offender)

Representation: 

Counsel

E Gordon ( Crown)

D Ager ( Offender)

Solicitors

Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions ( Crown)

Continue reading R v Bolton

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Bolton [2024] ACTSC 314
Case
[2024] ACTSC 314
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Bolton, the defendant was charged with offences under the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) for possessing child abuse material and using a carriage service to access such material. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The defendant had a history of stroke-related disabilities, which had manifested after the commission of the offences, and this was a significant factor in the sentencing considerations.

The court was required to determine the appropriate sentence, considering the severity of the offences and the defendant's subsequent disabilities. The prosecution argued for a term of imprisonment, while the defence submitted that an intensive correction order would be more suitable, given the defendant's health condition. The court had to balance the need for punishment and deterrence with the defendant's health and rehabilitation prospects.

The court found that the offences were serious and warranted a term of imprisonment. However, it also recognised the defendant's health condition and the potential for rehabilitation. After considering all the circumstances, the court ordered a sentence of one year and eleven months imprisonment, to be served with a release on recognizance after seven weeks. The court considered that this outcome would allow the defendant to receive necessary medical treatment and rehabilitation while also serving a proportionate punishment.

Orders

Orders of the court

Term of imprisonment of 1 year and 11 months, released on recognizance after 7 weeks.

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.