R v Bosma - [2016] QDC 127

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Bosma [2016] QDC 127

PARTIES:

R

v

PETER BOSMA

FILE NO/S:

DC No. 789 of 2016

DIVISION:

Criminal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court, Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

31 May 2016 (delivered ex tempore)

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

31 May 2016

JUDGE:

Shanahan JDC

COUNSEL:

A Sanderson for the Crown

D James for the Defendant

SOLICITORS:

Office of the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions for the Crown

Lawler Magill for the Defendant

HIS HONOUR: Mr Bosma, would you stand up, please, sir. Mr Bosma, you pleaded guilty to one count of using a carriage service to groom a person under 16 and three counts of using a carriage service to procure a person under 16 years of age to engage in sexual activity. The offences occurred over a relatively short period of time. You were a resident in New South Wales and had subscribed to social networking. Initially, it was an adult site and you came across a photograph of the supposed girl in this case. You made contact with her. You indicated you wanted to make further contact with her. That evolved into both social networking, Skype contact, texting and in the end some telephone calls.

It proceeded over a period of about six weeks. There was, in fact, no girl of 14. There was a police operative, but it’s clear that you believed it was a girl of 14. The conversations quickly descended to sexualised chat on your part and it plainly indicated proposed sexual activities that you wished to conduct with her. There was a period of time that’s described as the grooming period when you were simply indicating a desire for some sort of platonic relationship, but in my view it quickly descended into an indication that you were sexually interested in the respondent. There were many communications that described sexual acts that you wished to perform upon her and they are contained in counts 2, 3 and 4.

Of most seriousness is the fact that you discussed meeting with the person and, in fact, a meeting place was organised. You arranged a meeting with her on the 15^th and 16^th of May of 2015. You, in fact, flew from Sydney to Brisbane and attended on the meeting place. You were met with police. You were arrested at that stage and remanded in custody for a period of something like 11 days. In a police interview you made some admissions and you pleaded guilty to the charges at an early stage. A significant factor in the matter is that you were a teacher in a primary school at the time and, obviously, in a position of trust in relation to children.

The arrest also became the focus of media attention. The arrest itself was, in fact, filmed and later played on national television. It also received substantial media coverage in newspapers and I’m told that there is also international interest in the story. It seems to…

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 Bosma

Details

AGLC: R v Bosma [2016] QDC 127
Case: [2016] QDC 127
Decision Date: 31 May 2016 (delivered ex tempore)

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The District Court of Queensland heard the sentencing matter of R v Bosma, where the defendant, Peter Bosma, was convicted on one count of using a carriage service to groom a person under 16, and three counts of using a carriage service to procure a person under 16 years of age to engage in sexual activity. The court had to determine the appropriate sentence considering the severity of the offences and the defendant's personal circumstances, including his mental health issues and lack of a criminal history.

The legal issues the court needed to address included the appropriate penalty for such offences, taking into account the maximum penalties prescribed by law, and whether personal mitigating factors could justify a departure from the standard sentencing range. The court also had to consider the defendant's remorse, the impact of the offences on his career, and the need for general deterrence.

In delivering the sentence, the court recognised the gravity of the offences, particularly the grooming and procurement of a minor for sexual activity. The court noted the seriousness of such offences by referring to the maximum penalties and previous cases. However, it also acknowledged the defendant's personal circumstances, including his history of depressive illness and his professional background as a teacher. The court accepted that the defendant's judgment was impaired at the time of the offences due to his mental health condition. Additionally, the court considered the defendant's remorse, his proactive steps in seeking treatment, and the significant personal costs incurred as a result of his actions.

The court concluded that a sentence of two years' imprisonment was appropriate as a head sentence for the procurement charges, but that the defendant should be released after serving three months due to the mitigating factors present. The court ordered a recognizance release, which involved the defendant serving three months in prison, followed by a period of five years of good behaviour and two years of probation supervision. The court also ordered that the convictions be recorded and that the period of time the defendant had already spent in custody be considered as time served.

Orders