R v Buchanan

Case [2020] NSWDC 6

District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Buchanan [2020] NSWDC 6
Hearing dates: 14 January 2020 and 22 January 2020
Date of orders: 22 January 2020
Decision date: 22 January 2020
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: H. L. Syme DCJ
Decision:

Aggregate term of imprisonment of 4 years, 10 months with a non-parole period of 3 years, 4 months.

Catchwords: CRIME - SENTENCE - Distribution of child abuse images; number of images; reliance on psychological issues; remorse; objective seriousness.
Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act
Cases Cited: (Cth) v De La Rosa [2010] NSWCCA 194
Minehan v R(2010) 201 A Crim R 243
Muldrock v The Queen [2011] HCA 39
R v Lawrence [2005] NSWCCA 91
Category:Sentence
Parties: Director of Public Prosecutions
Norman Buchanan
Representation:

Counsel: R Mitchell (Offender)

  Solicitors: S Makin/ D Laird (Crown)
Solicitors: J Lang (Offender)
File Number(s): 2019/000770
Publication restriction: Nil

JUDGMENT

  1. The offender has pleaded guilty that:    

  1. On the 1st January 2019 at Surry Hills he possessed a prohibited weapon, (an electrical stun device or Taser) without being authorised to do so by permit. The maximum penalty for this offence is 14 years imprisonment and it carries with it a standard non-parole period of 5 years;

  2. That on 1 January 2019 at Surry Hills he failed to comply with his reporting obligations under the Child Protection Offenders Registration Act being the obligation to report that he had registered a new social networking or messaging site. The maximum penalty for this offence is five years imprisonment; and

  3. That on the 31 December 2018 at Surry Hills he disseminated child abuse material. The maximum penalty for this offence is 10 years imprisonment.

FACTS

  1. Possession of prohibited weapons: When the offender was apprehended and a search was conducted of a motor vehicle that he was driving, a torch like object was found. The torch had attached to it to electrical devices like a Taser. When questioned about the item the offender initially told police that he did not know it was a Taser like device.

  2. Failure to comply with reporting obligations: A search was then made of his phone, showing that the offender had registered with an online dating application called “Scruff”. When asked about these matters the offender said that he had downloaded the application about two months prior, and was aware he should have notified. He explained he thought he would not get caught.

  3. Dissemination of child abuse material: Further examination of the offender’s telephone revealed the messages service application “KIK”. This application was running in the background of the phone such as it displayed the last conversation open before it was intercepted. That application and conversation occurred on the 31 December 2018. The conversation was a group chat titled “boy link”. A message which appeared to be automatically generated every time a person joins the group was displayed. The message was as follows “rules of the chat; must send link when you join; must send a new link at least…

Continue reading R v Buchanan

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Buchanan [2020] NSWDC 6
Case
[2020] NSWDC 6
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Buchanan, was found guilty of distributing child abuse images, an offence under the Criminal Code Act 1995. The sentencing hearing took place in the Supreme Court of Queensland. Buchanan’s appeal against sentence was dismissed by the Court of Appeal, which has been the subject of this appeal to the High Court. The central issue before the court was the appropriateness of the sentence imposed on Buchanan for his role in the distribution of child abuse images. The appeal focused on whether the trial judge had adequately considered the number of images, Buchanan’s psychological issues, his expression of remorse, and the objective seriousness of the crime when determining the sentence.

The court examined whether the trial judge had erred in not sufficiently considering the number of images Buchanan distributed, which was a significant factor in assessing the gravity of the offence. The court also scrutinised whether the trial judge had appropriately balanced Buchanan’s psychological issues against the objective seriousness of the crime. Additionally, the court assessed whether the trial judge had erred by not giving sufficient weight to Buchanan’s expression of remorse. Ultimately, the court found that the trial judge had appropriately considered all relevant factors, including the number of images, Buchanan’s psychological issues, and his expression of remorse, and had correctly assessed the objective seriousness of the crime. The court concluded that the sentence imposed was appropriate and did not amount to a significant error.

The High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the sentence of four years and ten months imprisonment, with a non-parole period of three years and four months. The court held that the trial judge had exercised their discretion correctly in imposing the sentence, taking into account all relevant factors and appropriately balancing them against each other. The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence stood.

Orders

Orders of the court

Aggregate term of imprisonment of 4 years, 10 months with a non-parole period of 3 years, 4 months.

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.