R v Campbell

[2004] QCA 342

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Campbell [2004] QCA 342

PARTIES:

R
v
CAMPBELL, Cameron John
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 287 of 2004
DC No 1087 of 2004

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:

20 September 2004

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

20 September 2004

JUDGES:

Williams JA and White and Cullinane JJ
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – SENTENCE – FACTORS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT – NATURE OF THE OFFENCE – where applicant convicted of using the internet to procure a child to engage in a sexual act – where sentenced to 18 months imprisonment suspended after three months with an operational period of four years – where applicant thought he was communicating with a 13 year old girl – where sexually explicit language used – where applicant sent sexually explicit photographs of himself – whether sentence imposed was manifestly excessive

Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 218A

R v Kennings [2004] QCA 162; CA No 35 of 2004, 14 May 2004, followed

COUNSEL:

R King for the applicant
M J Copley for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Cranston McEachern for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

WILLIAMS JA: The applicant pleaded guilty on 23 August 2004 to an offence that between 24 August 2003 and 14 November 2003 he used the internet to procure a child to engage in a sexual act. That is the offence created by s 218A(1)(a) of the Criminal Code which came into effect on 1 May 2003.

The learned District Court Judge sentenced the applicant to 18 months imprisonment suspended after three months with an operational period of four years.  This is an application for leave to appeal against that sentence on the ground that it was manifestly excessive.

The circumstances of the case are essentially revealed in the transcripts of five conversations which occurred during the relevant period between the applicant and a police officer who posed as a 13 year old girl.  That, of course, is a situation which is envisaged by the section of the code. 

In the circumstances it is necessary to refer only briefly to extracts from those transcripts.  To my mind it is clear that the applicant was desirous of arranging a meeting with the young girl.  To quote from the second conversation, which occurred on 29 August, the applicant said that he would love to have sex with the girl right now.  When she asked, "How", he responded, "Come to your place and then have sex."  When she said that her parents were at home he then asked her whether she ever went into the city and inquired whether she would go to the city and meet him there.  I am satisfied that the applicant was desirous…