R v Cardwell

Case [2021] QCA 112


SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Cardwell [2021] QCA 112

PARTIES:

R
v
CARDWELL, Keith
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 184 of 2020
DC No 397 of 2020

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Cairns – Date of Sentence: 9 September 2020 (Fantin DCJ)

DELIVERED ON:

21 May 2021

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

8 April 2021

JUDGES:

Sofronoff P and Mullins JA and Bradley J

ORDER:

Application is refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant pleaded guilty to count 1 and count 2 of using a carriage service for child pornography and child abuse material under s 474.19 and s 474.22 of the Criminal Code 1995 (Cth) – where the applicant also pleaded guilty to count 3 of possessing child exploitation material contrary to s 228D(1)(b) of the Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) – where the applicant deleted the images, assisted the police in locating the material, expressed remorse to a psychologist, received positive character references from friends and associates and had no criminal history – where the offending on count 3 took place on a single day whereas the offending on count 1 and count 2 took place over a period of three and a half months – where count 3 involved still images, whereas count 1 had at least one video – where the maximum penalty for count 3 was lower by one year than the Commonwealth offences of count 1 and count 2 – where the applicant appeals the sentence on count 3 on the grounds that it was manifestly excessive – whether the primary Judge erred in finding that count 3 was the most serious of the three charges which rendered the sentence manifestly excessive

R v Vantoosten[2009] QCA 54, cited

COUNSEL:

C F C Wilson for the applicant
S J Bain for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Phillips Lawyers for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

  1. SOFRONOFF P: The applicant pleaded guilty to one count of using a carriage service for child pornography material contrary to s 474.19 of the Criminal Code1995 (Cth) and one count of using a carriage service for child abuse material contrary to s 474.22 of the Commonwealth Code. Both offences carry a maximum penalty of 15 years’ imprisonment. He also pleaded guilty to one count of possessing child exploitation material contrary to s 228D(1)(b) of the Criminal Code 1899 (Qld). That offence carries a maximum penalty of 14 years’ imprisonment. Fantin DCJ sentenced the applicant to imprisonment for 12 months on the Commonwealth charges and ordered that he be released forthwith on entering into recognizance in the sum of $500 on condition that he be of good behaviour for a period of two years. For the State offence, her Honour sentenced the applicant to imprisonment for 15 months to be suspended after he…

Continue reading R v Cardwell

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Cardwell [2021] QCA 112
Case
[2021] QCA 112
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, in this case, appealed against the sentence imposed on count 3 of the charges, arguing that it was manifestly excessive. The applicant pleaded guilty to count 1 and count 2 of using a carriage service for child pornography and child abuse material under sections 474.19 and 474.22 of the Criminal Code 1995 (Cth), as well as count 3 of possessing child exploitation material under section 228D(1)(b) of the Criminal Code 1899 (Qld). The applicant had deleted the images, assisted the police in locating the material, expressed remorse to a psychologist, received positive character references from friends and associates, and had no criminal history. Count 3 involved still images, whereas count 1 had at least one video, and count 3 occurred on a single day, whereas counts 1 and 2 took place over a period of three and a half months. The maximum penalty for count 3 was lower by one year than the Commonwealth offences of counts 1 and 2. The applicant argued that the primary judge erred in finding that count 3 was the most serious of the three charges, which rendered the sentence manifestly excessive.

The court was required to determine whether the primary judge erred in finding that count 3 was the most serious of the three charges, which rendered the sentence manifestly excessive. The court considered the nature and circumstances of the offence, the offending conduct, the offender's culpability, and the need for deterrence and denunciation. The court also considered the principle of proportionality, which requires that the sentence should be commensurate with the gravity of the offence. The court noted that the primary judge had given careful consideration to the offending conduct and the offender's culpability and had imposed a sentence that was within the statutory maximum penalty for count 3.

The court found that the primary judge had not erred in finding that count 3 was the most serious of the three charges, which rendered the sentence manifestly excessive. The court noted that the primary judge had given careful consideration to the offending conduct and the offender's culpability and had imposed a sentence that was within the statutory maximum penalty for count 3. The court found that the sentence was proportionate to the gravity of the offence and that there was no error in the primary judge's assessment of the offender's culpability. The court also noted that the offender had shown remorse, deleted the images, assisted the police in locating the material, and had no criminal history.

The court refused the application and dismissed the appeal against the sentence on count 3. The court found that the sentence was proportionate to the gravity of the offence and that there was no error in the primary judge's assessment of the offender's culpability. The court noted that the offender had shown remorse, deleted the images, assisted the police in locating the material, and had no criminal history. The court found that the sentence was just and appropriate in all the circumstances.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application is refused.

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.