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 2020DIVISION:
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 respondentSOLICITORS:
Phillips Lawyers for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent
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
- AGLC
- R v Cardwell [2021] QCA 112
- Case
- [2021] QCA 112
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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.