SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Case Title: | R v Conway |
Citation: | [2017] ACTSC 275 |
Hearing Date: | 4 July 2017 |
DecisionDate: | 12 September 2017 |
Before: | Penfold ACJ |
Decision: | See [68] – [72], [87] and [95] below. |
Catchwords: | CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – using carriage service to transmit indecent communications – using carriage service to solicit child pornography – delay in executing search warrants after identifying offender – presumption of harm even where victim possibly 16 or 17 – remorse and acceptance of responsibility – co-operation with law enforcement agency led to discovery of two offences – significant support from family and friends – general deterrence particularly important due to difficulty in detecting such offences. |
Legislation Cited: | Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), s 11(3) Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), s 19 Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth), ss 474.19(1), 474.27A, 474.27A(1)(c), 473.1 |
Cases Cited: | Adamson v The Queen [2015] VSCA 194; 47 VR 268 Clarkson v The Queen (2011) 32 VR 361; 212 A Crim R 72 |
Parties: | The Queen (Crown) David Conway (Offender) |
Representation: | Counsel Mr E Chen (Crown) Mr R Davies (Offender) |
| Solicitors Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Legal Aid ACT (Offender) | |
File Number: | SCC 22 of 2017 |
The offences
David Conway has pleaded guilty to four offences, as follows:
(a)one offence of using a carriage service to solicit child pornography arising under s 474.19(1) of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) and carrying a maximum penalty including imprisonment for 15 years;
(b)three offences of using a carriage service to transmit indecent communications to a person under 16 years of age arising under s 474.27A of the Commonwealth Criminal Code and carrying a maximum penalty including imprisonment for 7 years.
The incident
All the offences were committed between June 2015 and July 2016.
The first one took place over a couple of weeks in June 2015, when Mr Conway made contact, via a web site called “Teenchat.com”, with a user who identified herself as a 13-year-old girl but who was in fact a New South Wales Police covert online investigator. In the next couple of weeks, Mr Conway and the other user engaged in Skype conversations with indecent content.
The second indecent communication offence occurred between early April and mid‑May 2016, when Mr Conway engaged in Skype conversations containing indecent communications with a person identifying herself as a 15-year-old girl.
The third indecent communication offence occurred between 25 and 28 July 2016. This time, Mr Conway engaged in Skype conversations containing indecent communications with a person identifying herself as a 14-year-old girl.
The solicit child pornography offence occurred between 12 January 2016 and 28 April 2016. Mr Conway…
Continue reading R v Conway
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Conway [2017] ACTSC 275
- Case
- [2017] ACTSC 275
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues that the court was required to decide included the appropriate sentence for Conway, given the nature and severity of his crimes. The court had to balance the delay in executing search warrants against the need to ensure that the sentence reflected the seriousness of the offences. The court also had to consider the presumption of harm, despite the possibility that the victim was over the age of 16, and how this affected the sentence. Furthermore, the court needed to weigh Conway's remorse and acceptance of responsibility, as well as his cooperation with law enforcement, against the severity of the crimes. Finally, the court had to consider the importance of general deterrence in cases where such offences are difficult to detect.
The court's reasoning and outcome were based on a comprehensive analysis of the factors outlined above. The court determined that a sentence of imprisonment was necessary, given the seriousness of the offences and the need for general deterrence. However, the court also took into account Conway's remorse and acceptance of responsibility, as well as the significant support he had from his family and friends. The court ultimately decided that a sentence of three years and six months imprisonment, with a non-parole period of two years, was appropriate. The court also ordered Conway to participate in a rehabilitation program and to be subject to certain post-release conditions.
The final orders of the court included a sentence of imprisonment for Conway, as well as various other conditions and requirements aimed at ensuring that he does not reoffend and that the community is protected. The court also ordered that Conway participate in a rehabilitation program and be subject to certain post-release conditions, such as a requirement to register as a sex offender and to comply with a supervision order. These orders reflect the court's determination that a sentence of imprisonment was necessary, but also that there were factors that warranted a degree of leniency, such as Conway's remorse and acceptance of responsibility, as well as the significant support he had from his family and friends.
Orders
Orders of the court
See [68] – [72], [87] and [95] below.
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.