R v Cooper - [2024] ACTSC 235

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Cooper
Citation:	[2024] ACTSC 235
Hearing Date:	16 July 2024
Decision Date:	22 July 2024
Before:	Mossop J
Decision:	See [90]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and punishment – sentence – charges of possessing or controlling child abuse material, using a carriage service to access, make available, and solicit child abuse material, possessing child exploitation material, and failing to report a change of details as a child sex offender – offender possessed 283,167 files which were images or video identified as child abuse material – previously convicted for possession of child abuse material – diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder and Paedophilic Disorder – where offender seems to have regarded it as a hobby like stamp collecting – sentence to be appropriate in all circumstances and not a crushing one – cumulative sentence of nine years and eight months with aggregate non-parole period for Commonwealth and Territory offences of five years and seven months
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), s 65(1) Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), ss 3LA, 16A(2)(h), 16AAB, 16AAC, 16BA, 19(6), 19(7), 23ZD Crimes (Child Sex Offenders) Act 2005 (ACT), s 58A Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT), s 108 Criminal Code (Cth), ss 474.19, 474.22(1), 474.22A Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT), s 90A
Cases Cited:	Glasheen v R [2022] NSWCCA 191 Hurt v The Queen [2022] ACTCA 49; 18 ACTLR 272 Hurt v The King [2024] HCA 8; 98 ALJR 485 R v Delzotto [2022] NSWCCA 117; 298 A Crim R 483 R v Michael Cooper [2012] ACTCA 9 R v Stiller [2023] QCA 51; 14 QR 38
Parties:	The King Michael Stanley Cooper ( Offender)
Representation:	Counsel K Hogan ( Crown) T O’Rourke ( Offender)
Solicitors Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions ( Crown) Aulich Criminal Law ( Offender)
File Number:	SCC 314 of 2023

MOSSOP J:

Introduction

1․These are sentence proceedings in relation to offences committed by Mr Michael Stanley Cooper. The offences for which he is to be sentenced are as follows:
(a)Count 1: Possessing or controlling child abuse material obtained or accessed using a carriage service contrary to s 474.22A(1) of the Criminal Code (Cth) (CAN 2181/2023). The maximum penalty is 15 years’ imprisonment. A mandatory minimum sentence of four years’ imprisonment applies to this offence.
(b)Count 2: Using a carriage service to access child abuse material contrary to s 474.22(1) of the Criminal Code (Cth) (CAN 11568/2023). The maximum penalty is 15 years’ imprisonment.
(c)Count 3: Using a carriage service to access child abuse material contrary to s 474.22(1) of the Criminal Code (Cth) (CAN 11569/2023). The maximum penalty is 15 years’ imprisonment. A mandatory minimum sentence of four years’ imprisonment applies to this offence.
(d)Count 4: Using a carriage service to access child pornography material contrary to s 474.19(1) of the Criminal Code (Cth) (CAN 11570/2023). The maximum penalty is 15 years’ imprisonment.
(e)Count 5: Using a carriage service to make available child…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v Cooper

Details

AGLC: R v Cooper [2024] ACTSC 235
Case: [2024] ACTSC 235
Decision Date: 22 July 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, the respondent was convicted of multiple offences including possessing or controlling child abuse material, using a carriage service to access, make available, and solicit child abuse material, possessing child exploitation material, and failing to report a change of details as a child sex offender. The respondent, diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder and Paedophilic Disorder, had previously been convicted for possession of child abuse material. At the time of his current offences, he possessed 283,167 files which were identified as child abuse material. The court was required to determine a sentence that would be appropriate in all the circumstances and not crushing, considering the respondent's mental health issues and his seemingly casual attitude towards his crimes.

The court considered the severity of the crimes and the need to protect the community, as well as the respondent's mental health conditions and the fact that he seemed to regard his activities as a hobby akin to stamp collecting. The court noted the cumulative impact of the respondent's crimes and the need for deterrence and rehabilitation. The court also considered the principles of proportionality and the need to ensure that the sentence would adequately reflect the seriousness of the crimes while taking into account the respondent's mental health issues.

After careful consideration of all the circumstances, the court determined that the appropriate sentence would be a cumulative term of nine years and eight months imprisonment, with an aggregate non-parole period of five years and seven months for the Commonwealth and Territory offences. The court emphasised the need for the sentence to be proportionate to the crimes committed and to serve as a deterrent to others who might engage in similar activities. The court also considered the respondent's mental health issues and the need for appropriate treatment and rehabilitation during his imprisonment.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [90]

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.