R v Cox - [2021] ACTSC 98

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Cox
Citation:	[2021] ACTSC 98
Hearing Date:	24 May 2021
DecisionDate:	24 May 2021
Before:	Burns ACJ
Decision:	See [36]–[41]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – use carriage service to access child pornography material – use carriage service to access child abuse material – use carriage service to cause child pornography material to be transmitted – possess child abuse material – where offender accessed and possessed significant quantity of child abuse material – where material accessed over several sustained periods of time – consideration of individual deterrence
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) ss 16A(1), 20(1B) Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) ss 474.19, 474.19(1)(a)(ii), 474.22A
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Christopher John Cox (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel Z Hough (Crown) K Musgrove (Offender)
Solicitors Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) McKenna Taylor (Offender)
File Number:	SCC 37 of 2021

BURNS ACJ:

Christopher John Cox, you appear before me to be sentenced for four offences against the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) (Commonwealth Criminal Code). There are two offences of using a carriage service to access child pornography or abuse material contrary to s 474.19 (CC 1982/2021; CC 1984/2021), one offence of using a carriage service to possess child abuse material contrary to s 474.22A (CC 6807/2020) and one offence of using a carriage service to cause child pornography to be transmitted to yourself contrary to s 474.19(1)(a)(ii) (CC 1984/2021). Each of the offences carries a maximum penalty of 15 years’ imprisonment.

The facts

A comprehensive Agreed Statement of Facts was tendered in court. I will not now recite the facts in full. In summary, on 4 June 2020 police attended at your residence for the purpose of executing a search warrant, having received information that you were involved in the uploading and transmission of child abuse material.

Police located and took possession of a MacBook Pro, a SanDisk USB and an iPhone 11. Subsequent analysis of these devices showed that they contained child abuse material. During the execution of the search warrant, you made admissions that you were in possession of child abuse material, that you had been accessing child abuse material for 12 to 18 months and that you knew that child abuse material was illegal. You suggested that boredom was a trigger that caused you to access this material.

You were arrested and remanded in custody. You spent two weeks and six days in custody before being released on bail.

I will turn to initially Count 4, the possession of child abuse material (CC 6807/2020). With regard to the charge of possession of child abuse material, an examination of the MacBook Pro revealed 216 videos of child abuse material. These featured both male and female children predominantly between 4 and 15 years of age. The children were depicted engaging in acts varying from exposing their genitalia through to actual penetration by an adult or by an object. Some of…

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 Cox

Details

AGLC: R v Cox [2021] ACTSC 98
Case: [2021] ACTSC 98
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Cox involved the offender, Christopher John Cox, being sentenced by the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory for four offences under the Criminal Code Act 1995. The charges included using a carriage service to access child pornography or abuse material, possessing child abuse material, and causing child pornography material to be transmitted. The maximum penalty for each offence was 15 years' imprisonment. The facts of the case were established through an Agreed Statement of Facts and included the discovery of significant amounts of child abuse material on Cox's devices, along with his admissions regarding his actions.

The legal issues before the court involved determining the appropriate sentence for the offences, considering factors such as the objective seriousness of the crimes, the subjective features of the offender, and the relevant sentencing principles. The court needed to weigh the need for deterrence and punishment against the potential for rehabilitation, taking into account Cox's pleas of guilty, his remorse, and his participation in a sex offender treatment program. The court also had to decide on the degree of concurrency between sentences given the overlap in the material involved in the charges.

Acting Chief Justice Burns concluded that while the offences were serious, Cox had reasonable prospects for rehabilitation, particularly due to his engagement in treatment. The court applied a 25% reduction to the sentences for Cox's pleas of guilty and his cooperation with authorities. The sentences were structured to ensure that Cox would serve a significant period of imprisonment, followed by a Recognizance Release Order with conditions including continued participation in treatment and restrictions on interstate travel. The court also made Forfeiture Orders as agreed by the parties. Cox was sentenced to varying periods of imprisonment for each offence, with some sentences to run concurrently, ensuring that the total punishment was commensurate with the gravity of his crimes.

Orders