R v Crivici

Case [2024] ACTSC 156

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

R v Crivici

Citation: 

[2024] ACTSC 156

Hearing Dates: 

17 April 2023, 25 August 2023, 12 September 2023, 6 May 2024

Decision Date: 

21 May 2024

Before:

Loukas-Karlsson J

Decision: 

See [221]

Catchwords: 

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – possession of child exploitation material – using carriage service to possess child abuse material – using carriage service to transmit child abuse material –  where offender assisted law enforcement authorities – where assistance rendered by the offender was both unusual and significant in its scope  –  combined discount of 40% imposed for guilty plea and assistance to law enforcement authorities –  sentenced to term of imprisonment – ACT and Commonwealth term of imprisonment for possession to be served concurrently – limited partial concurrency between the two Commonwealth sentences – ACT sentence fully suspended upon entry to a good behaviour order  –exceptional circumstances justified immediate and full suspension of the Commonwealth sentences on recognisance release order

Legislation Cited: 

Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) ss 65(1), 211(2)(e)

Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) s 91H(2)

Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) ss 16A(1), 16A(2), 16A(2)(f)(i), 16A(2)(f)(ii), 16A(2)(g)(iii), 16A(2)(h), 16A(2AAA), 16BA, 17A(1), 19(3), 19(5), 19(6), 19(7), 19AJ, 20(1)(b), 20(1)(b)(ii), 20(1B), 20AB, 23ZD

Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) s 70(1)

Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) ss 474.19(1)(a)(i), 474.19(1)(a)(iii), 474.22(1), 474.22A(1)

Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 6, 7, 10, 12, 33, 33(1)(j), 33(1)(w), 35, 36, 37, 78(6)

Cases Cited: 

Allison (a pseudonym) v The Queen [2021] VSCA 308

Boulton v The Queen [2014] VSCA 342, 46 VR 308

Brierley v The Queen [2022] NSWCCA 26

Bugmy v The Queen (1990) 169 CLR 525

Burton v The Queen [2020] NSWCCA 127

Cahyadi v The Queen [2007] NSWCCA 1; 168 A Crim R 4

CMB v Attorney-General (NSW) [2015] HCA 9; 256 CLR 346

Deakin v The Queen (1984) 58 ALJR 367

DPP v Manns (No 2) [2023] ACTSC 405

DPP (Cth) v De La Rosa [2010] NSWCCA 194; 79 NSWLR 1

DPP (Cth) v Garside [2016] VSCA 74, 50 VR 800

DPP (Cth) v Thomas; DPP (Cth) v Wu [2016] VSCA 237; 53 VR 546

DPP (Cth) v Zarb [2014] VSCA 347; 46 VR 832

DPP (Vic) v Dalgliesh (a pseudonym) [2017] HCA 41; 262 CLR 428

Edwin v The Queen [2014] ACTCA 47

Green v The Queen; Quinn v The Queen [2011] HCA 49; 244 CLR 462

Henderson v The King [2024] ACTCA 3

Hili v the Queen [2010] HCA 45; 242 CLR 520

Hogan v Hinch [2011] HCA 4; 243 CLR 506

Huang aka Liu v The Queen [2018] NSWCCA 70; 332 FLR 158

Johnson v The Queen [2004] HCA 15; 78 ALJR 616

Kentwell v The Queen [2014] HCA 37; 257 CLR 601

Lowe v The Queen (1984) 154 CLR 606

Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25; 228 CLR 357

Mertell v The King [2022] ACTCA…

Continue reading R v Crivici

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Crivici [2024] ACTSC 156
Case
[2024] ACTSC 156
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Crivici involved the respondent, who was charged with possession of child exploitation material, using a carriage service to possess such material, and using a carriage service to transmit child abuse material. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory. The respondent entered a guilty plea to the charges and provided significant and unusual assistance to law enforcement authorities, which was acknowledged during sentencing.

The legal issues before the court included determining the appropriate sentence for the respondent's crimes, taking into account the discount for the guilty plea and the assistance provided to the authorities. The court also had to consider the sentencing principles relevant to the charges, including the need for denunciation, specific and general deterrence, and the rehabilitation of the offender. The court needed to balance these principles with the exceptional nature of the respondent's assistance to law enforcement.

The court considered the principles of sentencing and the specific circumstances of the case. It noted the significant and unusual assistance provided by the respondent, which led to a combined discount of 40% on the sentence. The court also took into account the need for denunciation and general deterrence, as well as the respondent's rehabilitation prospects. The court sentenced the respondent to a term of imprisonment, with the sentences to be served concurrently where possible. The court decided to fully suspend the sentences on the condition that the respondent enter into a good behaviour order and be released on recognizance, given the exceptional nature of the assistance provided.

The final orders of the court were that the respondent be sentenced to imprisonment, with the sentences to run concurrently where possible, and that the sentences be fully suspended on the conditions outlined. The specific terms of the good behaviour order and recognizance release were detailed in the judgment.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [221]

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.