R v Currie - [2015] ACTSC 404

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Currie
Citation:	[2015] ACTSC 404
Hearing Date:	2 November 2015
DecisionDate:	12 November 2015
Before:	Penfold J
Decision:	See [52] to [55] below
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – offender to be sentenced for using a carriage service to solicit child pornography and possessing child pornography – offender created on-line identity as 14-year-old boy – offender engaged in on-line and telephone relationship with 13-year-old girl – offender solicited child pornography images from 13-year-old girl – images kept on offender’s phone – victim impact statements – no criminal history – offender prescribed testosterone blocker and accepting behaviour therapy from psychiatrist – consideration of comparable cases – prison sentence, but no immediate custodial time, required.
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), s 65 Crimes Act1914 (Cth), s 20 Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) Criminal Code 1995 (Cth), s 474.19(1)
Cases Cited:	Minehan vR [2010] NSWCA 140 R v Cooper [2012] ACTCA 9 R v DB [2015] ACTSC 28 R v Falzon [2015] ACTSC 104 R v Forbes [2014] ACTSC 91 R v Matthew Dummett [2013] ACTSC (Burns J, 30 October 2013) The Queen v Michael Philpot [2015] ACTSC 96
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Craig Currie (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel Ms S Jowitt (Crown) Mr A Fraser (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Armstrong Legal (Offender)
File Number:	SCC 143 of 2015

The offence

Craig Currie has pleaded guilty to two charges, being:

(a)one of using a carriage service to solicit child pornography material contrary to s 474.19(1) of the Criminal Code 1995 (Cth), which carries a maximum penalty including imprisonment for 15 years; and
(b)one of intentionally possessing child pornography contrary to s 65 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), which carries a maximum penalty including imprisonment for seven years.

The incident

The offences were committed earlier this year, although they arose out of conduct by Mr Currie begun early in 2014. Mr Currie, who is now 36, set up an Instagram profile in which he used a false name, Sam Davis, and described himself as a 14-year-old boy who went to school in Cronulla, Sydney.

In due course, a 12-year-old girl, B, also from Sydney, began to “follow” Sam Davis, and in November 2014 Sam Davis made contact with B, and they began communicating regularly. Communications continued using Snapchat, Facebook and Skype; the Skype contact generally showed Sam Davis sitting in a darkened room with a hood over his head. At some point, the two began mobile phone contact, and there were some very long phone calls. Throughout the phone conversations, Mr Currie maintained his pretence of being a 14-year-old boy. Mr Currie said in evidence at the sentencing hearing that about 75% of their conversation related to general matters such as school, music and so on, but admitted that about 25% of it was sexual in nature.

In January 2015, Sam Davis began sending B…

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 Currie

Details

AGLC: R v Currie [2015] ACTSC 404
Case: [2015] ACTSC 404
Decision Date: 12 November 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Currie involved the defendant, who used a carriage service to solicit and possess child pornography. The offender created an online identity as a 14-year-old boy, engaging in an online and telephone relationship with a 13-year-old girl. The offender solicited child pornography images from the girl, which were then kept on the offender's phone. The case was heard in the court, which was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence for the offender, considering the seriousness of the offence and the offender's background.

The court had to address several legal issues, including the nature and gravity of the offences committed, the offender's prior criminal history, and the potential impact of a custodial sentence on the offender's ongoing treatment for their behaviour. The court also needed to consider the victim impact statements, as well as the offender's acceptance of treatment and cooperation with authorities.

The court ultimately decided that the offender should be sentenced to a period of imprisonment, but with no immediate custodial time. This decision was based on the offender's acceptance of treatment, lack of a criminal history, and the potential negative impact of immediate imprisonment on the offender's ongoing therapy. The court found that a non-custodial sentence, combined with the offender's treatment and monitoring, would be the most appropriate course of action. The court took into account comparable cases and the need for deterrence and rehabilitation in reaching its decision.

The final orders of the court were that the offender was to be sentenced to a period of imprisonment, but with no immediate custodial time. The offender was to remain under supervision and continue their treatment, including the prescription of a testosterone blocker and behaviour therapy. The specific details of the sentence and ongoing monitoring were outlined in the court's judgment, from paragraph 52 to 55.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [52] to [55] 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.