R v Finch; ex parte

Case [2006] QCA 60

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Finch; ex parte A-G (Qld) [2006] QCA 60

PARTIES:

R
v
FINCH, Roderick Alexander
(respondent)
EX PARTE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF QUEENSLAND
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 319 of 2005
DC No 429 of 2005

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Appeal by A-G (Qld)

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Maroochydore

DELIVERED ON:

10 March 2006

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

17 February 2006

JUDGES:

Williams and Keane JJA and Muir J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Appeal dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE - APPEAL BY ATTORNEY-GENERAL OR OTHER CROWN LAW OFFICER - APPLICATIONS TO INCREASE SENTENCE - OTHER OFFENCES - where the respondent pleaded guilty to one count of knowingly having in his possession child abuse computer games - where the definition of "computer game" includes "a computer generated image" - where the offence occurred before 4 April 2005 - as a consequence the respondent was sentenced under s 26(3) of the Classification of Computer games and Images Act 1995 (Qld) as opposed to the newly inserted s 228D of the Criminal Code - whether the sentence was manifestly inadequate

Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 207A, s 218A(2)(b), s 228D
Classification of Computer Games and Images Act 1995 (Qld), s 26(3)
Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 9(2)(a), s 9(5), s 9(6)

R v McGrath [2005] QCA 463, CA No 239 of 2005, 9 December 2005, considered
R v P G Finch, unreported, Maroochydore District Court, 7 March 2005, considered
R v Reid; ex parte Attorney-General [2000] QCA 218, CA No 46 of 2000, 2 June 2000, applied
R v Shew [1998] QCA 333, CA No 13 of 1998, 23 October 1998, considered
R v Smith, unreported, Gladstone District Court, 23 October 2003, considered

COUNSEL:

M J Copley for the appellant
S R Lewis SC for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the appellant
Ryan & Bosscher for the respondent

  1. WILLIAMS JA: This is an appeal by the Attorney-General of Queensland against a sentence imposed in the District Court at Maroochydore on the respondent on 22 November 2005. On that date the respondent pleaded guilty to a charge that on 9 July 2004 he "knowingly had possession of child abuse computer games." That was an offence pursuant to s 26(3) of the Classification of Computer Games and Images Act 1995 (Qld) ("the Act").

  1. That Act defines "child abuse computer game" as meaning "a computer game that is an objectionable game because it depicts a person who is, or who looks like, a child under 16 years (whether the person is engaged in sexual activity or not) in a way likely to cause offence to a reasonable adult."  The Act also defines "computer game" as including "a computer generated image".  The section provides that the…

Continue reading R v Finch; ex parte

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Finch; ex parte [2006] QCA 60
Case
[2006] QCA 60
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The respondent, Finch, was convicted of possessing child abuse computer games. The offence occurred before the amendment of the Classification of Computer Games and Images Act 1995 (Qld), and was sentenced under s 26(3) rather than the newly inserted s 228D of the Criminal Code. The Attorney-General sought an appeal against the sentence, arguing it was manifestly inadequate. The appeal was heard in the Queensland Court of Appeal.

The primary legal issue was whether the sentence imposed by the Maroochydore District Court was manifestly inadequate. The Attorney-General argued that the sentence did not adequately reflect the seriousness of the offence, particularly in light of the more severe penalties available under the newer statute. The court needed to determine if the original sentence was so inadequate that it warranted an appeal and an increased penalty.

The court considered the nature of the offence and the legislative intent behind the newer provisions of the Criminal Code. It examined previous cases where the court had increased sentences to align with updated legislative standards. The court noted that the older statute under which Finch was sentenced did not adequately capture the gravity of possessing child abuse material. The court concluded that the original sentence was indeed manifestly inadequate, and that the newer provisions of the Criminal Code provided a more fitting penalty structure. Consequently, the appeal was upheld, and the matter was remitted to the original sentencing court for re-sentencing under the updated legislation.

The court dismissed the appeal but made orders for the case to be remitted to the District Court for re-sentencing. The court emphasized the importance of ensuring that sentences reflect the seriousness of the offence and align with contemporary legislative standards. This decision underscored the need for courts to carefully consider the legislative context when imposing sentences, particularly in cases involving evolving criminal statutes.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed

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.