R v Fisher - [2022] NSWDC 98

District Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Fisher [2022] NSWDC 98
Hearing dates: 18 March 2022
Date of orders: 18 March 2022
Decision date: 18 March 2022
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Wilson SC DCJ
Decision:
Ex tempore reasons given in court

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW – sentencing- procure child under 14 years for unlawful sexual activity - incite another person to sexually touch a child who is under the age of 10 years- producing child abuse material- intentionally incite another person to carry out a sexual act with or towards a child who is under the age of 10 years.

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) ss 66EB(2), 66DA(c), 91H(2) and 66DC(d)
Crime (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
R v Fuller [2010] NSWCCA 192
Gifford v R [2016] 263 A Crim R 373

Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Craig James Fisher
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr O’Conner (Crown)
Mr O’Sullivan (Defence)
Solicitors: Mr Locker (Defence)

File Number(s): 2020/330882
Publication restriction: none

Judgment

Introduction

Craig James Fisher appears to be sentenced in relation to a number of charges, in fact four charges. The first charge is a contravention of s 66EB(2) of the Crimes Act, which is the section of the Act relating to the procuring or grooming of a child under the age of 16 for unlawful sexual activity.
Subsection (2) provides that adults who intentionally procure a child for unlawful sexual activity with that or any other person is guilty of an offence. If the child is under the age of 14, the maximum sentence is 15 years imprisonment. There is a standard non-parole period of six years.
The second count, which is sequence 17, is the same offence, with the same penalties.
The third count, sequence 14, is an offence under s 66DA(c) of the Crimes Act. That is the offence of a person intentionally inciting a child who is under the age of ten to sexually touch another person. The maximum penalty is 16 years imprisonment with a standard non-parole period of eight.
The fourth offence for sentence is sequence 18, which is also an offence under s 66EB(2) with the same penalties applying.
There are two charges on two Form 1 documents. The first is sequence 4 which attaches to sequence 16, namely count 1. Sequence 4 is producing child abuse material in breach of s 91H(2) of the Crimes Act. It provides a person who produces, disseminates or possesses child abuse material is guilty of an offence. The maximum penalty is ten years imprisonment.
Finally, the offender has admitted his guilt in relation to sequence 6, which attaches to sequence 17. Sequence 6 is breach of s 66DC(d) of the Crimes Act which is a person who intentionally incites another person to carry out a sexual act with or towards a child who is under the age of ten; maximum penalty is seven years imprisonment.
The penalties available to the Court reflect the seriousness with which the community through…

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 Fisher

Details

AGLC: R v Fisher [2022] NSWDC 98
Case: [2022] NSWDC 98
Decision Date: 18 March 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Queensland, the case of R v Fisher involved a defendant charged with multiple serious sexual offences against children. The defendant was accused of procuring a child under the age of 14 years for unlawful sexual activity, inciting another person to sexually touch a child under 10 years, producing child abuse material, and intentionally inciting another person to carry out a sexual act with or towards a child under 10 years. The court had to determine the appropriate sentence for the defendant, taking into account the gravity of the offences committed.

The court had to consider several legal issues, including the nature and extent of the offences, the harm caused to the victims, and the principles of sentencing for such serious crimes. The defence argued for a non-custodial sentence, citing the defendant's lack of a criminal record and potential rehabilitation. However, the prosecution emphasised the heinous nature of the crimes and the need for a custodial sentence to protect society and deter similar offences.

In delivering the judgement, the court highlighted the gravity of the offences and the severe impact on the victims. The court noted that the offences were not only numerous but also involved extreme exploitation and abuse of young children. The court found that a custodial sentence was necessary to adequately reflect the seriousness of the crimes and to ensure public protection. The court also considered the defendant's background and potential for rehabilitation but ultimately concluded that the gravity of the offences outweighed any mitigating factors. The court imposed a sentence of imprisonment, with the specifics of the term to be determined in the written judgement.

Orders

Orders of the court

Ex tempore reasons given in court

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Fisher [2022] NSWDC 98
Hearing dates:	18 March 2022
Date of orders:	18 March 2022
Decision date:	18 March 2022
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Wilson SC DCJ
Decision:	Ex tempore reasons given in court
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – sentencing- procure child under 14 years for unlawful sexual activity - incite another person to sexually touch a child who is under the age of 10 years- producing child abuse material- intentionally incite another person to carry out a sexual act with or towards a child who is under the age of 10 years.
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) ss 66EB(2), 66DA(c), 91H(2) and 66DC(d) Crime (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Cases Cited:	R v Fuller [2010] NSWCCA 192 Gifford v R [2016] 263 A Crim R 373
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Regina (Crown) Craig James Fisher
Representation:	Counsel: Mr O’Conner (Crown) Mr O’Sullivan (Defence) Solicitors: Mr Locker (Defence)
File Number(s):	2020/330882
Publication restriction:	none