R v Geoffrey William LEONARD (No 1)

CITATION:	R v Geoffrey William LEONARD (No 1) [2008] NSWDC 189
HEARING DATE(S):	1 September 2008 - 4 September 2008
JUDGMENT DATE:	2 September 2008
JURISDICTION:	Criminal
JUDGMENT OF:	Berman SC DCJ
DECISION:	Application for a verdict by direction of acquittal is delined
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW - Judgement - Application for verdict by direction
LEGISLATION CITED:	Commonwealth Criminal Code
CASES CITED:	Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (1977) CLR 520 Leonard v Regina [2007] NSWCCA 197
PARTIES:	The Crown Geoffrey William Leonard
FILE NUMBER(S):	DC 06/11/0746
COUNSEL:	L McManus (Crown)
SOLICITORS:	Commonwealth DPP Self Representend

JUDGMENT

1 Geoffrey William Leonard is currently standing trial before a jury for an offence under s 474.22 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code. The Commonwealth prosecution alleges that the accused used a carriage service, namely the Internet, to make available child abuse material. Because of admissions made by Mr Leonard the only issue is whether the material which has been published and which has been put before the jury fits the definition of child abuse material. That term is defined in s 473.1 of the Criminal Code as follows:

“Child abuse material means,

(a) Material that depicts a person, or a representation of a person who:

(i) Is, or appears to be under 18 years of age, and
(ii) Is, or appears to be a victim of torture, cruelty, or physical abuse,

and does this in a way that reasonable persons would regard as being in all the circumstances offensive.”

2 The relevant material which the Crown says establishes the offence because it is child abuse material consists of reproductions of what two brothers said to police during the making of formal police statements. To put the matter in context those statements alleged offences of child sexual assault by Mr Leonard. He was convicted, I believe after pleading guilty although it does not matter, of a number of offences and has served time in custody. Upon his release from custody he began operating a website. The website consists of a large volume of material, some of which has been tendered before the jury, and contained within that material are extracts from the statements to which I have earlier referred. Consistent with a non-publication order made by an earlier judge Mr Leonard did not name the makers of the statements and edited the statements in such a way as to remove from them material which would tend to identify the boys involved. So the material that the Crown says establishes the offence, because it is child abuse material, is Mr Leonard’s reproduction of those two police statements.

3 I mentioned before that Mr Leonard conducted a website and that the relevant material appears on that website. I mentioned also that there is much material on the website. Some part of it has been tendered before the jury. Exhibit three consists of 124 printed pages of a document headed, “Punished For Love” written by the offender. Contained within that document are the relevant police statements. Exhibit four…