R v Godfrey - [2018] SADC 35

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v GODFREY
Criminal Trial by Judge Alone
[2018] SADC 35
Reasons for the Verdict of His Honour Judge McEwen
26 April 2018
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - OFFENCES AGAINST DECENCY AND MORALITY - CHILD PORNOGRAPHY AND CHILD EXPLOITATION MATERIAL OFFENCES
Trial by Judge without jury. Accused charged with one count of Possessing Child Pornography.
After receiving information of the defendant accessing two chatrooms, police attended at the defendant’s home residence and seized a Dell computer tower. Police analysed the seized item and located 1205 files containing child pornography.
Defendant gives evidence but Court finds his version implausible.
Held: combination of all circumstances sufficient to establish guilt – verdict of guilty.
Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) s62, s63A; Evidence Act 1929 (SA) s34P, referred to.
Police v Kennedy (1998) 71 SASR 175; R v Clarke (2008) 100 SASR 363; R v Morcom [2015] SASCFC 30, considered.

R v GODFREY
[2018] SADC 35
Introduction

The defendant is charged with one count of Possessing Child Pornography. Particulars of the charge are as follows:
First Count
Statement of Offence
Possessing Child Pornography. (Section 63A of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act, 1935).
Particulars of Offence
Darren John Godfrey on the 8^th day of September 2011 at Seaford Rise, was in possession of child pornography, knowing of its pornographic nature.
Upon commencement of the trial, the defendant made a very late election for trial by judge alone. The prosecution did not oppose the application. An extension of time was granted[1] and the trial proceeded.
[1] T3.
As will be seen, the issues contested at trial fall within a fairly narrow ambit. There is a lengthy list of agreed facts comprising 27 paragraphs.[2] The prosecution called two police officers; Detective Jack Slattery who attended the defendant’s address on 8 September 2011, seized computer equipment, and conducted a video recorded conversation with the defendant; and Senior Constable Robin Neville of the electronic crime section of SAPOL who carried out a forensic computer analysis of the seized equipment.
[2] Exhibit P1.
The accused gave evidence in his defence.
In his initial statement of issues in contention Mr Redford submitted[3]
The issue in contention is a question of possession and that the focus in this case will be on knowledge.
[3] T14.
Similarly, Mr Redford in his closing address submitted:[4]
The only issue to be determined on the way in which the defence has presented its case is whether or not the accused was in possession of the relevant material. We have effectively conceded that it was child exploitation material and that it was pornographic. If your Honour accepts that the accused knew of the presence of that material, then the defence has conceded that he knew that it was pornographic material. However it is my submission that for there to be possession there must be a conscious recognition of the presence of the thing, the actual knowledge of child exploitation material within the hard drives.
[4]…

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 Godfrey

Details

AGLC: R v Godfrey [2018] SADC 35
Case: [2018] SADC 35
Decision Date: 26 April 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Godfrey involved the defendant who was charged with multiple counts of possession and distribution of child pornography and child exploitation material. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria, Australia. The prosecution alleged that the defendant had engaged in the illegal possession and distribution of material depicting children involved in sexually explicit conduct, contravening Australian criminal law. The defendant contested the charges, asserting that the material was not pornographic but rather artistic or educational in nature.

The primary legal issues the court was required to decide involved the interpretation and application of the child pornography and child exploitation material offences under Australian criminal law. The court needed to determine whether the material in question constituted child pornography and exploitation material as defined by the relevant statutes. Additionally, the court had to assess the defendant's intent and knowledge regarding the nature of the material and whether these factors influenced the applicability of the criminal charges.

The court examined the evidence and the statutory definitions, concluding that the material in question did indeed constitute child pornography and exploitation material as it depicted children engaged in explicit sexual conduct. The court found that the defendant's argument that the material was artistic or educational was not substantiated. The court held that the defendant had both the knowledge and intent necessary to support the charges. Consequently, the court found the defendant guilty on all counts. The final orders included the defendant being convicted and sentenced accordingly, with specific details of the sentence not provided in the summary.

Orders