R v Griffith

Case [2024] QDC 207

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Griffith  [2024] QDC 207

PARTIES:

THE KING

v
GRIFFITH, Ashley Paul

(defendant)

FILE NO/S:

1477/24

DIVISION:

Criminal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

29 November 2024

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

28 November 2024

JUDGES:

Smith AM DCJA

ORDER:

1.   Sentences imposed as per the final page of this judgment.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – SENTENCE – where the defendant committed serious sexual offences against young children over about a 20 year period – where the defendant was a childcare worker and recorded the offences – some of it was uploaded to the dark web – whether life imprisonment should be imposed – whether the parole date should be altered from 15 years, the statutory period

Corrective Services Act 2006 (Qld) s181
Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) ss 16A, 17A
Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) ss 9, 160C, 160D
Cameron v R [2002] HCA 6; (2002) 209 CLR 339, cited
Ibbs v R [1987] HCA 46; (1987) 163 CLR 447, considered
Markarian v R [2005] HCA 25; (2005) 228 CLR 357, cited
R v Appleton [2017] QCA 290, applied
R v BEB [2023] QCA 105, cited
R v D [2003] QCA 547, cited
R v Evans and Pearce [2011] QCA 135; [2011] 2 Qd R 571, cited
R v Free; ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) [2020] QCA 58; (2020) 282 A Crim R 94, considered
R v Harris [2000] NSWCCA 469; (2000) 50 NSWLR 409; (2000) 121 A Crim R 342, applied
R v Kalajzich (1997) 94 A Crim R 41, applied
R v Kilic [2016] HCA 48; (2016) 259 CLR 256, considered
R v Mahony&Shenfield [2012] QCA 366, cited
R v Marshall [1993] 2 Qd R 307; (1992) 62 A Crim R 162, cited
R v Mizner [2019] QCA 198 , applied
R v Robinson [2007] QCA 99, cited
R v SAG [2004] QCA 286 ; (2004) 147 A Crim R 301, applied
R v Singh [2006] QCA 71, cited
R v Turnbull [2013] QCA 374, cited
R v Twala, NSWCCA unreported 1994, applied
R v SEA [2023] QCA 56, cited
R v Weldon [2006] QCA 504, cited

Veen (No 2) v R [1988] HCA 14; (1988) 164 CLR 465, applied

COUNSEL:

T Fuller KC and S Gallagher for the Crown
S Cartledge for the defendant

SOLICITORS:

Office of the Director of Prosecutions for the Crown
Gnech and Associates for the defendant

Introduction

  1. The defendant, Ashley Paul Griffith, has pleaded guilty to the 307 offences as follows:

    (a)15 x repeated sexual conduct with a child.[1]

    (b)28 x rape.[2]

    (c)190 counts of indecent treatment of a child under 16 under 12 under care.[3] 

    (d)67 x making child exploitation material (“CEM”).[4]

    (e)4 x producing child abuse material outside of Australia.[5]

    (f)1 x distributing child abuse material outside Australia.[6]

    (g)1…

Continue reading R v Griffith

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Griffith [2024] QDC 207
Case
[2024] QDC 207
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Griffith, the defendant, Mr Griffith, faced the court following a series of serious sexual offences committed against young children over approximately a 20-year period. The defendant, who was a childcare worker, recorded these offences and uploaded some of the material to the dark web. The central legal issues before the court were whether life imprisonment should be imposed on Mr Griffith and whether the statutory period for parole eligibility should be altered from the standard 15 years. The court had to consider the gravity of the offences, the vulnerability of the victims, the breach of trust, and the risk of re-offending.

The court examined the nature and scale of the offending, noting the significant breach of trust given Mr Griffith's role as a childcare worker. The offences were both planned and recorded, with some material being permanently preserved on the internet. The court highlighted the importance of deterrence, denunciation, punishment, and community protection in sentencing. Despite some cooperation with the police and expressions of remorse, the court found that Mr Griffith's statements indicated a lack of full insight into the impact of his actions on the victims. The court also considered the principles established by the High Court in R v Ibbs and Veen, focusing on proportionality and the worst-case category for the imposition of maximum penalties.

After thorough deliberation, the court determined that the maximum penalty of life imprisonment was appropriate given the heinousness and scale of the crimes. The court found that Mr Griffith's actions fell within the worst category of cases, warranting the imposition of the maximum penalty. Additionally, the court decided to set a non-parole period of 20 years, reflecting the gravity of the offences and the high risk of re-offending.

The final orders of the court included the imposition of life imprisonment with a non-parole period of 20 years, reflecting the court's consideration of the seriousness of the crimes, the need for deterrence, and the protection of the community.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Sentences imposed as per the final page of this judgment.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Insofar as the statements stray into matters outside of their purpose I note they are of therapeutic value to the families and the victims.[19] I consider the statements in that light and place little to no weight on matters outside of their purpose.[20] [19]R v Singh [2006] QCA 71 and R v Evans and Pearce [2011] QCA 135; [2011] 2 Qd R 571.[20]Section 9(2)(b)(i) of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) and Pt 10B. Psychiatric evidence Adjunct Professor Anna Lenardon has provided a psychiatric report concerning the defendant. Mr Griffith gave an account to the psychiatrist. He said he pleaded guilty to the charges so he didn’t put the families through a trial. He said he became attracted to children when he started working as a primary school teacher in 2003. Before this, he had an attraction to same aged females. Throughout high school he had normal relationships with girlfriends but girls were not attracted to him. After his attraction to children in 2003 the situation snowballed and when the opportunity emerged he began offending. He said the offending began in 2007 when he started employment as a teaching assistant at an after school care centre in a primary school. After the offending began he would drink a bottle of wine to stop the horrible feelings. He felt guilty. It was too hard to stop abusing the children. He had trouble with an addiction from a young age and reached a level of enjoyment. He said that he had rape fantasies which started early on but he did not engage with this because it was a line he could not cross. However, as time went on he pushed the line. He would choose children he was most attracted to for their bodies, skin and personality. He was never attracted to male children. He thought the relationship was not purely sexual, he felt love towards some of them. He said he would take the video recordings of his offending to watch at home for his own personal gratification and never sold them but did post some of them on internet forums. Since 2004 he had not any relationship with an adult. Since 2003, he never tried to stop the offending as he did not have the courage to do so. He claimed he took care to not physically hurt the victims. He said his preference was for children aged between two and five as they were easier victims but he was attracted to older children up to the age of 12 to 13. He denied having offended against other victims aside from the ones connected to the charges. He claimed he did not groom the children. He believed that in the six months before his arrest his offending had reduced and he thought he had gone too far and considered stopping work with children. He hated himself for what he was doing. Sometimes he would delete all of the CEM he had but then would download it again. He started accessing the dark web in the late 2000’s and was able to purchase cocaine or ecstasy from it. When asked if he felt remorse for his actions he said he felt completely terrible and he should not have done this.

Decision

Reasons for decision

In oral submissions:(a)The defence tendered a letter of apology and some character references. I take those into account.(b)The defence submitted that the defendant did have family support.(c)Ms Cartledge stressed the co-operation and the pleas of guilty.(d)Ms Cartledge distinguished the Crown cases.(e)Ms Cartledge submitted the defendant was remorseful and wanted to engage in treatment.Conclusions This was very serious offending in terms of length and scale. The victims were very vulnerable and there was a significant breach of trust. People expect that their children will be protected in childcare centres and this matter will be of significant concern to any parent or indeed any citizen in this State. The offences were depraved and committed by a man with a high risk of re-offending. They were planned and recorded. Some of these recordings were uploaded on the internet which preserves some of the offending forever. The case was an overwhelming one with the offences caught on videos and photos. A conviction was inevitable on most of the counts. A significant sentence needs to be imposed to reflect the principles of deterrence, denunciation, punishment and community protection. Whilst the defendant did co-operate with the psychiatrist, he made statements which did show a lack of full insight into his offending behaviour and the effect on the victims. I agree with the defence that there was significant co-operation with the police in helping to identify the childcare centres and the victims. Maximum sentence I now turn to the issue of imposition of the maximum penalty. This issue of the imposition of the maximum penalty was considered by the High Court of Australia in R v Ibbs.[35] [35][1987] HCA 46; (1987) 163 CLR 447 at pp 451 and 452. It was held that that the imposition of the maximum penalty for any offence is a sentencing option reserved for cases which can properly be characterised as falling within the worst category of cases for which that penalty is prescribed. In Veen (No 2) v R,[36] the offender was sentenced to the maximum penalty for manslaughter and appealed this to the High Court. His appeal was dismissed. [36][1988] HCA 14; (1988) 164 CLR 465 at 478. Veen established:(a)The importance of proportionality in the sentencing process.(b)The purposes of criminal punishment of protection of society, deterrence, retribution and reform.[37](c)The fact that a sentence cannot be disproportionate because of previous criminal convictions.[38](d)The fact that the maximum penalty is reserved for cases falling within the worst category of case.[39] This does not mean a lesser penalty should be imposed if it is possible to envisage a worse case.[37][1988] HCA 14; (1988) 164 CLR 465 at 476.[38][1988] HCA 14; (1988) 164 CLR 465 at 477.[39][1988] HCA 14; (1988) 164 CLR 465 at 478. Similar principles were applied by the courts of Australia over many years. In R v Twala[40] it was said:“However, in order to characterise any case as being in the worst case category, it must be possible to point to particular features which are of very great heinousness and it must be possible to postulate the absence of facts mitigating the seriousness of the crime (as distinct from the subjective features mitigating the penalty to be imposed) … .”[40]Unreported CCA NSW 4 November 1994.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Bramston Terrace, Herston, Queensland. During the defendant’s employment at Lady Ramsay Child Care Centre, the defendant engaged in sexual activity, including sexual touching and the production of child abuse material, with 2 victims, aged 5 years old, who were twins, on separate occasions. Interviews with the police and cooperation When police first arrested the defendant, he was questioned about his use of the ‘dark web’ and he denied seeing any child abuse material or being involved in uploading it. He denied being in possession of child pornography. Police then showed the defendant some sanitised abuse material taken by the defendant at Little Ted’s which he had uploaded on TLZ. They advised the defendant they believed he was the person committing the abuse and when asked if he had anything to say about the allegation the defendant said no. He advised police he did not wish to comment further. On 21 August 2022, the defendant advised the police that he wished to speak to them again. He advised that the allegations of him uploading child pornography to the internet were true and that he did that so he could access other material. He incorrectly stated that offending only related to two children. The defendant advised police he had also engaged in filming abuse that he had carried out. He stated: “I noticed that the girls were heavy sleepers and having that desire just made me lose all sense of right or wrong…the urge was stronger than my ability to control myself.” He said that the offending commenced by him touching girls whilst they were asleep, progressed to him masturbating against them and ‘escalated from there’ including offending against them while they were awake. He said he thought there was between 50 and 100 children he abused. He was asked if there was ever any penetration of a child and he stated ‘no. “I would use my finger to try – like, I would just be stroking the opening of a child’s, um – but not actually – there was no actual penetration”. However the defendant was aware he had penetrated victims and he labelled videos accordingly, for example the videos he labelled ‘fingering’ as distinct from ‘rubbing’. The defendant participated in interviews with the police on 13 additional occasions, largely between September 2022 and January 2023, with a final interview occurring in July 2023. The interviews occurred over a number of occasions because of interview time constraints. The defendant was asked about the daycares that he worked at. At times he would minimise his offending when he was asked how many children he had offended against, or the ways in which he offended against them. Once police showed him photographs of victims, he accepted he had offended against them and was frequently able to tell police the victims’ names. For example: (a)The defendant told police he recalled offending against half a dozen children at QUT Student Guild Gardens Point Child Creche, though he offended against 12.[15] (b)With respect to offending at Little Ted’s, the defendant advised police the touching progressed to masturbation, by rubbing his penis on them, at this daycare. The defendant initially stated he recalled touching 7 children and said he did not think there were any more victims, though there were 16[16]. During a later interview he accepted there were more than 7 victims and nominated some further names. (c) With reference to his offending in Italy, he initially advised police he was making a conscious effort not to offend, but did take photos of one girl and that was in the context of them playing and her dress came up. This was false. In a later interview he agreed he pulled her dress up and that he offended against more than one child. Those admissions occurred in the context of police showing the defendant the images of other victims. [15]In error in the oral sentencing remarks I referred to 17 children. [16]In error in the oral sentencing remarks I referred to 18 children.