R v Harford - [2023] NSWDC 6

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Harford [2023] NSWDC 6
Hearing dates: 20, 25, 27 January 2023
Date of orders: 27 January 2023
Decision date: 27 January 2023
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Priestley SC DCJ
Decision:
See [123] – [126]

Catchwords:
CRIME — Child sex offences — Using carriage service to groom person <16 years for sexual activity

Legislation Cited:
Criminal Code (Cth)
Child Protection (Offenders Prohibition Orders) Act2004
Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Act2000
Crimes Act 1900 (Cth)

Cases Cited:
R v Delzotto [2022] NSWCCA 117
Attorney-General’s Application under s 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (No 1) of 2002 (2002) 56 NSWLR 146; [2002] NSWCCA 518
Gifford v R [2016] NSWCCA 302
Bahar v R (2011) 45 WAR 100; [2011] WASCA 249
R v Pot, Wetangky and Lande (Supreme Court (NT), Riley CJ, 18 January 2011, unrep)
DPP (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1; [2010] NSWCCA 194
Bugmy v R (2013) 249 CLR 571; [2013] HCA 37
Nasrallah v R (2021) 105 NSWLR 451; [2021] NSWCCA 207
R v AWF (2000) 2 VR 1; [2000] VSCA 172
R v Millwood [2012] NSWCCA 2
R v Fernando (1992) 76 A Crim R 58
Xiao v R [2018] NSWCCA 4
Cahyadi v R (2007) 168 A Crim R 41; [2007] NSWCCA 1

Texts Cited:
N/A

Category: Sentence
Parties: Rex (Crown)
James Gray Harford (Offender)
Representation:
Counsel:
D Berents (Crown)
A Norrie (Offender)
Solicitors:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Commonwealth) (Crown)
Ross Hill and Associates (Offender)

File Number(s): 2021/325245

Judgment

James Gray Harford, the offender, appears for sentence in respect of 11 counts on an indictment to which he has pleaded guilty. Counts 1 to 9 inclusive are offences under the Commonwealth Criminal Code (“the Code”) and counts 10 and 11 are offences under two state Acts being s 13(1) of the Child Protection (Offenders Prohibition Orders) Act2004 (“the Prohibition Orders Act”) and s 17(1) of the Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Act2000 (“the Registration Act”) respectively.
Set out at the end of these reasons is a table identifying each of the 11 counts, the relevant section of the legislation, the maximum penalty and in relation to the Commonwealth offences the minimum penalty, my assessment of the objective seriousness of each offence and the indicative sentences both before and after the application of the discount for the guilty plea.
Additionally in relation to Count 7 on the indictment there is a further matter to be taken into consideration in accordance with the procedure allowed by s 16BA of the Commonwealth Crimes Act1900 (“CCA”).
I take the respective maximum sentences for each of the offences into account as legislative guideposts indicating the legislature’s view of the seriousness of the offending to assist in arriving at the appropriate sentence. The approach that is necessary to take in regards to the minimum sentence in respect of the Commonwealth offences is stated later in…

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 Harford

Details

AGLC: R v Harford [2023] NSWDC 6
Case: [2023] NSWDC 6
Decision Date: 27 January 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Harford, the appellant was convicted of using a carriage service to groom a person under the age of 16, contrary to section 474.17(1)(a) of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth). The respondent, the Commonwealth, appealed the sentence imposed on the appellant, arguing it was manifestly inadequate. The High Court of Australia was tasked with determining whether the sentence imposed by the primary judge was manifestly inadequate.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the sentence imposed on the appellant was manifestly inadequate, considering the gravity of the offence and the need for general and specific deterrence. The Court was required to assess whether the primary judge's sentence failed to give proper weight to the relevant sentencing principles and whether the punishment reflected the seriousness of the crime.

The Court found that the sentence imposed by the primary judge was manifestly inadequate. It was noted that the appellant had engaged in a persistent campaign of grooming, which culminated in an attempted meeting with the victim. The Court held that the sentence did not adequately reflect the seriousness of the offence and failed to achieve the purposes of general and specific deterrence. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, quashed the sentence, and remitted the matter to the original sentencing court for re-sentencing.

In light of the findings, the Court made several orders to guide the re-sentencing process. The appellant was to be re-sentenced by a different judge, ensuring that the appropriate weight was given to the gravity of the offence and the need for deterrence. The Court also ordered that the sentencing judge consider the full range of available penalties, including custodial sentences, and provide detailed reasons for the new sentence imposed.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [123] – [126]

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 Harford [2023] NSWDC 6
Hearing dates:	20, 25, 27 January 2023
Date of orders:	27 January 2023
Decision date:	27 January 2023
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Priestley SC DCJ
Decision:	See [123] – [126]
Catchwords:	CRIME — Child sex offences — Using carriage service to groom person <16 years for sexual activity
Legislation Cited:	Criminal Code (Cth) Child Protection (Offenders Prohibition Orders) Act2004 Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Act2000 Crimes Act 1900 (Cth)
Cases Cited:	R v Delzotto [2022] NSWCCA 117 Attorney-General’s Application under s 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (No 1) of 2002 (2002) 56 NSWLR 146; [2002] NSWCCA 518 Gifford v R [2016] NSWCCA 302 Bahar v R (2011) 45 WAR 100; [2011] WASCA 249 R v Pot, Wetangky and Lande (Supreme Court (NT), Riley CJ, 18 January 2011, unrep) DPP (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1; [2010] NSWCCA 194 Bugmy v R (2013) 249 CLR 571; [2013] HCA 37 Nasrallah v R (2021) 105 NSWLR 451; [2021] NSWCCA 207 R v AWF (2000) 2 VR 1; [2000] VSCA 172 R v Millwood [2012] NSWCCA 2 R v Fernando (1992) 76 A Crim R 58 Xiao v R [2018] NSWCCA 4 Cahyadi v R (2007) 168 A Crim R 41; [2007] NSWCCA 1
Texts Cited:	N/A
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Rex (Crown) James Gray Harford (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel: D Berents (Crown) A Norrie (Offender) Solicitors: Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Commonwealth) (Crown) Ross Hill and Associates (Offender)
File Number(s):	2021/325245