R v Hayes

The appellant, R v Hayes, appealed against sentences imposed by a judge of the Supreme Court of South Australia. The appellant had pleaded guilty to aggravated possession of child pornography contrary to s 63A(1) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) and using a carriage service to access child pornography contrary to s 474.19(1)(a)(i) of the Criminal Code 1995 (Cth). The sentencing judge imposed a total term of imprisonment of 18 months, with the two sentences to be served concurrently. A non-parole period of 12 months was fixed for the state offence, and for the Commonwealth offence, the appellant was ordered to be released after 12 months upon entering into a recognisance. The appeal concerned the non-parole periods and the recognisance, with the appellant arguing they were manifestly excessive and that insufficient discount had been given for his guilty plea.

The legal issues before the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia were whether the non-parole periods and the period of recognisance were manifestly excessive, and whether the discount for the guilty plea in relation to the state offence was manifestly inadequate. The court was required to determine if the sentencing judge had erred in the exercise of their discretion.

The court, comprising Gray, Sulan and Anderson JJ, found that the length of the non-parole periods was not manifestly excessive and that no error had been demonstrated. The court noted that offences relating to child pornography are becoming more prevalent and that offenders must expect severe penalties. The court agreed with the sentencing judge's assessment that the case involved a serious example of these offences, given the large number of downloads and the appellant's act of uploading child pornography to a website with a significant user base. The court held that the sentencing judge had not failed to take into account any relevant matter or wrongly considered irrelevant matters, and that the discounts given for the guilty pleas, although different for each offence, were within the sentencing judge's broad discretion. Consequently, the appeal against sentence was dismissed.