R v Hicks (No 2)

[2015] NSWDC 384

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Hicks (No 2) [2015] NSWDC 384
Hearing dates:	2 February 2015; 8 May 2015; 10 July 2015
Date of orders:	10 July 2015
Decision date:	10 July 2015
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Berman SC DCJ
Decision:	On each matter the offender is sentenced to imprisonment for a period of 2 years. The sentences are to be served by way of an Intensive Corrections Order
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Use a carriage service to groom a person under the age of 16 – Use a carriage service to transmit an indecent communication – Possess child abuse materiall
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	The Crown Peter Hicks
Representation:	Counsel: Mr T Ower - Offender   Solicitors: Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions – Crown Harris Wheeler Lawyers - Offender
File Number(s):	2013/168708

Judgment

1. HIS HONOUR: When Peter Hicks first appeared before me, some time ago now, I described certain objective features of his offending and his subjective features as well. For reasons I then gave, I indicated that I was satisfied that a custodial sentence was required, that I considered it was likely to be two years or less, but that I considered in the circumstances that it was appropriate to refer Mr Hicks for assessment as to whether he was suitable to serve that sentence of imprisonment by means of an intensive corrections order.

2. When the matter came back before me, the report indicated his unsuitability. There were two particular aspects which indicated unsuitability, they related firstly to the nature of his accommodation and secondly the suggestion that he had been less than honest during the preparation of the intensive corrections order suitability report.

3. Ordinarily I would have then imposed a full-time custodial sentence, but a submission was made that I should seek further ICO assessment to enable the offender to deal with the issues raised in the initial ICO assessment. I also noted that it did appear that the offender had been more honest with Corrective Services than they suggest he had been. The matter was therefore adjourned to today. The Crown has tendered a further ICO assessment which indicates that the offender is suitable. However it is fair to say that it is not a glowing assessment.

4. If what is in the assessment is correct, it appears that Mr Hicks does not quite understand that the alternative to getting an ICO is getting a full-time custodial sentence. That is something the Crown submits is appropriate despite the assessment for suitability. However, for reasons I gave some time ago, this was an unusual group of offences. In particular this was not a case where the offending would have continued in the absence of police pretending to be a child re-initiating contact with the offender.

5. That is not to suggest that the offending was not serious, it clearly was. The fact that I have determined that a sentence of imprisonment is required is testament to what I think of Mr Hicks’s behaviour, however I am satisfied that what is best for the community is that Mr Hicks be given as much encouragement as possible to deal with the obvious issues that have caused him to offend in the way that he has. This is not done as a favour to Mr Hicks, it is done because I believe it would best promote the safety of the community. Of course, if the concerns expressed in the most recent ICO assessment report result in the offender not complying with the conditions of the ICO which I will shortly impose, then Mr Hicks will end up in gaol anyway. If he does comply then, as I have said, I believe that is the most appropriate way of protecting the community from further offending.

6. On each matter, the offender is sentenced to imprisonment for a period of two years. I order that he serve that sentence by means of an intensive corrections order as well as the standard conditions applying to all intensive corrections orders there are two additional conditions. One: he is to complete the sex offender treatment program with an accredited psychologist. Secondly, he is to continue to see Phillip Screen psychologist or some other similar psychologist for as often and as for as long as that psychologist suggests is appropriate in order to reduce the likelihood of further offending on Mr Hicks’ part. The sentence will commence 20 July 2015.

**********

Decision last updated: 23 March 2016