R v Honeyman - [2016] ACTSC 2

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Honeyman
Citation:	[2016] ACTSC 2
Hearing Date:	17 December 2015
DecisionDate:	6 January 2016
Before:	Penfold J
Decision:	See [67] to [71] below.
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – offender to be sentenced for Commonwealth and ACT child pornography offences – roughly 1,300 images involved, 92% at CETS 1 – images collected over three years – offender’s attitude to offences – treatment sought after child pornography found by police – reports from psychologists – references – prior good character – pleas of guilty – comparable cases – whether NSW Court of Criminal Appeal decisions require full-time custody irrespective of the objective seriousness of the offence – offender sentenced.
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), s 65(1) Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), s 20 Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) Criminal Code 1995 (Cth), s 474.19(1)
Cases Cited:	R v De Leeuw [2015] NSWCCA 183 R v Dummett [2013] ACTSC, Burns J, 30 October 2013 R v Forbes [2014] ACTSC 91 R v Harvey [2014] ACTSC 393 R v Kanawaza [2013] ACTSC, Murrell CJ, 2 December 2013 R v Morosi [2013] ACTSC, Burns J, 28 August 2013 R v Porte [2015] NSWCCA 174
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Brenton Noel Honeyman (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel Ms G Nott (Crown) Mr A Doig (Offender)
Solicitors Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Ben Aulich & Associates (Offender)
File Number:	SCC 202 of 2015

The offences

Brenton Honeyman has pleaded guilty to two offences as follows:

(a)using a carriage service to access child pornography material contrary to s 474.19(1) of the Criminal Code 1995 (Cth) and carrying a maximum penalty including 15 years imprisonment; and
(b)possessing child pornography contrary to s 65(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) and carrying a maximum penalty including seven years’ imprisonment.

Circumstances of offences

These charges resulted from the police execution in July 2013 of a search warrant granted on the basis of information, received by the AFP from Interpol, relating to Australian citizens who had accessed a particular child pornography website. At Mr Honeyman’s home, police seized two laptops and two portable hard drives, as well as a single DVD containing child pornography that Mr Honeyman had bought online. Child pornography images were found on both hard drives.

Police officers identified a total of 1,290 child pornography images on the two hard drives, of which 1,190, just over 92%, were classified as Level 1 on the CETS scale which I shall explain later. There were also a total of 25 videos on the hard drives. The possession charge covers all of those images as well as a further small collection of material as to which the access offence could not be established. Police estimated that at least 300 to 400 child victims were depicted in the material.

Investigation of the laptops produced a number of search terms that had apparently been used to find the pornographic images. Those search…

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 Honeyman

Details

AGLC: R v Honeyman [2016] ACTSC 2
Case: [2016] ACTSC 2
Decision Date: 6 January 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Honeyman involved the defendant, Honeyman, who was to be sentenced for child pornography offences under Commonwealth and ACT law. The matter included approximately 1,300 images, with 92% of these being categorised at the highest level of seriousness. The collection of these images spanned over three years, and Honeyman had sought treatment after the discovery of the child pornography by law enforcement. Various psychological assessments were conducted, and reports were presented, detailing Honeyman’s attitude towards the offences, as well as his prior good character. Honeyman entered guilty pleas in relation to the charges.

The legal issues before the court centred on the appropriate sentencing approach, particularly whether the decisions of the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal, which emphasised full-time custody for certain offences, should be applied regardless of the objective seriousness of Honeyman’s case. The court needed to balance the gravity of the offences with Honeyman's attitude, his treatment efforts, and his prior good character. The court also considered comparable cases to ensure a fair and proportionate sentence.

The court deliberated on the objective seriousness of the offence, weighing Honeyman’s remorse and the proactive steps he took to address his behaviour. It examined the precedent set by the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal but found that each case must be assessed on its own merits. The court concluded that while the offences were severe, the circumstances surrounding Honeyman warranted a sentence that reflected his personal circumstances and efforts towards rehabilitation. Ultimately, the court imposed a sentence that balanced the need for deterrence with the potential for rehabilitation.

The final orders of the court are detailed from paragraph [67] to [71], providing specific details on the sentence imposed on Honeyman. The court outlined the sentence in a manner that reflected the unique aspects of the case while adhering to the principles of sentencing in child pornography cases.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [67] to [71] below.

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.