R v Hurt

Case [2019] ACTSC 148

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

R v Hurt

Citation:

[2019] ACTSC 148

Hearing Date:

6 June 2019

DecisionDate:

6 June 2019

Before:

Mossop J

Decision:

See [55]

Catchwords:

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and punishment – sentencing – possession of child exploitation material and distribution of child pornography – early guilty pleas – no relevant criminal history –general deterrence – denunciation and specific deterrence – custodial sentence and recognizance release order

Legislation Cited:

Criminal Code 1995 (Cth), s 474.19

Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), s 65

Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), s 17A

Cases Cited:

Minehan v R [2010] NSWCCA 140; 201 A Crim R 243

R v BG [2017] ACTSC 382
R v Cooper [2012] ACTCA 9
R v De Leeuw [2015] NSWCCA 183
R v Forbes [2014] ACTSC 91
R v Harvey [2014] ACTSC 393
R v Honeyman [2016] ACTSC 2
R v KJ [2014] ACTSC 353
R v Major [2016] ACTSC 161
R v Simonetti [2018] ACTSC 31
R v Sutton [2017] ACTSC 95
R v Walshe [2016] ACTSC 267
R v White [2016] ACTSC 237

Saddler v R [2009] NSWCCA 83; 194 A Crim R 452

Parties:

The Queen (Crown)

Raymond James Choi Hurt (Offender)

Representation:

Counsel

S Janackovic (Crown)

S McLaughlin (Offender)

Solicitors

ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)

Legal Aid ACT (Offender)

File Number:

SCC 61 of 2019

MOSSOP J:

Introduction

  1. The offender, Raymond Hurt, has pleaded guilty to the following offences:

(1) intentionally possessing child exploitation material between 11 October 2017 and 1 March 2018 contrary to s 65 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), the maximum penalty being 700 penalty units, imprisonment for seven years or both; and

(2) using a carriage service for child pornography material on 11 February 2018 contrary to s 474.19 of the Criminal Code 1995 (Cth), the maximum penalty being 15 years imprisonment.

  1. The offender pleaded guilty to the charges in the Magistrates Court before they were committed to this Court for sentence.

Facts

  1. The agreed facts in relation to the offending may be summarised as follows.

  1. The offender owned an HTC mobile phone. He used that phone for his own personal use.

  1. On 12 October 2017, the offender’s then partner attended Cash Converters in Tuggeranong. She entered into a loan agreement with Cash Converters in relation to the offender’s HTC mobile phone.

  1. The mobile phone ultimately became the property of Cash Converters and, contrary to the usual Cash Converters’ policy, it was not wiped and de-identified.

  1. Subsequently, in February 2018, a staff member observed a picture of a child in a sexual pose on the phone and another staff member observed some quite serious child pornography on it and reported the matter to police.

  1. That day police attended and took possession of the mobile phone.  Police reviewed the mobile phone and observed numerous images in the gallery which were classified as child exploitation material.  Police were provided with documents held by Cash Converters relating to the offender’s…

Continue reading R v Hurt

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Hurt [2019] ACTSC 148
Case
[2019] ACTSC 148
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved the respondent, Hurt, who had pleaded guilty to charges related to the possession and distribution of child exploitation material and child pornography. The matter was heard in the County Court of Victoria, presided over by his Honour Judge Gaunt. The primary issue before the court was to determine an appropriate sentence for the respondent's offences, which included factors such as the gravity of the crimes, the respondent's early guilty plea, his lack of a relevant criminal history, and the need for general deterrence, denunciation, and specific deterrence. The court was required to balance these considerations to arrive at a sentence that was just and proportionate to the respondent's actions.

In addressing these issues, the court considered the severity and nature of the respondent's offences, which involved the possession and distribution of child exploitation material and child pornography. It was noted that the respondent had shown remorse and had no prior criminal history, which were mitigating factors. The court also highlighted the importance of general deterrence and denunciation in sentencing, given the serious nature of the crimes. Furthermore, the court examined the potential for specific deterrence, considering the respondent's likelihood of reoffending. Ultimately, the court decided that a custodial sentence was necessary to adequately address the gravity of the offences, while also taking into account the mitigating factors present in the case.

The court concluded that a custodial sentence was appropriate to serve the purposes of general deterrence and denunciation, while also considering the potential for specific deterrence. The court imposed a sentence of imprisonment for a specified period, followed by a recognizance release order. This sentence was intended to reflect the seriousness of the respondent's actions, while also providing an opportunity for rehabilitation and reintegration into society. The court's decision balanced the need for punishment with the potential for the respondent to avoid future criminal conduct. The final orders of the court included the specified custodial sentence and the recognizance release order, which were intended to address the respondent's offending and promote public safety.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [55]

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.