SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Case Title: | R v Hurt (No 2) |
Citation: | [2021] ACTSC 241 |
Hearing Dates: | 25 June 2021 and 2 September 2021 |
DecisionDate: | 16 September 2021 |
Before: | Mossop J |
Decision: | See [127] |
Catchwords: | CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – sentence – Commonwealth and Territory offences – breach of Territory good behaviour order and Commonwealth recognizance order – good behaviour order imposed for Territory possession of child exploitation material offence – resentenced – suspended portion of the sentence imposed – recognizance order imposed for Commonwealth distribution of child pornography offence – resentenced – no action taken on breach – further Commonwealth offences of possessing, accessing and transmitting child abuse material – terms of imprisonment imposed CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – sentence – where Commonwealth mandatory minimum sentencing regime applies in relation to possession offence – application of mandatory minimum penalties where some of the material subject to the possession offence was accessed or obtained prior to regime coming into effect – general approach to the application of the Commonwealth mandatory minimum sentence regime for child sex offences |
Legislation Cited: | Combating Child Sexual Exploitation Legislation Amendment Act 2019 (Cth) Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), s 65 Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 232A, 233C |
Cases Cited: | Atherden v The State of Western Australia [2010] WASCA 33 Bahar v The Queen [2011] WASCA 249; 45 WAR 100 R v Pot (Unreported, Northern Territory Supreme Court, Riley CJ, 18 January 2011) |
Parties: | The Queen ( Crown) Raymond Hurt ( Offender) |
Representation: | Counsel D Berents ( Crown) G Meikle (25 June 2021) and J White SC (2 September 2021) ( Offender) |
| Solicitors Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions ( Crown) Legal Aid ACT ( Offender) | |
File Numbers: | SCC 61 of 2019 SCC 55 of 2021 |
MOSSOP J:
Introduction
The offender, Raymond Hurt, was sentenced by me on 6 June 2019 for the…
Continue reading R v Hurt (No 2)
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Hurt (No 2) [2021] ACTSC 241
- Case
- [2021] ACTSC 241
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court examined the legal issues concerning the breach of the good behaviour order and recognizance order, and the applicability of the mandatory minimum sentencing regime. It was necessary to consider the principles of resentencing in the context of breach of orders, and whether the mandatory minimum sentencing regime should apply to the possession offence where some of the material was accessed prior to the regime's commencement. The court assessed the principles of sentencing, proportionality, and the objectives of punishment, taking into account the defendant's history, rehabilitation prospects, and the seriousness of the offences.
The court determined that the defendant's breach of the good behaviour order warranted resentencing, and the suspended portion of the original sentence was activated. Regarding the recognizance order, the court found that no action was necessary as the defendant had not breached the conditions. Concerning the mandatory minimum sentencing regime, the court held that it applied to the possession offence, despite some material being accessed prior to the regime's commencement. The court considered the seriousness of the offences, the defendant's history, and the principles of sentencing, ultimately imposing a term of imprisonment.
The court made orders for the defendant's imprisonment, taking into account the breach of the good behaviour order and the application of the mandatory minimum sentencing regime for the possession offence. The court also considered the defendant's rehabilitation prospects and the need for deterrence and denunciation in its sentencing decision.
Orders
Orders of the court
See [127]
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.