Meagher JA at [1]; R A Hulme J at [2]; Button J at [89]
Decision:
Crown appeal dismissed
Catchwords:
CRIME – Crown sentence appeal – possession and transmission of child abuse material – male applicant posed as 18 year old female to obtain explicit images from young teenage boys – applicant also in possession of over 500 child abuse files – applicant had good prior character and prospects of rehabilitation – sentenced to 17 months imprisonment with minimum period to serve of 8 months – whether sentencing judge erred in assessment of objective seriousness – judge’s specification of objective seriousness not indicative of error – whether judge failed to comply with s 19AC(1) Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) – judge did fail to comply with s 19AC but not apparent that failure affected sentence – ground upheld – whether sentences manifestly inadequate – sentence very lenient but not manifestly inadequate – appeal dismissed
Regina (Appellant) James Michael Hutchinson (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel: Ms S McNaughton SC with Ms J Paingakulam (Crown) Mr G James QC (Respondent)
Solicitors: Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions Nikola Velcic & Associates
File Number(s):
2016/222058
Decision under appeal
Court or tribunal:
District Court
Date of Decision:
5 April 2018
Before:
Scotting DCJ
File Number(s):
2016/222058
Judgment
MEAGHER…
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 Hutchinson
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Hutchinson [2018] NSWCCA 152
Case
[2018] NSWCCA 152
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appeal heard by the court was brought forth by the respondent, who sought to challenge the sentence handed down by a lower court. The respondent, who was originally convicted for possession and transmission of child abuse material, had posed as an 18-year-old female to obtain explicit images from young teenage boys and was also found in possession of over 500 child abuse files. Despite the respondent's good prior character and prospects of rehabilitation, the sentencing judge determined a 17-month imprisonment sentence with a minimum period to serve of 8 months. The respondent appealed on the grounds that the sentencing judge erred in the assessment of the objective seriousness of the crime, failed to comply with section 19AC(1) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), and that the sentence was manifestly inadequate.
The court examined the grounds of appeal to determine if the sentencing judge erred in the assessment of the objective seriousness of the crime. The court found that although the sentence was lenient, it was not manifestly inadequate and that the judge's specification of the objective seriousness did not indicate any error. The court also reviewed the second ground of appeal, which argued that the judge failed to comply with section 19AC(1) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth). The court held that the judge did fail to comply with this section, but the failure did not appear to affect the sentence. Therefore, this ground of appeal was upheld. Finally, the court considered whether the sentences were manifestly inadequate. Despite the leniency of the sentence, the court found that it was not manifestly inadequate and dismissed the appeal.
In conclusion, the appeal brought forth by the respondent was dismissed. The court found that the sentencing judge's specification of the objective seriousness of the crime did not indicate any error, and although the judge failed to comply with section 19AC(1) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), this failure did not appear to affect the sentence. The court also determined that the sentence, while lenient, was not manifestly inadequate. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence stands.