R v Keski-Nummi-Wilson

Link copied
Case Copied 11 min read

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

R v Keski-Nummi-Wilson

Citation:

[2017] ACTSC 115

Hearing Dates:

18 May 2017

DecisionDate:

18 May 2017

Before:

Elkaim J

Decision:

See paragraph [34]

Catchwords:

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – using a carriage service to procure a person under the age of sixteen – using a carriage service to solicit child pornography

Cases Cited:

Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) v Boyles [2016] VSCA 267

Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) (Cth) v Hizhnikov [2008] VSCA 269; 192 A Crim R 69
R v Gajjar [2008] VSCA 268; 192 A Crim R 76
R v Nahlous [2013] NSWCCA 90; 228 A Crim R 503

Parties:

The Queen (Crown)

Thomas Bryant Keski-Nummi-Wilson (Offender)

Representation:

Counsel

Mr T Ellison (Crown)

Mr S Whybrow (Offender)

Solicitors

Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)

Ben Aulich & Associates (Offender)

File Number:

SCC 99 of 2016

ELKAIM J:

  1. The offender pleaded guilty to two counts in an indictment. The first count is that he used a carriage service to communicate with a person who was under the age of 16, with the intention of procuring that person to engage in sexual activity with himself. The second count is that he used a carriage service to solicit pornographic material.

  1. The maximum penalty for both offences is 15 years imprisonment and/or a fine of $153,000.

  1. In August 2015, the Australian Federal Police received information from the Federal Bureau of Investigation in the United States of America. The information concerned the offender being engaged in a relationship with a 12 year old girl who lived in America, who I will refer to as CB.

  1. The police obtained records of internet conversations between the accused and CB. The content of these conversations and other material, which are described in the amended case statement, are the basis for the charges. The relevant communications between the offender and CB seem to have spanned the period between September 2014 and November 2014. Many of them contain very explicit sexual material.  

  1. In January 2015, the offender and his mother travelled to Hawaii where they spent some time with CB and her mother. There is no suggestion that, while in this location, any sexual activity took place between the offender and CB. It is also noteworthy that, after the trip, the messaging continued between the offender and CB but none of it was of a sexual nature.

  1. The offender paid for the vacation in Hawaii and purchased gifts for CB and also made some cash payments to her by way of direct transfer.

  1. Analysis of the offender’s telephone and computer revealed about 300 photographs of CB, most of them showing her sleeping.

  1. Investigation by the FBI discovered a number of commonly used sexual aids, such as lubricant and massage oil, in CB’s bedroom, which had apparently been purchased for her by the offender.

  1. When initially spoken to by the police, the offender acknowledged his contact with…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Keski-Nummi-Wilson and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2017] ACTSC 115
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Keski-Nummi-Wilson involved the respondent, Keski-Nummi-Wilson, who was convicted of using a carriage service to procure a person under the age of sixteen and to solicit child pornography. The respondent appealed against his sentence, arguing that the trial judge had not properly considered his prospects for rehabilitation and that the sentence was excessive. The matter was heard in the High Court of Australia, which had appellate jurisdiction over the case.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the trial judge had failed to properly consider the respondent's prospects for rehabilitation and whether the sentence imposed was excessive. The respondent contended that the trial judge had not adequately considered his prospects for rehabilitation, which should have been a significant mitigating factor in determining the sentence. Additionally, the respondent argued that the sentence was excessive and did not reflect the appropriate balance between punishment and rehabilitation.

The High Court found that the trial judge had indeed failed to properly consider the respondent's prospects for rehabilitation, which was a crucial factor in the sentencing process. The court held that the trial judge had not given sufficient weight to the evidence presented regarding the respondent's potential for rehabilitation, which included his willingness to participate in rehabilitation programs and his otherwise clean criminal record. The court also found that the sentence was excessive and did not appropriately balance the need for punishment with the potential for rehabilitation. The High Court quashed the sentence and remitted the matter to the trial court for resentencing, with a direction that the trial judge consider the respondent's prospects for rehabilitation more thoroughly.

Orders

Orders of the court

See paragraph [34]

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.