R v Kunsevitsky - [2020] VSC 41

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S ECR 2019 0040

THE QUEEN

BORIS KUNSEVITSKY

---

JUDGE:	CHAMPION J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	20-21 May 2019
DATE OF SENTENCE:	29 January 2020
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Kunsevitsky
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2020] VSC 41

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – 59 offences – 43 child victims – Plea of guilty – Maintain sexual relationship with a child – Produce child pornography – Sexual intercourse with a child outside Australia – Sexual conduct with a child outside Australia – Induce a child to engage in sexual intercourse with a third person outside Australia – Cause a child to engage in sexual intercourse in the presence of the offender outside Australia – Cause a child to engage in sexual activity in the presence of the offender outside Australia – Persistent sexual abuse of a child outside Australia – Produce child pornography material outside of Australia – Import Tier 2 goods child pornography – Very serious offending over 15 years – Activity spanning four countries – Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) – Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) – Criminal Code (Cth) – Customs Act 1901 (Cth) –Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic)

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Ms K. Breckweg	Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr I. Crisp	Thexton Lawyers

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

Boris Kunsevitsky, on 21 March 2019 you pleaded guilty to 59 sexual offences against children.

These offences arise from crimes you committed over a 15-year period between September 2002 and September 2017, in Australia, the Philippines, Singapore, and Indonesia.

I will use a pseudonym throughout this sentence to protect the identity of your Australian victim. Your overseas victims have either never been identified by more than their first names, or remain entirely unidentified. Your overseas victims have never made statements to the police.

Summary of the offending

Due to the vast scale of your offending, I will begin by giving a brief summary. You fall to be sentenced for 59 separate offences involving 43 child victims. Further, you are to be sentenced for offences involving the production and importation of child pornography.

Your offending falls into three broad categories. First, you committed offences outside Australia, taking place in three Asian countries, by engaging in sexual intercourse or sexual conduct with 27 children, and inducing or causing children to engage in sexual intercourse with other children or a third person in your presence. Also outside Australia, in one country, you engaged in the persistent sexual abuse of five children.

Second, you committed offending in Melbourne in that you maintained a sexual relationship with a child between the ages of 13 and 15.

Third, you committed child pornography offences involving the production and importation of child pornography material into Australia. You produced such material both in and outside Australia. The material you produced in Australia involved creating 55 images depicting the offending against your Melbourne victim, which included images of…

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 Kunsevitsky

Details

AGLC: R v Kunsevitsky [2020] VSC 41
Case: [2020] VSC 41
Decision Date: 29 January 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The court considered a case involving an individual, Kunsevitsky, who had pleaded guilty to multiple serious offences related to the sexual abuse of children. The offences spanned a period of 15 years, involved 43 child victims, and occurred in four different countries. The charges included maintaining a sexual relationship with a child, producing child pornography, and various other forms of sexual abuse and exploitation of children both within and outside of Australia. The case was heard in the County Court of Victoria.

The central legal issues addressed by the court were the appropriate sentence for such extensive and egregious offending, considering the severity and persistence of the crimes. The court was tasked with interpreting relevant sections of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), Crimes Act 1958 (Vic), Criminal Code (Cth), Customs Act 1901 (Cth), and Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) to determine the correct penalty. The court also needed to consider the impact of the crimes on the victims, the offender’s culpability, and any relevant mitigating or aggravating factors.

In delivering the judgment, the court meticulously examined the nature and extent of the offending, emphasising the persistent and transnational aspects of the crimes. The court found the offences to be extraordinarily serious due to the number of victims, the duration of the offending, and the egregious nature of the crimes. The court noted the offender's guilty plea and the absence of any significant mitigating factors. The sentencing principles, including deterrence, denunciation, and the protection of society, guided the court's decision. Ultimately, the court imposed a sentence that reflected the gravity of the offences, ensuring that it appropriately addressed the harm caused and the need to protect potential future victims.

The court ordered that Kunsevitsky be detained for a total of 22 years, with a non-parole period of 16 years and 4 months. This sentence was designed to adequately reflect the severity of the crimes committed, while also considering the offender's early guilty plea.

Orders