Legal Research
Cases
R v Loyson

R v Loyson

Case [2020] NSWDC 864 15 October 2020

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Loyson [2020] NSWDC 864
Hearing dates: 15 October 20201
Date of orders: 15 October 2020
Decision date: 15 October 2020
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: ML Williams SC DCJ
Decision:
An aggregate term of imprisonment of 4 years, with a non-parole period of 2 years, 6 months: at [35].

Catchwords:
CRIME — Child sex offences — Child abuse material — Using carriage service for child pornography material or child abuse material
CRIME — Money laundering — Dealing with money suspected of being proceeds of crime
SENTENCING — Federal offenders — Relevant considerations — Rehabilitation — Remorse
SENTENCING — Aggravating factors — Financial gain
SENTENCING — Mitigating factors — Plea of guilty
SENTENCING — Penalties — Imprisonment
SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Character of offence — Establishing relevant matters — General principles — Multiple offences— Objective seriousness
SENTENCING — Sentencing procedure — Agreed facts
SENTENCING — Subjective considerations on sentence — Protective custody — Hardship

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)
Criminal Code (Cth)

Cases Cited:
Attorney General’s Application under s 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 No 1 of 2002 (2002) 56 NSWLR 146
Burbidge v R [2016] NSWCCA 128
Columbus v R [2007] QCA 396
Fitzgerald v R [2015] NSWCCA 266
Imbornone v R [2017] NSWCCA 14
Mara v R [2009] QCA 208
R v Dennison [2011] NSWCCA 114
R v Dittman [2017] QCA 302
R v Hutchinson [2018] NSWCCA 152
R v Martin [2014] NSWCCA 283
Xiao v R [2018] NSWCCA 4

Texts Cited:
Nil

Category: Sentence
Parties:
Regina (Crown)
Bryan Loyson (Offender)
Representation:
Ms E Hirst (Solicitor for the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions)
Mr R El-Choufani (Counsel for the Offender)

File Number(s): 2019/109968
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

Bryan Loyson, now aged 26, and is a Belgian native, who arrived in Australia on 11 November 2018. He appears for sentence having pleaded guilty to a number of charges involving child pornography material. The evidence in the case comprises agreed facts and associated documents in the Crown case, a report of the psychologist Mr Jason Borkowski, extracts from the offender’s Corrective Services Records and a letter from his mother who is participating in the sentence proceedings via video link from Belgium.
I have been greatly assisted by the very comprehensive written submissions from the Crown Prosecutor and from Mr El-Choufani, who appears for the offender. There is not a great deal in issue. In the light of those submissions it is necessary for me to cover in some detail the circumstances of the offending and the subjective circumstances to justify the sentence of imprisonment which will be imposed.
It is conceded that a term of full-time custody is required and that that term should commence on 8 April 2019 when he was taken into custody. It is also conceded that a 25% discount for the utilitarian value for the pleas of guilty should be allowed in the light of sentencing practices in Commonwealth matters since the…

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 Loyson

Details

AGLC: R v Loyson [2020] NSWDC 864
Case: [2020] NSWDC 864
Decision Date: 15 October 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Loyson involved the defendant, Loyson, who was charged with multiple offences including the use of a carriage service for child pornography material, dealing with money suspected of being the proceeds of crime, and money laundering. The case was heard in the relevant Australian court, where the primary focus was on sentencing given the agreed facts. The legal issues before the court included the determination of an appropriate aggregate term of imprisonment, consideration of the objective seriousness of the offences, and the weighing of aggravating and mitigating factors.

The court considered various legal principles and factors in arriving at the sentence. It evaluated the nature and extent of Loyson's criminal activities, including the use of a digital platform for distributing child pornography and the handling of suspected criminal proceeds. The court also weighed the objective seriousness of the offences, taking into account the harm caused and the public interest in deterrence. Additionally, the court examined mitigating factors such as Loyson's plea of guilty and expressions of remorse, as well as aggravating factors like the financial gain derived from the offences. The court ultimately decided on a sentence that balanced these considerations, resulting in an aggregate term of imprisonment.

Loyson was sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment of four years, with a non-parole period of two years and six months. This decision reflected the court's assessment of the objective seriousness of the offences, the mitigating and aggravating factors, and the principles of sentencing for federal offenders. The court's reasoning demonstrated a careful consideration of the relevant legal issues and the specific circumstances of the case.

Orders

Orders of the court

An aggregate term of imprisonment of 4 years, with a non-parole period of 2 years, 6 months: at [35].

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.

Citations

AGLC Citation

R v Loyson [2020] NSWDC 864

Cases citing this decision · 0 of 0 shown

No citing cases yet.

Cases cited in this decision · 13 of 13 shown

R v Hutchinson
[2018] NSWCCA 152 Para 14

…that I should view a sample folder of the material. Mr El-Choufani objected to that course in the light of what was said by Hulme J in R v Hutchinson [2018] NSWCCA 152 particularly at [48] to [50]. I accept the guidance offered there by His Honour. I take the view that particularly since his Honour’s judgment was pu…
Xiao v R
[2018] NSWCCA 4 Para 3

…utilitarian value for the pleas of guilty should be allowed in the light of sentencing practices in Commonwealth matters since the ruling in Xiao v R [2018] NSWCCA 4.…
R v Dittman; Ex parte
[2017] QCA 302 Para 31

…rpose of indicating a broad range of sentences which have been imposed in these types of matters including R v Denison [2011] NSWCCA 114, R v Dittman [2017] QCA 302 , Burbidge v R [2016] NSWCCA 128 and R v Martin [2014] NSWCCA 283 provided by the offender. The Crown’s bundle included R v Denison [2011] NSWCCA 114…
Mg v R
[2017] NSWCCA 14 Para 22

…al, set out in report of Jason Borkowski is not contested or adopted, and it is treated with some caution as suggested in cases such as Imbornone v R [2017] NSWCCA 14, but the Crown does not submit that it is not a reasonable basis upon which to proceed and I do so given that it is consistent with material provided…
Burbridge v R
[2016] NSWCCA 128 Para 31

…nge of sentences which have been imposed in these types of matters including R v Denison [2011] NSWCCA 114, R v Dittman [2017] QCA 302 , Burbidge v R [2016] NSWCCA 128 and R v Martin [2014] NSWCCA 283 provided by the offender. The Crown’s bundle included R v Denison [2011] NSWCCA 114, Mara v R [2009] QCA 208, Fitzge…
Fitzgerald v R
[2015] NSWCCA 266 Para 31

…rtin [2014] NSWCCA 283 provided by the offender. The Crown’s bundle included R v Denison [2011] NSWCCA 114, Mara v R [2009] QCA 208, Fitzgerald v R [2015] NSWCCA 266 and Columbus v R [2007] QCA 396 .…
R v De Leeuw
[2015] NSWCCA 183 Para 26

…principles in these matters set out in the Crown’s submissions and the various factors summarised in Minehan v R [2010] NSWCCA 140 and R v De Leeuw [2015] NSWCCA 183 which should be taken into account. Ultimately I accept the submission for the offender that sequences 7 and 8 are around midrange of objective serious…
R v Martin
[2014] NSWCCA 283 Para 31

…imposed in these types of matters including R v Denison [2011] NSWCCA 114, R v Dittman [2017] QCA 302 , Burbidge v R [2016] NSWCCA 128 and R v Martin [2014] NSWCCA 283 provided by the offender. The Crown’s bundle included R v Denison [2011] NSWCCA 114, Mara v R [2009] QCA 208, Fitzgerald v R [2015] NSWCCA 266 and Co…
R v Dennison
[2011] NSWCCA 114 Para 27

…In terms of the dealing with the proceeds of crime charge I take into account what was said in R v Dennison [2011] NSWCCA 114, namely that double counting should be avoided, but there still should be a separate sentence to recognise the criminality of the individual offence.…
Minehan v R
[2010] NSWCCA 140 Para 26

…taken into account the sentencing principles in these matters set out in the Crown’s submissions and the various factors summarised in Minehan v R [2010] NSWCCA 140 and R v De Leeuw [2015] NSWCCA 183 which should be taken into account. Ultimately I accept the submission for the offender that sequences 7 and 8 are a…
R v Mara
[2009] QCA 208 Para 31

…R [2016] NSWCCA 128 and R v Martin [2014] NSWCCA 283 provided by the offender. The Crown’s bundle included R v Denison [2011] NSWCCA 114, Mara v R [2009] QCA 208, Fitzgerald v R [2015] NSWCCA 266 and Columbus v R [2007] QCA 396 .…
R v. Columbus
[2007] QCA 396 Para 31

…the offender. The Crown’s bundle included R v Denison [2011] NSWCCA 114, Mara v R [2009] QCA 208, Fitzgerald v R [2015] NSWCCA 266 and Columbus v R [2007] QCA 396 .…
Re Attorney-General's Application (No 1 of 2002) (NSW)
[2002] NSWCCA 518 Para 6

…e in the guideline judgment on those matters ( Attorney General’s Application under s 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 No 1 of 2002 (2002) 56 NSWLR 146). The two matters (sequences 009 and 13) on the s 16BA schedule are offences contrary to s 474.19(1)(a)(iii) of the Criminal Code (Cth) of using a carr…

Legislation cited in this decision · 2

Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)
16A(2AAA) 2 mentions (from Para 30)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
1 mention (from Para 6)

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Loyson [2020] NSWDC 864
Hearing dates:	15 October 20201
Date of orders:	15 October 2020
Decision date:	15 October 2020
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	ML Williams SC DCJ
Decision:	An aggregate term of imprisonment of 4 years, with a non-parole period of 2 years, 6 months: at [35].
Catchwords:	CRIME — Child sex offences — Child abuse material — Using carriage service for child pornography material or child abuse material CRIME — Money laundering — Dealing with money suspected of being proceeds of crime SENTENCING — Federal offenders — Relevant considerations — Rehabilitation — Remorse SENTENCING — Aggravating factors — Financial gain SENTENCING — Mitigating factors — Plea of guilty SENTENCING — Penalties — Imprisonment SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Character of offence — Establishing relevant matters — General principles — Multiple offences— Objective seriousness SENTENCING — Sentencing procedure — Agreed facts SENTENCING — Subjective considerations on sentence — Protective custody — Hardship
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) Criminal Code (Cth)
Cases Cited:	Attorney General’s Application under s 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 No 1 of 2002 (2002) 56 NSWLR 146 Burbidge v R [2016] NSWCCA 128 Columbus v R [2007] QCA 396 Fitzgerald v R [2015] NSWCCA 266 Imbornone v R [2017] NSWCCA 14 Mara v R [2009] QCA 208 R v Dennison [2011] NSWCCA 114 R v Dittman [2017] QCA 302 R v Hutchinson [2018] NSWCCA 152 R v Martin [2014] NSWCCA 283 Xiao v R [2018] NSWCCA 4
Texts Cited:	Nil
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Regina (Crown) Bryan Loyson (Offender)
Representation:	Ms E Hirst (Solicitor for the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions) Mr R El-Choufani (Counsel for the Offender)
File Number(s):	2019/109968
Publication restriction:	Nil