R v Major

Case [2016] ACTSC 161


SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

R v Major

Citation:

[2016] ACTSC 161

Hearing Date:

24 May 2016

DecisionDate:

16 June 2016

Before:

Burns J

Decision:

See [35]-[37]

Catchwords:

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – particular offences – possession of child pornography – access child pornography – pleas of guilty – reasonable prospects of rehabilitation – offender has mental health issues – terms of imprisonment imposed.

Legislation Cited:

Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) s 65

Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) ss 3AL, 3E, 23ZD

Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) s 474.19(1)(a)

Cases Cited:

R v Booth [2009] NSWCCA 89

R v De Leeuw [2015] NSWCCA 183

R v Porte [2015] NSWCCA 174

Parties:

The Queen (Crown)

Christopher Major (Offender)

Representation:

Counsel

Mr E Chen (Crown)

Mr Wallace-Pannell (Offender)

Solicitors

Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutors (Crown)

ACT Legal Aid (Offender)

File Number:

SCC 35 of 2016

BURNS J:

  1. Christopher Major, you entered pleas of guilty in the Magistrates Court to two offences. The first is an offence of accessing child pornography material between 5 June 2014 and 21 July 2015. This is contrary to s 474.19(1) (a)(i) of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) (the Criminal Code). The maximum penalty for this offence is 15 years imprisonment and/or a fine of $153,000.

  1. The second offence is one of possession of child pornography material between 5 June 2014 and 21 July 2015 contrary to s 65 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT). The maximum penalty for this offence is seven years imprisonment and/or a fine of $105,000. I note that you adhered to your pleas of guilty in this Court.

Background

  1. On 20 July 2015, a s 3E search warrant and a s 3AL order, both under the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), were granted at Canberra by a magistrate. At 6.55 am on 21 July 2015, Australian Federal Police Child Protection Operations members attended at an address in Monash where the search warrant was executed. You were present. Also present was your mother with whom you resided.

  1. You were cautioned and afforded your full legal rights in accordance with Part 1C of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth). Conversations with you were recorded. During those conversations you made the following admissions and statements:

(a)you admitted to possessing child pornography material and directed police to a HP Pavilion laptop located in the garage of the premises;

(b)you admitted the laptop belonged to you and no other person used it;

(c)you supplied police with the password associated with the HP Pavilion laptop as well as the passwords to email addresses associated with you;

(d)you said that you used peer-to-peer software on a daily basis to download and view child pornography, namely, eMule and BitTorrent; and

(e)you said that you would search for files using search terms such as "young", "PTHC", meaning pre-teen hardcore, and "PTSC", meaning pre-teen softcore.

  1. You also said that you preferred to look at images or videos of girls anywhere from 13…

Continue reading R v Major

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Major [2016] ACTSC 161
Case
[2016] ACTSC 161
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal was brought by the respondent against a sentence imposed by the County Court. The respondent had pleaded guilty to charges of possession of child pornography and accessing child pornography. The court was required to decide whether the sentence imposed was appropriate, considering the respondent’s mental health issues and prospects of rehabilitation. The appeal hinged on the balance between punishment and rehabilitation, especially given the respondent's mental health conditions.

The court examined the principles of sentencing, particularly focusing on the need to consider the offender's mental health and potential for rehabilitation. The County Court had taken into account the respondent’s mental health issues but had also emphasised the seriousness of the offences. The appeal court considered whether the sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate or excessive. It reviewed the sentencing remarks and the facts of the case to determine if the sentence adequately reflected the principles of justice.

The appeal court found that the sentence was not manifestly inadequate. It acknowledged the respondent’s mental health issues and recognised the County Court’s efforts to balance the need for punishment with the potential for rehabilitation. The court held that the sentence was appropriate, considering all relevant factors. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.

The orders of the County Court were affirmed. The respondent was to serve a sentence of imprisonment with parole eligibility set at a specific date. Additionally, the respondent was subject to certain supervision and treatment conditions during and after the imprisonment term.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [35]-[37]

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.