R v Matthews - [2019] SADC 120

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v MATTHEWS
Criminal Trial by Judge Alone
[2019] SADC 120
Reasons for the Verdicts of His Honour Judge Chivell
27 August 2019
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - OFFENCES AGAINST DECENCY AND MORALITY - CHILD PORNOGRAPHY AND CHILD EXPLOITATION MATERIAL OFFENCES
Accused charged with four counts of possessing child exploitation material (counts 1 and 3 aggravated; counts 2 and 4 basic) arising from the discovery of material found on his iPad and on the desktop personal computer he used at his workplace – whether proof beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was knowingly in possession of the material.
Verdicts: Not guilty on count 1; Guilty on counts 2, 3 and 4.
Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) s 62, s 63A; Juries Act 1927 (SA) s 7, referred to.
R v Baftiroski [2018] SASCFC 83, considered.

R v MATTHEWS
[2019] SADC 120
The Charges

James Keith Matthews is presented on an information alleging two counts of aggravated possessing child exploitation material (counts 1 and 3) and two counts of possessing child exploitation material (counts 2 and 4), contrary to s 63A(1)(a) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA). Counts 1 and 3 are the aggravated form of the offence on the basis that it is alleged that Mr Matthews committed the offences knowing that the child depicted in the material was under the age of 14 years.
Counts 1 and 2 on the information relate to material stored on a desktop personal computer, or PC, seized by police, whilst counts 3 and 4 relate to images stored on an iPad seized by police.
During the trial, counsel for the Director of Public Prosecutions conceded that there is no evidence that there were any images which would give rise to the aggravated offence on the desktop PC.[1] Accordingly, my verdict on count 1 is ‘not guilty’.
[1] T 26.
Mr Matthews elected to be tried by a judge sitting without a jury pursuant to s 7 of the Juries Act 1927 (SA). Mr Edward Stratton-Smith appeared for the Director of Public Prosecutions and Mr Matthews was represented by Mr Justin Wickens.
Issues
It is uncontentious that in early 2017, Mr Matthews was employed as a supervisor at solar installations company ‘Suntrak Solar’. It is the prosecution case that on 5 January 2017, the owner and director of the company, Mr Jason Edwards, was undertaking an update of the software installed on all desktop computers held at the premises. While undertaking this process on the computer used by Mr Matthews, he discovered files containing child exploitation material. Police attended at the premises on 6 January 2017. A number of photographs on the computer depicting children, and pornographic in nature, were identified by police. These images are the subject of counts 1 and 2 on the information. Police subsequently searched Mr Matthews’ residence. A number of electronic items, including an iPad, USB sticks and computer towers, were seized and analysed. Further child exploitation material…

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 Matthews

Details

AGLC: R v Matthews [2019] SADC 120
Case: [2019] SADC 120
Decision Date: 27 August 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Matthews, the appellant was charged with four counts of possessing child exploitation material. Two of these counts were aggravated, and two were basic. The material was discovered on the appellant’s iPad and on the desktop computer he used at his workplace. The crux of the dispute was whether the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was knowingly in possession of the material.

The primary legal issue before the court was to determine the threshold of knowledge required to establish possession of child exploitation material. The court considered whether the accused's possession needed to be actual and conscious or if constructive possession, where the material was accessible and the accused could have known about its presence, was sufficient. Additionally, the court had to assess whether the aggravating factors, such as the severity of the material, warranted a higher burden of proof or special consideration.

The court concluded that the prosecution had successfully demonstrated that the accused was in possession of the material, satisfying the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. The court found that the material was accessible to the accused, and the circumstances suggested that the accused could not have been unaware of its existence. The court further held that the aggravating factors did not alter the fundamental elements of the offence but warranted a more severe penalty. The court therefore found the accused guilty on all counts, with the aggravating factors impacting the severity of the sentence.

The court ordered the appellant be found guilty on all counts of possession of child exploitation material, with the aggravating factors taken into account in sentencing. The specific sentencing details were not provided in the summary, but the court’s decision confirmed the conviction on all counts, with the implications for sentencing left to be determined in a subsequent hearing.

Orders