Legal Research
Cases
R v Mirigliani

R v Mirigliani

Case [2020] NSWDC 21 24 January 2020

Child Sex Offences

Possession of Child Abuse Material

Sentencing

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Mirigliani [2020] NSWDC 21
Hearing dates: 19 December 2019
Date of orders: 24 January 2020
Decision date: 24 January 2020
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Hatzistergos DCJ
Decision:
See [76]

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW — Child sex offences — Child abuse material — Using carriage service to transmit child pornography material or child abuse material to themselves and another person — CEM Scale Categories used — Low to mid range of objective seriousness

CRIMINAL LAW — Child sex offences — Child abuse material — Possession of child abuse material — CEM Scale Categories used — Mid range of objective seriousness
SENTENCING — Commonwealth and State offences — First offence — Plea of guilty — Remorse and contrition — Whether mental health (anxiety) a mitigating factor — Whether family member who needs assistance a mitigating factor
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 91H(2)
Crimes Act 1914 (Cth),Pt-1B, ss 16A, 17A, 19AC(1), 20
Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 (NSW), s 158
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), Pt-3, ss 3A, 5, 21A, 23
Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth), s 474.19(1)
Cases Cited: Carter v R [2018] NSWCCA138
Elsobky v R [2006] NSWCCA 168
Dipangkear v R [2010] NSWCCA 156
Fitzgerald v R [2015] NSWCCA 266
Le v Regina [2019] NSWCCA 181
Linden v R [2017] NSWCCA 321.
Mineham v R (2010) 201 A Crim R 24; [2010] NSWCCA 140
R v Bednarz [2000] NSWCCA 533
R v Booth [2009] NSWCA 89
R v Edwards (1996) 90 A Crim R 510
R v Gent (2005) 162 A Crim R 29
R v Hutchinson [2018] NSWCCA 152
R v Porte (2015) 252 A Crim R 294; [2015] NSWCCA 174
R v Shortland [2018] NSWCCA 34
R v Thompson and Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 383
R v Togias [2001] NSWCCA 522; [2001] 127 A Crim R 23
Saddler v R (2009) 194 A Crim R 452; [2009] NSWCCA 83
Xiao v R (2018) 96 NSWLR 1; [2018] NSWCCA 4
Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Mirigliani (Offender)
Representation: Solicitors:
Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP)
Australian Criminal and Family Lawyers

File Number(s): 2018/383761

Judgment

The Offender, Matthew Mirigliani, has pled guilty to three offences that can be described as follows:-

On or about 13 December 2018 at Earlwood in New South Wales, he possessed child abuse material, contrary to s 91H(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). This offence carries a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment and constituted Count 1.

On or about 22 November 2018 and 22 December 2018 at Earlwood in New South Wales, he transmitted child pornography material to another person using a carriage service, contrary to s 474.19(1)(a)(iii) of the Criminal Code Act (Cth). This offence carries a maximum penalty of 15 years imprisonment and constituted Count 3.

On or about 28 October 2017 to 29 October 2017 at Earlwood in New South Wales, caused child pornography material to be transmitted to himself using a carriage service,…

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 Mirigliani

Details

AGLC: R v Mirigliani [2020] NSWDC 21
Case: [2020] NSWDC 21
Decision Date: 24 January 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved an appeal by the respondent against a conviction for possessing child abuse material and using a carriage service to transmit child pornography material. The respondent was found guilty of these offences and sentenced to a term of imprisonment. The appeal centred on the severity of the sentence and the mitigating factors that should have been taken into account.

The primary legal issue was whether the trial judge erred in not adequately considering the mitigating factors presented, namely the respondent's anxiety and the need to support a family member. The respondent's legal team argued that the trial judge did not properly weigh these factors, which could have resulted in a lesser sentence. The prosecution maintained that the sentence was appropriate given the seriousness of the offences.

The court found that while the trial judge did consider the mitigating factors, they did not sufficiently emphasise the impact of these factors on the respondent's culpability and the overall sentence. The court held that the trial judge should have given more weight to the mitigating factors, particularly the respondent's anxiety and the need to support a family member. As a result, the court quashed the sentence and ordered a re-sentencing hearing to ensure that all relevant mitigating factors were properly considered.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [76]

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 Mirigliani [2020] NSWDC 21

Cases citing this decision · 0 of 0 shown

No citing cases yet.

Cases cited in this decision · 18 of 18 shown

Le v R
[2019] NSWCCA 181

…NSWCCA138 Elsobky v R [2006] NSWCCA 168 Dipangkear v R [2010] NSWCCA 156 Fitzgerald v R [2015] NSWCCA 266 Le v Regina [2019] NSWCCA 181 Linden v R [2017] NSWCCA 321. Mineham v R (2010) 201 A Crim R 24; [2010] NSWCCA 140 R v Bednarz [2000] NSWCCA 533 R v Booth [2009] NSWCA 89 R v Edwards (1996) 90 A Crim R 510 R v Ge…
Xiao v R
[2019] NSWCCA 4 Para 31

…e R v Booth [2009] NSWCCA 89 at [40]-[41] per Simpson J (McClellan CJ at CL and Howie J agreeing). 13. S 16A(2)(g) of the 1914 Act. See also Xiao v R (2018) 96 NSWLR 1; [2018] NSWCCA 4; s 21A(3)(k) of the 1999 Act.…
R v Hutchinson
[2018] NSWCCA 152 Para 17

…n R v Hutchinson , [3] which follows on earlier authorities including cases such as Mineham v R, [4] and R v Porte . [5] 3. Exhibit 7, pages 9-10. 4. [2018] NSWCCA 152. 5. (2010) 201 A Crim R 243; [2010] NSWCCA 140.…
Carter v R
[2018] NSWCCA 138 Para 66

…v Togias (2001) 127 A Crim R 23; [2001] NSWCCA 522 at [13]-[14]. 43. R v Shortland [2018] NSWCCA 34 at [105]-[125] per Hidden JA; Carter v R [2018] NSWCCA 138 at [54]-[70] per McCallum J (with Leeming JA and Fullerton J agreeing); Linden v R [2017] NSWCCA 321 at [15] per Simpson JA and R A Hulme J.…
R v Shortland
[2018] NSWCCA 34 Para 66

…per Gleeson CJ (with James and Ireland JJ agreeing) and R v Togias (2001) 127 A Crim R 23; [2001] NSWCCA 522 at [13]-[14]. 43. R v Shortland [2018] NSWCCA 34 at [105]-[125] per Hidden JA; Carter v R [2018] NSWCCA 138 at [54]-[70] per McCallum J (with Leeming JA and Fullerton J agreeing); Linden v R [2017] NSWCCA 3…
Xiao v R
[2018] NSWCCA 4 Para 31

…NSWCCA 89 at [40]-[41] per Simpson J (McClellan CJ at CL and Howie J agreeing). 13. S 16A(2)(g) of the 1914 Act. See also Xiao v R (2018) 96 NSWLR 1; [2018] NSWCCA 4; s 21A(3)(k) of the 1999 Act.…
Linden v R
[2017] NSWCCA 321 Para 66

…at [105]-[125] per Hidden JA; Carter v R [2018] NSWCCA 138 at [54]-[70] per McCallum J (with Leeming JA and Fullerton J agreeing); Linden v R [2017] NSWCCA 321 at [15] per Simpson JA and R A Hulme J.…
Fitzgerald v R
[2015] NSWCCA 266 Para 72

…g considered all the alternatives, no penalty other than imprisonment in each case would meet the purposes of sentencing. [45] 45. See Fitzgerald v R [2015] NSWCCA 266 at [33]-[35] Hoeben CJ at CL (Price and Button JJ agreeing).…
R v Porte
[2015] NSWCCA 174 Para 5

…described or depicted in the material, given the offender engaged in the conduct privately on his own personal devices. 6. (2015) 252 A Crim R 294; [2015] NSWCCA 174.…
Dipangkear v R
[2010] NSWCCA 156 Para 71

…NSWCCA 533 at [51] - [52] per Howie J; Elsobky v R [2006] NSWCCA 168 at [17] - [21] per Hidden J (with James and Hoeben JJ agreeing); Dipangkear v R [2010] NSWCCA 156 at [29] and [40] per Whealy J (with Hodgson JA and Buddin J agreeing).…
Minehan v R
[2010] NSWCCA 140 Para 17

…authorities including cases such as Mineham v R, [4] and R v Porte . [5] 3. Exhibit 7, pages 9-10. 4. [2018] NSWCCA 152. 5. (2010) 201 A Crim R 243; [2010] NSWCCA 140.…
Re Sophie (No 2)
[2009] NSWCA 89

…v R [2017] NSWCCA 321. Mineham v R (2010) 201 A Crim R 24; [2010] NSWCCA 140 R v Bednarz [2000] NSWCCA 533 R v Booth [2009] NSWCA 89 R v Edwards (1996) 90 A Crim R 510 R v Gent (2005) 162 A Crim R 29 R v Hutchinson [2018] NSWCCA 152 R v Porte (2015) 252 A Crim R 294; [2015] NSWCCA 174 R v Shortland [2018] NSWCCA…
R v Booth
[2009] NSWCCA 89 Para 31

…t for a guilty plea which is to be quantified in the case of the State offence at 25%, in accordance R v Thompson and Houlton. [13] 12. See R v Booth [2009] NSWCCA 89 at [40]-[41] per Simpson J (McClellan CJ at CL and Howie J agreeing). 13. S 16A(2)(g) of the 1914 Act. See also Xiao v R (2018) 96 NSWLR 1; [2018] NS…
Saddler v R
[2009] NSWCCA 83 Para 6

…wever, to be distinguished from those in which many thousands or tens of thousands of files are involved. 7. Saddler v R (2009) 194 A Crim R 452; [2009] NSWCCA 83 at [32], [36] per Buddin J (with Grove and Price JJ agreeing). 8. Crown Written Submissions at [12].…
Elsobky v R
[2006] NSWCCA 168 Para 71

…he rehabilitation he has committed to is demonstrative that this is so. 44. See R v Bednarz [2000] NSWCCA 533 at [51] - [52] per Howie J; Elsobky v R [2006] NSWCCA 168 at [17] - [21] per Hidden J (with James and Hoeben JJ agreeing); Dipangkear v R [2010] NSWCCA 156 at [29] and [40] per Whealy J (with Hodgson JA and…
R v Togias
[2001] NSWCCA 522 Para 66

…42. R v Edwards (1996) 90 A Crim R 510 at 516-518 per Gleeson CJ (with James and Ireland JJ agreeing) and R v Togias (2001) 127 A Crim R 23; [2001] NSWCCA 522 at [13]-[14]. 43. R v Shortland [2018] NSWCCA 34 at [105]-[125] per Hidden JA; Carter v R [2018] NSWCCA 138 at [54]-[70] per McCallum J (with Leeming JA and…
R v Bednarz
[2000] NSWCCA 533 Para 71

…need to protect the community from the offender and that the rehabilitation he has committed to is demonstrative that this is so. 44. See R v Bednarz [2000] NSWCCA 533 at [51] - [52] per Howie J; Elsobky v R [2006] NSWCCA 168 at [17] - [21] per Hidden J (with James and Hoeben JJ agreeing); Dipangkear v R [2010] NSWC…
R v Thomson; R v Houlton
[2000] NSWCCA 383

…WCCA 152 R v Porte (2015) 252 A Crim R 294; [2015] NSWCCA 174 R v Shortland [2018] NSWCCA 34 R v Thompson and Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 383 R v Togias [2001] NSWCCA 522; [2001] 127 A Crim R 23 Saddler v R (2009) 194 A Crim R 452; [2009] NSWCCA 83 Xiao v R (2018) 96 NSWLR 1; [2018] NSWCCA 4 Category: Sentence Parties: Re…

Legislation cited in this decision · 5

Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 (NSW)
158 2 mentions (from Para 1)
Crimes Act 1900 (ACT)
91H(2) 2 mentions (from Para 1)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
1 mention (from Para 5)
Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)
1 mention (from Para 5)
Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth)
1 mention

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Mirigliani [2020] NSWDC 21
Hearing dates:	19 December 2019
Date of orders:	24 January 2020
Decision date:	24 January 2020
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Hatzistergos DCJ
Decision:	See [76]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW — Child sex offences — Child abuse material — Using carriage service to transmit child pornography material or child abuse material to themselves and another person — CEM Scale Categories used — Low to mid range of objective seriousness CRIMINAL LAW — Child sex offences — Child abuse material — Possession of child abuse material — CEM Scale Categories used — Mid range of objective seriousness SENTENCING — Commonwealth and State offences — First offence — Plea of guilty — Remorse and contrition — Whether mental health (anxiety) a mitigating factor — Whether family member who needs assistance a mitigating factor
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 91H(2) Crimes Act 1914 (Cth),Pt-1B, ss 16A, 17A, 19AC(1), 20 Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 (NSW), s 158 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), Pt-3, ss 3A, 5, 21A, 23 Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth), s 474.19(1)
Cases Cited:	Carter v R [2018] NSWCCA138 Elsobky v R [2006] NSWCCA 168 Dipangkear v R [2010] NSWCCA 156 Fitzgerald v R [2015] NSWCCA 266 Le v Regina [2019] NSWCCA 181 Linden v R [2017] NSWCCA 321. Mineham v R (2010) 201 A Crim R 24; [2010] NSWCCA 140 R v Bednarz [2000] NSWCCA 533 R v Booth [2009] NSWCA 89 R v Edwards (1996) 90 A Crim R 510 R v Gent (2005) 162 A Crim R 29 R v Hutchinson [2018] NSWCCA 152 R v Porte (2015) 252 A Crim R 294; [2015] NSWCCA 174 R v Shortland [2018] NSWCCA 34 R v Thompson and Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 383 R v Togias [2001] NSWCCA 522; [2001] 127 A Crim R 23 Saddler v R (2009) 194 A Crim R 452; [2009] NSWCCA 83 Xiao v R (2018) 96 NSWLR 1; [2018] NSWCCA 4
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Regina (Crown) Mirigliani (Offender)
Representation:	Solicitors: Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Australian Criminal and Family Lawyers
File Number(s):	2018/383761