R v Morrison, Stephen - [2017] NSWDC 243

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v MORRISON, Stephen [2017] NSWDC 243
Hearing dates: 22 March 2017
Date of orders: 22 March 2017
Decision date: 22 March 2017
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Judge Norrish QC
Decision:
Recognisance imposed pursuant to s.20(1)(b) Crimes Act 1914. For orders see [45]

Catchwords: CRIMINAL – Sentence – Use carriage service to procure a person under the age of sixteen with the intention to procure sexual activity with said person – 1 Form offence of a similar nature – single male aged 55 – victim was an assumed identity by undercover police – utilitarian benefit for the early plea of guilty – material sent by offender when uninformed of the recipients age – multiple conversations with offender instigated by the undercover officer – no child abuse material located on personal computers – lengthy period of counselling following arrest – loss of employment following arrest – remorse and contrition shown – prior good character – no mental health conditions evident – excellent prospects of rehabilitation – “predatory behaviour” not shown to have occurred.
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)
Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Act 2000 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Cameron v R (2002) 209 CLR 339
Commonwealth DPP v Thomas and Wu [2016] VSCA 237
Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa [2010] NSWCCA 194
DPP (Cth) v Walls [2014] VSCA 323
Putman v R [2004] HCA 8
R v Asplund; Asplund v R [2010] NSWCCA 316
R v Costello [2011] QCA 39
R v Engert (1995) 84 A Crim R 67
R v Nahlous [2013] NSWCCA 90
Rampley v R [2010] NSWCCA 293
Western Australia v Collier (2007) 178 ACR 310
Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Stephen Morrison (Defendant)
Representation: Representatives:
Mr. Croner (Crown)
Mr. Miralis (Defendant)

File Number(s): 2015/00241760

judgment

HIS HONOUR: The prisoner, Stephen Morrison was arraigned in my court in respect of a charge alleging that he between 16 April and about 1 June 2015 at Rushcutters Bay in the State of New South Wales, being a person of at least eighteen years of age, used a carriage service to transmit a communication to the recipient being an assumed identity whom he believed to be under sixteen years of age, with the intention of making it easier to procure the recipient to engage in sexual activity with himself. This is an offence contrary to s 474.27 (1) Criminal Code(CTH). Although arraigned in the District Court he had in fact been committed for sentence from the Local Court. I am required to take into account on a Form pursuant to s 16BA Crimes Act (CTH) 1914 being an offence that he used a carriage service to send indecent material to a person less than sixteen years, this was an offence committed on 27 April 2015, the accused having committed an offence reflected in the Form contrary to s 474.27A Criminal Code (CTH).
I am informed by the Crown in…

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 Morrison, Stephen

Details

AGLC: R v Morrison, Stephen [2017] NSWDC 243
Case: [2017] NSWDC 243
Decision Date: 22 March 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Morrison, Stephen was heard in the court where the defendant was charged with using a carriage service to procure a person under the age of sixteen with the intention of engaging in sexual activity. The defendant was a single male aged 55, and the intended victim was an undercover police officer posing as a minor. The dispute centred on the appropriate sentence for the defendant’s actions, given the circumstances and mitigating factors presented.

The primary legal issue before the court was to determine the appropriate sentence for the defendant’s offence, taking into account the utilitarian benefits of his early plea of guilty, the absence of child abuse material on his personal computers, and the defendant’s remorse, contrition, and prospects for rehabilitation. The court was required to balance these factors against the gravity of the offence, which involved predatory behaviour directed towards a minor.

In reaching its decision, the court considered the utilitarian benefits of the defendant’s early plea of guilty, the fact that the material was sent without knowledge of the recipient’s true age, and the absence of prior convictions. The court also noted the defendant’s extensive counselling following his arrest, his loss of employment, and his demonstrated remorse and contrition. Despite the seriousness of the offence, the court found that there was no evidence of predatory behaviour and that the defendant had excellent prospects of rehabilitation. Consequently, the court imposed recognisance under section 20(1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1914.

The court concluded by making specific orders, as outlined in paragraph 45 of the judgment, which included the imposition of recognisance and other conditions to ensure the defendant’s compliance and rehabilitation. The court emphasised the importance of considering both the nature of the offence and the mitigating factors in arriving at a just and appropriate sentence.

Orders

Orders of the court

Recognisance imposed pursuant to s.20(1)(b) Crimes Act 1914. For orders see [45]

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v MORRISON, Stephen [2017] NSWDC 243
Hearing dates:	22 March 2017
Date of orders:	22 March 2017
Decision date:	22 March 2017
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Judge Norrish QC
Decision:	Recognisance imposed pursuant to s.20(1)(b) Crimes Act 1914. For orders see [45]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL – Sentence – Use carriage service to procure a person under the age of sixteen with the intention to procure sexual activity with said person – 1 Form offence of a similar nature – single male aged 55 – victim was an assumed identity by undercover police – utilitarian benefit for the early plea of guilty – material sent by offender when uninformed of the recipients age – multiple conversations with offender instigated by the undercover officer – no child abuse material located on personal computers – lengthy period of counselling following arrest – loss of employment following arrest – remorse and contrition shown – prior good character – no mental health conditions evident – excellent prospects of rehabilitation – “predatory behaviour” not shown to have occurred.
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Act 2000 (NSW)
Cases Cited:	Cameron v R (2002) 209 CLR 339 Commonwealth DPP v Thomas and Wu [2016] VSCA 237 Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa [2010] NSWCCA 194 DPP (Cth) v Walls [2014] VSCA 323 Putman v R [2004] HCA 8 R v Asplund; Asplund v R [2010] NSWCCA 316 R v Costello [2011] QCA 39 R v Engert (1995) 84 A Crim R 67 R v Nahlous [2013] NSWCCA 90 Rampley v R [2010] NSWCCA 293 Western Australia v Collier (2007) 178 ACR 310
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Regina (Crown) Stephen Morrison (Defendant)
Representation:	Representatives: Mr. Croner (Crown) Mr. Miralis (Defendant)
File Number(s):	2015/00241760