R v Ramsay-Feeney - [2021] ACTSC 5

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Ramsay-Feeney
Citation:	[2021] ACTSC 5
Hearing Date:	20 January 2021
DecisionDate:	20 January 2021
Before:	Burns J
Decision:	See [35]–[38]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – using carriage service to posses child abuse material – using carriage service to access child pornography – using carriage service to access child abuse material – pleas of guilty – consideration of Intensive Correction Order – emphasis on punishment, deterrence and denunciation on offences of this nature – consideration of offender’s psychological conditions and disorders
Legislation Cited:	Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) ss 474.19(1), 474.22(1), 474.22A(1)
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Patrick Jim Ramsay-Feeney (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel D Bloomfield (Crown) S McLaughlin (Offender)
Solicitors Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Legal Aid ACT (Offender)
File Number:	SCC 153 of 2020

BURNS J

Patrick Ramsay-Feeney, you have entered pleas of guilty to three offences. The first is an offence under s 474.22A(1) of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) (the Criminal Code), an offence of using a carriage service to possess child abuse material which carries a maximum penalty of 15 years' imprisonment.

The second offence is one contrary to s 474.19(1) of the Criminal Code of using a carriage service to access child pornography, which also carries a maximum penalty of 15 years' imprisonment.

Finally, the third offence is one contrary to s 474.22(1) of the Criminal Code of using a carriage service to access child abuse matter, which also carries a maximum penalty of 15 years' imprisonment.

The maximum penalty for each of these offences serves as a yardstick and a basis for the comparison between the case which is currently before the Court and the worst case. The sentence which I impose must take into account the maximum penalty and also take into account all other relevant factors, including the objective seriousness of each of the offences and also your subjective circumstances.

It is accepted that your pleas of guilty were entered at an early opportunity. This is indicative of a willingness to facilitate the course of justice. I propose to reduce by approximately 25 per cent each of the sentences that I would otherwise have imposed in order to take account of your pleas of guilty.

You have been in custody since 6 April 2020 until today, 20 January 2021, which I am told is a period of 9 months and 15 days.

The facts

A comprehensive Agreed Statement of Facts was tendered without objection. I will not now recite the statement of facts. I will, however, provide some basic information in relation to the offences as set out in the Agreed Statement of Facts.

On 13 February 2019, the Australian Federal Police were informed by

Queensland Police that you were the user of a photo sharing website. Your account had been created on 7 October 2017.

On 15 November 2019, police executed a search warrant at your residence in 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 Ramsay-Feeney

Details

AGLC: R v Ramsay-Feeney [2021] ACTSC 5
Case: [2021] ACTSC 5
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory was called upon to sentence Patrick Ramsay-Feeney, who had pleaded guilty to three serious offences involving the possession and access of child abuse material via a carriage service. The offences were committed between September 2017 and November 2019, and involved the possession of a large number of images depicting bare-chested pre-teen females exposing their genitals and other sexually explicit content involving children. The maximum penalty for each offence was 15 years' imprisonment. The court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence that considered the maximum penalties, the objective seriousness of the offences, and the offender's subjective circumstances, including his early guilty plea and his psychological conditions.

The court found that the crimes were objectively serious and warranted imprisonment. However, it also considered the offender's subjective circumstances, including his early guilty plea and cooperation with authorities, his history of substance abuse by his father, his parents' separation during his childhood, and his current mental health conditions diagnosed as Intellectual Disability, Paedophilic Disorder, and Schizophrenia. The court acknowledged the need to address the offender's psychological conditions to encourage rehabilitation and protect the public.

Ultimately, the court decided to impose terms of imprisonment for each offence, with two of the sentences to be served concurrently and the third sentence to be served by way of an Intensive Correction Order (ICO). The ICO would include conditions for the offender to engage with specialised mental health resources, accept a referral to the Adult Step Up, Step Down residential program, and follow all reasonable directions in relation to his mental health, including taking medication as directed.

The court ordered that the offender be released from custody immediately, subject to the conditions of the ICO. The court emphasised that if the offender did not comply with the terms of the order, he would still have to serve the nine-month sentence imposed.

In summary, the court imposed a sentence of nine months' imprisonment for one offence, to be served by way of an ICO, with conditions aimed at addressing the offender's mental health conditions. The court also acknowledged the importance of punishment, deterrence, and denunciation for offences of this nature, but balanced this with the need to address the offender's psychological conditions to encourage rehabilitation and protect the public.

Orders