R v Rayfield - [2017] NSWDC 174

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v RAYFIELD [2017] NSWDC 174
Hearing dates: 16 June 2017 and 20 June 2017
Decision date: 20 June 2017
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Bright DCJ
Decision:
Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 2 years and 7 months. To be released on a recognisance after 1 years and 4 months. Forfeiture of electronic devices to Commonwealth.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence - use a carriage service to groom a person under 16 years of age for sexual activity pursuant to section 474.27(1) Criminal Code (Commonwealth)
Legislation Cited: Criminal Code Act 1995 (Commonwealth)
Crimes Act 1914 (Commonwealth)
Cases Cited: R v Fuller [2010] NSWCCA 192
R v Asplund [2010] NSWCCA 316
R v Bozinovski [2009] NSWDC 200
R v McKenna [2015] NSWDC 250
R v Telfer [2016] NSWDC 421
R v Costello [2011] CA 39
Rampley v R [2010] NSWCCA 293
R v Gajjar [2008] VSCA 268
R v Shepheard [2008] ACTSC 116
Category: Sentence
Parties: The Crown
Alan Rayfield - Offender
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr Preece- Offender
Solicitors:
Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions - Crown

File Number(s): 2016/00304543001

Judgment

Alan RAYFIELD (D.O.B. 13/6/1957, 60 years) appears for sentence in relation to one offence of use a carriage service to groom a person under 16 years of age for sexual activity pursuant to section 474.27(1) Criminal Code (Commonwealth).
The maximum prescribed penalty for this offence is 12 years imprisonment.
The offender pleaded guilty to this offence at Newcastle Local Court on 15 February 2017 and was committed to the Newcastle District Court for sentence.

FACTS

27 July 2016

On 27 July 2016, Alan RAYFIELD (the offender) was using a popular internet chat room ‘ChatIW’ utilising the username 'AlanJon'. At the same time, investigators from the NSW Police, posing as a 14 year old girl from Sydney (the AOI), entered the same chat room. The offender began to chat with the AOI.
The offender asked the AOI in the online communication “are u really one four” and the AOI responded “yeah”. The offender then asked the AOI if he was “a bit old to say hi or more” and said he lived on the NSW Central Coast. He then said “I know I am way older to try flirt with u anyway” and that “I get a lil risqué and nawty”. Later in the chat the AOI again stated that she was 14 years old.
The offender asked the AOI what colour her eyes and hair were, and whether her mother knew that she chatted to older guys online. He then told the AOI “I need ice on my lap”…”to stop him from being naughty as we chat” and “I am more than lumpy in my shorts”. Upon being asked by the AOI what he meant by that, he replied “though i guess ur not shy playfully…and masturbate when u feel a lil horny”.

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 Rayfield

Details

AGLC: R v Rayfield [2017] NSWDC 174
Case: [2017] NSWDC 174
Decision Date: 20 June 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Rayfield involved the respondent, Rayfield, who was convicted under section 474.27(1) of the Criminal Code for using a carriage service to groom a person under 16 for sexual activity. The matter was heard in a court of criminal jurisdiction in Australia. The primary focus of the case was the determination of an appropriate sentence for the offence committed by Rayfield.

The court was tasked with assessing the gravity of the offence and determining a sentence that would serve as a deterrent while also considering the principles of justice and rehabilitation. The court had to weigh various factors, including the nature of the offence, Rayfield's background, and any mitigating or aggravating circumstances. Additionally, the court needed to consider the impact of the offence on the victim and the broader community.

In delivering the judgment, the court emphasised the seriousness of the offence, noting the vulnerability of the victim and the potential long-term psychological effects. The court found that while the offence was severe, there were mitigating factors such as Rayfield's early guilty plea and his otherwise unblemished record. After considering these factors, the court sentenced Rayfield to a term of imprisonment of 2 years and 7 months, with eligibility for release on recognisance after serving 1 year and 4 months. The court also ordered the forfeiture of Rayfield's electronic devices to the Commonwealth.

Orders

Orders of the court

Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 2 years and 7 months. To be released on a recognisance after 1 years and 4 months. Forfeiture of electronic devices to Commonwealth.

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 RAYFIELD [2017] NSWDC 174
Hearing dates:	16 June 2017 and 20 June 2017
Decision date:	20 June 2017
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Bright DCJ
Decision:	Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 2 years and 7 months. To be released on a recognisance after 1 years and 4 months. Forfeiture of electronic devices to Commonwealth.
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence - use a carriage service to groom a person under 16 years of age for sexual activity pursuant to section 474.27(1) Criminal Code (Commonwealth)
Legislation Cited:	Criminal Code Act 1995 (Commonwealth) Crimes Act 1914 (Commonwealth)
Cases Cited:	R v Fuller [2010] NSWCCA 192 R v Asplund [2010] NSWCCA 316 R v Bozinovski [2009] NSWDC 200 R v McKenna [2015] NSWDC 250 R v Telfer [2016] NSWDC 421 R v Costello [2011] CA 39 Rampley v R [2010] NSWCCA 293 R v Gajjar [2008] VSCA 268 R v Shepheard [2008] ACTSC 116
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	The Crown Alan Rayfield - Offender
Representation:	Counsel: Mr Preece- Offender Solicitors: Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions - Crown
File Number(s):	2016/00304543001