R v Reynolds

Case [2023] NSWDC 152


District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Reynolds [2023] NSWDC 152
Hearing dates: 6 April 2023
Date of orders: 11 May 2023
Decision date: 11 May 2023
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Mahony SC DCJ
Decision:

Fulltime custodial order. For orders see [136].

Catchwords:

CRIME – sentence – use carriage service to transmit/publish/promote child abuse – possess/control child abuse material.

Legislation Cited:

Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)

Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth)

Cases Cited:

DPP (Cth) v CCQ [2021] QCA 4

DPP (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1

Kearsley v R [2017] NSWCCA 28

Pavlic v The Queen (1995) 5 TASR 186; 83 A Crim R 13

R v Booth [2009] NSWCCA 89

R v Clarkson (2011) 32 VR 361

R v Ellis (1986) 6 NSWLR 603

R v Hutchinson [2018] NSWCCA 152

R v Porte [2015] NSWCCA 174

Totaan v R [2022] NSWCCA 75

Category:Sentence
Parties:

Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)

Cody Michael Reynolds (offender)
Representation:

Counsel:
R Coffey (Offender)
G Lewer (Crown)

Solicitors:
C Strati (Crown)
B Scard (Crown)
File Number(s): 2022/68151
Publication restriction: Non-publication order as follows:-
1 Pursuant to ss 7(a), 8(1)(c)(d) and (e) of the Court Suppression and Non-Publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW), (the Act) the publication of information tending to reveal the details about alleged abuse contained in the following exhibits or material is prohibited:
(a) Exhibit 1.1 – Affidavit of Cody Reynolds: paragraphs [33]-[81];
(b) Exhibit 1.2 – Forensic Psychological report of Florence Gray-Weale: [7], [16]–[18];
(c) Exhibit B – Sentence Assessment Report: second bullet point on page 3;
(d) Exhibit B – Annexure A – Case Note: second paragraph, under the sub heading “Dynamic Risk Factors” on page 1;
(e) Written submissions filed on behalf of the Offender: paragraphs [62], [65], [96], [98], [102].
(f) [REDACTED].
2 Order 1 does not prohibit or restrict the disclosure of the information to the following:
(a) The Offender or his legal representatives;
(b) An officer or legal representative from the Commonwealth DPP;
(c) The Australian Federal Police; or
(d) Any other Commonwealth Government agency.
3 Order 1 does not apply to any oral or written submissions made by legal representatives for the Crown or the Offender in this or any further proceedings in relation to the matter 2022/00068151.
4 This Order is to operate throughout the Commonwealth of Australia.
5 The order is to operate for the term of the sentence ie until 8 March 2026.

REMARKS ON SENTENCE

  1. The offender is to be sentenced in respect of the following two offences for which he entered pleas of guilty in the Local Court on 20 December 2022:-

  1. Sequence 1 – offence of use a carriage service to transmit child abuse material pursuant to s474.22(1)(a)(iii) of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) (‘the Code”). The maximum penalty for this offence is 15 years imprisonment.

  2. Sequence 3 – offence of possess or control child abuse material obtained or accessed using a carriage service pursuant to s474.22A of the Code. The maximum penalty…

Continue reading R v Reynolds

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Reynolds [2023] NSWDC 152
Case
[2023] NSWDC 152
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Reynolds involved the defendant, Reynolds, who was charged with offences related to the use of a carriage service to transmit, publish, or promote child abuse material, as well as possessing and controlling such material. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The central issue before the court was to determine the appropriate sentence for Reynolds, considering the gravity of his crimes and the necessity to protect the community and children from such activities.

The court had to balance various factors in sentencing Reynolds, including the severity of the crimes, the impact on the victims, and the need for deterrence. The legal principles guiding the court included the proportionality of the sentence to the offence, the protection of children, and the principles of general and specific deterrence. The court also needed to consider any mitigating factors that might influence the sentence, such as Reynolds' personal circumstances and any expressions of remorse.

In delivering the judgment, the court found that the crimes committed by Reynolds were of a high degree of seriousness, impacting the community and children profoundly. The court emphasised the importance of holding individuals accountable for such heinous acts and ensuring that the sentence reflected the gravity of the offences. After weighing the aggravating and mitigating factors, the court imposed a full-time custodial sentence on Reynolds. The sentence was designed to reflect the severity of the crimes, deter Reynolds and others from engaging in similar activities, and protect the community and children from such harm.

Orders

Orders of the court

Fulltime custodial order. For orders see [136].

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.