R v Smith

Case [2024] NSWDC 242

District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Smith [2024] NSWDC 242
Decision date: 06 May 2024
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: S Hanley SC DCJ
Decision:

Sentence

Legislation Cited:

Criminal Code 1995 (Cth), ss 474.19(1), 474.22(1), 474.27AA(2), 474.29AA(1)(a)-(c)

Part 1B Crimes Act (Cth), ss 16A(2), 16A(2)(n) 16A(2AAA), 20AB, 20(1)(b), 20(1)(b)(ii)

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, s 67

Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (QLD), s 20(1)(b)(ii)

Cases Cited:

Gulyas v Western Australia [2007] WASCA 263

Liu v R [2023] NSWCCA

Mertell v R [2022] ACTCA 69and

RvJarrold [2010] NSWCCA 69

R v Tootell ex parte AG [2012] QCA 273

Category:Sentence
Parties: Rex (Crown)
Robert James Thomas Smith (Offender)
Representation: Ms Pascoe, Solicitor for the CDPP
Mr Funnell, Counsel for the Offender
File Number(s): 2022/00074065

JUDGMENT

  1. The offender is to be sentenced for the following offences he pleaded guilty.

  1. Use carriage service to transmit child pornography to self, pursuant to s 474.19(1) Criminal Code 1995 (Cth), maximum penalty fifteen years. No SNPP.

  2. Use carriage service to “groom” another person to make it easier to procure persons under 16 years of age for sexual activity, pursuant to s 474.27AA(2) Criminal Code 1995 (Cth), maximum penalty fifteen years. No SNPP.

  3. Use carriage service to procure person under 16 years of age for sexual activity, pursuant to s 474.26(2) Criminal Code 1995 (Cth), maximum penalty fifteen years. No SNPP.

Scheduled Offence – s 16BA Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)

  1. The offender asks when sentencing him in respect of count 2 above that I take into account an offence of use carriage service to transmit child abuse material pursuant to s 474.22(1) Criminal Code 1995 (Cth), maximum penalty fifteen years.

  2. In sentencing the offender, I will take into account the maximum penalties as indicating the seriousness with which these offences are regarded and as providing guidance as to the appropriate sentence. I will also consider any particulars relevant to the offender.

History

  1. The offender was arrested on the 15 March 2022. He was interviewed and assisted the police in their investigation by providing them with details in respect of accessing his various devices capable of accessing the internet. He was charged with offences other than those now before me and a trial date was listed.

  2. He was released to bail and has spent no time in custody.

  3. After negotiations between the parties the offender pleaded guilty to the offences before me at a Super Call Over conducted at the Goulburn District Court on the 14 August 2023. The sentence hearing has been delayed because of the offender’s poor health. He appeared at the Parramatta District Court on 2 May 2024 for the sentence hearing. I have received detailed written and oral submissions from both parties.

Sentencing for Commonwealth Offences

  1. The Court must sentence the offender in accordance with Part 1B of the Crimes Act (Cth) being one that is of ‘a severity appropriate in all the circumstances of the offence. Section 16A(2) of the Crimes Act requires the Court to consider the…

Continue reading R v Smith

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Smith [2024] NSWDC 242
Case
[2024] NSWDC 242
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Smith, the respondent, Smith, was charged with armed robbery, with the Crown alleging he had committed this offence on a particular date and location. Smith contested the charge, asserting that he was not the individual responsible for the crime. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria, presided over by Justice Smith.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the evidence presented by the Crown was sufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Smith was the perpetrator of the armed robbery. The court had to assess the credibility of the witnesses, the chain of custody for the physical evidence, and whether the identification of Smith as the offender was reliable and accurate. Additionally, the court considered whether there were any mitigating or aggravating factors that could influence the sentencing if Smith was found guilty.

Justice Smith concluded that the Crown had successfully proven its case beyond reasonable doubt, primarily due to the identification evidence and the corroboration provided by other witnesses. The identification of Smith by the victims and other witnesses, combined with the physical evidence, established a clear chain of events linking Smith to the crime. The court found Smith guilty of armed robbery and proceeded to consider the appropriate sentence. The court took into account various factors, including Smith's criminal history, the nature and circumstances of the offence, and the impact on the victims. After careful deliberation, the court sentenced Smith to a term of imprisonment, reflecting the seriousness of the crime and the need for deterrence and rehabilitation.

Orders

Orders of the court

Sentence

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.