R v Stiller

Case [2023] QCA 51

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Stiller [2023] QCA 51

PARTIES:

R
v
STILLER, Ronald Lindsay
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 65 of 2022
DC No 593 of 2022

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane – Date of Sentence: 23 March 2022 (Byrne KC DCJ)

DELIVERED ON:

24 March 2023

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

13 October 2022

JUDGES:

Mullins P and Dalton and Flanagan JJA

ORDER:

Application for leave to appeal refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – GENERALLY – where the applicant pleaded guilty to one count of using a carriage service to access child abuse material contrary to s 474.22(1) of the Criminal Code (Cth) and was also sentenced for two further offences contrary to s 474.19(1) and 474.22(1) of the Code under s 16BA of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) – where the applicant was sentenced to imprisonment for three years and six months with a non-parole period of 12 months – where the applicant participated in a police interview and comprehensively confessed to his offending – where the applicant had been convicted previously of a child abuse material offence – where the statutory minimum sentence for an offence against s 16AAB of the Act for s 474.22(1) is four years’ imprisonment – where the sentencing judge applied the approach in Bahar v The Queen (2011) 45 WAR 100 to the mandatory minimum sentence and considered the applicant’s extensive cooperation and plea of guilty under s 16A(2)(g) and (h) of the Act in reducing the sentence – whether the sentencing judge erred in the application of s 16AAC(2) and (3) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant pleaded guilty to one count of using a carriage service to access child abuse material contrary to s 474.22(1) of the Criminal Code (Cth) and was also sentenced for two further offences contrary to s 474.19(1) and 474.22(1) of the Code under s 16BA of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) – where the applicant was sentenced to imprisonment for three years and six months with a non-parole period of 12 months – where the applicant had one prior entry in his criminal history of using a carriage service to access child pornography – where the applicant’s overall offending was for a period of six years and four months and some of the offending was committed while he was the subject of recognizance release order imposed for the previous offence – whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive

Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), s 16A, s 16AAB, s 16AAC, s 16BA
Criminal Code (Cth), s 474.22

Abreu v R [2020] NSWCCA 286, cited
Bahar v The Queen (2011) 45 WAR 100; [2011] WASCA 249, followed
DPP (Cth) v Haidari (2013) 230 A Crim R 134; [2020]…

Continue reading R v Stiller

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Stiller [2023] QCA 51
Case
[2023] QCA 51
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Stiller involves the appellant, who pleaded guilty to one count of using a carriage service to access child abuse material and was also sentenced for two further offences under the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth). The appellant was sentenced to imprisonment for three years and six months, with a non-parole period of 12 months. The appellant had previously been convicted of a similar offence and had participated in a police interview where he confessed to his offending. The statutory minimum sentence for the offence under s 16AAB of the Act is four years’ imprisonment, but the sentencing judge applied the approach in Bahar v The Queen to reduce the sentence, taking into account the appellant's extensive cooperation and plea of guilty.

The legal issues in this case revolve around whether the sentencing judge erred in the application of s 16AAC(2) and (3) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) and whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. The court considered the appellant's criminal history, the nature and extent of his offending, and the statutory minimum sentence in determining the appropriate punishment. The court also took into account the appellant's cooperation with the police and his plea of guilty as factors that warranted a reduction in the sentence.

The court found that the sentencing judge did not err in the application of s 16AAC(2) and (3) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth). The court held that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive, as it took into account the appellant's criminal history, the nature and extent of his offending, and the statutory minimum sentence. The court also noted that the appellant had been cooperative with the police and had pleaded guilty, which were factors that warranted a reduction in the sentence. The court concluded that the sentence imposed was appropriate and did not interfere with the appellant's rights.

The final orders of the court were that the application for leave to appeal was refused. The appellant's sentence of imprisonment for three years and six months with a non-parole period of 12 months was upheld.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for leave to appeal refused.

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.