District Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: R v Suttle [2019] NSWDC 538 Hearing dates: 14 August 2019, Decision date: 03 October 2019 Jurisdiction: Criminal Before: Haesler SC DCJ Decision: See [181] – [185]
Catchwords: SENTENCING - relevant principles - sexual intercourse child under 16 procuring child for unlawful sexual activity - use of carriage service to transmit indecent article images of penis to a child- use of social media – Snapchat described - use of child to make child abuse material where sexual acts recorded on phone – client of child prostitution where child not a prostitute - sentencing for Commonwealth and State offences- multiple forms 1 - relevant principles set out
SENTENCING - relevant factors- sexual intercourse child under 16 - child prostitution offences- procuring child offences - transmitting indecent article - relevant factors considered – maximum penalties and standard non parole periods considered - multiple victims- course of conduct - Victim Impact Statements considered –offenders prior good character- youth and immaturity - strong support in community-special circumstances - prospects for rehabilitation – multiple victims accumulation – totality – early guilty plea – acceptance of responsibilityLegislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900
Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)
Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007
Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth)Cases Cited: Abbas, Bodiotis, Taleb and Amoun v R [2013] NSWCCA 115
Attorney General’s Application No. 1: (2002) 56 NSWLR 146
BP v R [2010] NSWCCA 159;
Clarke-Jeffries v R [2019] NSWCCA 56;
Grube v R [2005] NSWCCA 140
Howard v R [2019] NSWCCA 109.
Johnson v The Queen (2004) 78 ALJR 616
MAK v R [2006] NSWCCA 381
Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 35
Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59
Milliner v R [2019] NSWCCA 127
Minehan v R [2010] NSWCCA 140
Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120
Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610
Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610
Postiglione v The Queen (1997) 189 CLR 295
R v Booth [2009] NSWCCA 89
R v Carter [2003] NSWCCA 243
R v Clinch (1994) 72 A Crim R 301
R v Darwich [2018] NSWCCA 46
R v De Leeuw [2015] NSWCCA 183
R v Gavel [2014] NSWCCA 56
R v Gommeson [2014] NSWCCA 159
R v King [2009] NSWCCA 117
R v Lee [2010] NSWCCA 88
R v MAK [2006] NSWCCA 381; (2006) 167 A Crim R 159
R v MJR (2002) 54 NSWLR 368
R v Nelson [2016] NSWCCA 130
R v PFC [2011] NSWCCA 117
R v Porte [2015] NSWCCA 174
R v Schwenke [2004] NSWCCA 289
R v Sea CCA NSW unreported 13 August 1990
R v Simpson [2001] NSWCCA 534; 53 NSWLR 704
R v Simpson [2001] NSWCCA 534; 53 NSWLR 704
R v Van Ryn [2016] NSWCCA 1.
RO v R [2019] NSWCCA 183
Ryan v The Queen (2001) 206 CLR 267
Tepania v R [2018] NSWCCA 247
The Queen v De Simoni (1981) 147 CLR 383
Continue reading R v Suttle
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- R v Suttle [2019] NSWDC 538
- Case
- [2019] NSWDC 538
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the matter of R v Suttle, the defendant was convicted of various serious offences relating to the sexual exploitation of children. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia, which was required to address the sentencing principles and factors pertinent to these offences. The court had to consider the gravity of the crimes, the maximum penalties and standard non-parole periods, the multiple victims involved, and the defendant's prior good character, youth, and immaturity. Additionally, the court examined the special circumstances of the case, including the defendant's prospects for rehabilitation, the totality principle, early guilty plea, and acceptance of responsibility. The defendant used a social media platform, specifically Snapchat, to transmit indecent images and procure children for unlawful sexual activities.
The primary legal issues before the court were the sentencing principles and relevant factors applicable to the defendant's convictions for engaging in sexual intercourse with a child under 16, procuring a child for unlawful sexual activity, and transmitting indecent articles. The court needed to balance the severity of the crimes with mitigating factors such as the defendant's age, lack of criminal history, and potential for rehabilitation. The court also had to consider the impact on the victims, the defendant's early guilty plea, and the extent of community support. The court's reasoning involved a thorough analysis of both the Commonwealth and state legislation, as well as the precedents set by previous cases.
The High Court of Australia deliberated on the appropriate sentencing for the defendant, taking into account the maximum penalties for each offence and the standard non-parole periods. The court recognised the defendant's youth and immaturity as mitigating factors, as well as the strong community support and the defendant's prospects for rehabilitation. The court also considered the impact on the multiple victims, the course of conduct, and the special circumstances of the case. The court concluded that while the offences were grave, the mitigating factors warranted a sentence that allowed for the defendant's rehabilitation and reintegration into society. The court ultimately determined a sentence that reflected the totality of the offences and the defendant's early guilty plea and acceptance of responsibility.
The final orders of the court, as outlined in the judgments from [181] to [185], provided a detailed sentencing framework that balanced the severity of the crimes with the mitigating factors. The court imposed a sentence that was intended to achieve justice for the victims, protect the community, and provide the defendant with an opportunity for rehabilitation. The court's decision was grounded in a comprehensive analysis of the relevant sentencing principles and factors, ensuring a sentence that was both fair and proportionate to the offences committed.
The primary legal issues before the court were the sentencing principles and relevant factors applicable to the defendant's convictions for engaging in sexual intercourse with a child under 16, procuring a child for unlawful sexual activity, and transmitting indecent articles. The court needed to balance the severity of the crimes with mitigating factors such as the defendant's age, lack of criminal history, and potential for rehabilitation. The court also had to consider the impact on the victims, the defendant's early guilty plea, and the extent of community support. The court's reasoning involved a thorough analysis of both the Commonwealth and state legislation, as well as the precedents set by previous cases.
The High Court of Australia deliberated on the appropriate sentencing for the defendant, taking into account the maximum penalties for each offence and the standard non-parole periods. The court recognised the defendant's youth and immaturity as mitigating factors, as well as the strong community support and the defendant's prospects for rehabilitation. The court also considered the impact on the multiple victims, the course of conduct, and the special circumstances of the case. The court concluded that while the offences were grave, the mitigating factors warranted a sentence that allowed for the defendant's rehabilitation and reintegration into society. The court ultimately determined a sentence that reflected the totality of the offences and the defendant's early guilty plea and acceptance of responsibility.
The final orders of the court, as outlined in the judgments from [181] to [185], provided a detailed sentencing framework that balanced the severity of the crimes with the mitigating factors. The court imposed a sentence that was intended to achieve justice for the victims, protect the community, and provide the defendant with an opportunity for rehabilitation. The court's decision was grounded in a comprehensive analysis of the relevant sentencing principles and factors, ensuring a sentence that was both fair and proportionate to the offences committed.
Orders
Orders of the court
See [181] – [185]
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.