Legal Research
Cases
R v Talbot

R v Talbot

Case [2009] TASSC 107 18 December 2009

Type to search within this case.

[2009] TASSC 107

COURT: SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA (COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL)

CITATION: R v Talbot [2009] TASSC 107

PARTIES:  THE QUEEN
  v
  TALBOT, Mark Anthony

FILE NO/S:  CCA 531/2009
DELIVERED ON:  18 December 2009
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATE:  13 November 2009
JUDGMENT OF:  Crawford CJ, Blow and Porter JJ

CATCHWORDS:

Criminal Law – Appeal and new trial – Appeal against sentence – Grounds for interference – Crown appeal – Accessing, possessing and making available child pornography material – Whether sentence manifestly inadequate.

Aust Dig Criminal Law [3521]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
           Appellant:  I M Arendt
           Respondent:  S C Chopping
Solicitors:
           Appellant:  Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth)
           Respondent:  S C Chopping

Judgment Number: [2009] TASSC 107
Number of paragraphs: 25

Serial No 107/2009
File No CCA 531/2009

THE QUEEN v MARK ANTHONY TALBOT

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT  COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
  CRAWFORD CJ
  BLOW J
  PORTER J
  18 December 2009

Orders of the Court

Appeal allowed.
Sentence of 12 months' imprisonment with effect from 4 June 2009 and recognizance release order permitting release after serving six months of that sentence, imposed in respect of counts 1 and 2 on complaint 93372/08 from the Court of Petty Sessions at Hobart, both quashed.
On counts 1 and 2 on that complaint, the respondent is sentenced to imprisonment for 20 months, with effect from 18 December 2009.
The respondent is to be released after serving 10 months of the sentence imposed today upon giving security without sureties by recognizance in the sum of $1,000 that he will be of good behaviour for two years after his release from prison.
Sentence of six months' imprisonment with effect from 4 June 2009 imposed in respect of count 3 on the said complaint varied to the extent that it is not to stand as a concurrent sentence with the sentence imposed today.

Serial No 107/2009
File No CCA 531/2009

THE QUEEN v MARK ANTHONY TALBOT

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT  COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
  CRAWFORD CJ
  18 December 2009

I agree with the reasons for judgment of Blow J and the orders he proposes.
File No CCA 531/2009

THE QUEEN v MARK ANTHONY TALBOT

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT  COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
  BLOW J
  18 December 2009

This is a Crown appeal in respect of sentences imposed on the respondent for crimes relating to child pornography material. He accessed such material on the internet, kept such material in his possession, and made such material available to others over the internet. His activities involving the internet amounted to crimes under Commonwealth legislation. Possessing child exploitation material is a crime under State legislation. The respondent pleaded guilty to three charges, and a judge imposed separate sentences for the Commonwealth and State crimes. For accessing the pornography and making it available, the respondent was sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment, subject to a recognizance release order that permitted his release after serving six months of that sentence. For possessing child exploitation material, he was sentenced to a concurrent term of six months' imprisonment. The Crown…

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 Talbot

Details

AGLC: R v Talbot [2009] TASSC 107
Case: [2009] TASSC 107
Decision Date: 18 December 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Talbot involved an appeal by the Crown against the sentence imposed on the appellant, who was found guilty of accessing, possessing, and making available child pornography material. The appellant was sentenced in the County Court and the Crown sought to appeal the sentence on the ground that it was manifestly inadequate. The appeal was heard by the Court of Appeal, which was required to consider whether the original sentence was so inadequate as to justify the Court of Appeal interfering with it.

The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the sentence imposed on the appellant was manifestly inadequate. The Court of Appeal was tasked with assessing whether the County Court's sentence fell below the minimum that would be appropriate for such offences. This involved a consideration of the gravity of the crimes, the appellant's culpability, and the principles of sentencing for such offences. The Court also had to weigh the appellant's personal circumstances, including any mitigating factors, against the need for punishment and deterrence.

In its decision, the Court of Appeal examined the severity of the appellant's crimes, noting the serious nature of accessing and possessing child pornography, and the harm it causes to children. The Court considered the appellant's culpability and the impact of his actions. It also assessed the sentence imposed by the County Court in light of these factors. The Court concluded that the sentence was manifestly inadequate, as it did not sufficiently reflect the gravity of the crimes or serve the purposes of punishment and deterrence. As a result, the Court of Appeal allowed the Crown's appeal, set aside the original sentence, and remitted the matter to the County Court for resentencing.

The final orders of the Court of Appeal were that the appeal be allowed, the original sentence set aside, and the matter remitted to the County Court for the appellant to be re-sentenced. The Court of Appeal did not impose a specific sentence but left it to the County Court to determine an appropriate sentence that would reflect the seriousness of the crimes and serve the purposes of sentencing.

Orders