R v Till - [2024] NSWDC 298

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Till [2024] NSWDC 298
Hearing dates: 10 May 2024
Date of orders: 10 May 2024
Decision date: 10 May 2024
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Haesler SC DCJ
Decision:
Aggregate sentence of imprisonment of 4 years with a non-parole period of 2 years

Catchwords:
CRIME — Child sex offences — Child abuse material — Possession
CRIME — Child sex offences — Sexual intercourse with child >14 <16
SENTENCING — Mitigating factors — No record of previous convictions — Plea of guilty
SENTENCING — Penalties — Imprisonment
SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Form 1 offences — Moral culpability — Multiple offences — Objective seriousness
SENTENCING — Sentencing procedure — Instinctive synthesis — Aggregate sentence
SENTENCING — Subjective considerations on sentence — Mental illness — Autism Spectrum Disorder — Special circumstances

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Attorney General's Application under s 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 No 1 of 2002 [2002] NSWCCA 518; (2002) 56 NSWLR 146
Bell v R [2019] NSWCCA 251
Blackett v The Queen [2021] NSWCCA 210
Brown v R [2023] NSWCCA 330
Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1; [2010] NSWCCA 194
Donald (a pseudonym) v R [2021] NSWCCA 198
Minehan v R [2010] NSWCCA 140
Nelson v R [2016] NSWCCA 130
R v RD [2014] NSWCCA 103
R vTaane [2014] NSWCCA 330
Wakeling v R [2016] NSWCCA 33

Category: Sentence
Parties: Christopher Till (the offender)
Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)
Representation:
Counsel:
S Fraser (for the offender)
Solicitors:
Maguire & McInerney Lawyers
M Hayes for the for Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)

File Number(s): 2023/106442

JUDGMENT – ex tempore revised

Introduction

In 2022 Christopher Till was 26 years old. He had a job, he was in a relationship, he had a home. His life had not been without problems. His mother tragically died when he was seven years old, and he and his stepmother had their issues. During his childhood he showed symptoms of Autism Spectrum Disorder (“ASD”). He was bullied at school. He left school early, but he was able to gain an apprenticeship and a trade. He was to form relationships with other women, generally over the internet, and for short periods. He does not have many friends.
He utilised the internet to make his female friends. In 2022 he started chatting online with the complainant. After commencing this online relationship, he became aware that she was 14 years old. Despite their respective his ages, he continued the online relationship. The messages between them, included exchanging of still images and videos, that were often explicit, both in the texts and images. They showed them both engaging in sexual activity. This material was, given her age, child abuse material.
Till saved, by various means, those communications, including the videos and still images on his phone. That material, the details of which are set out in full in…

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 Till

Details

AGLC: R v Till [2024] NSWDC 298
Case: [2024] NSWDC 298
Decision Date: 10 May 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Till involved the defendant, Till, who was charged with possessing child abuse material, engaging in sexual intercourse with a child over the age of fourteen, and multiple related offences. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. Till entered a plea of guilty to all charges and the court had to determine an appropriate sentence. The legal issues that the court had to decide included the appropriate sentence for the multiple offences, the mitigating factors such as Till's lack of a criminal record and his plea of guilty, as well as the objective seriousness of the crimes committed.

The court considered the nature and gravity of the offences, which involved serious breaches of moral standards and significant harm to the victims. It was noted that the offences were not isolated incidents but rather involved multiple victims and prolonged periods of abuse. The court also took into account Till's plea of guilty, which resulted in a discount to the sentence, and his lack of prior criminal history. However, these mitigating factors were weighed against the objective seriousness of the crimes and the need for general and specific deterrence. The court concluded that an aggregate sentence was appropriate, taking into account the need for punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation.

Till was sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment of four years, with a non-parole period of two years. The court considered the special circumstances of Till's Autism Spectrum Disorder, which was found to be a mitigating factor, but did not outweigh the severity of the offences. The court determined that an aggregate sentence was necessary to adequately reflect the moral culpability and objective seriousness of the crimes committed. The court also noted the need for general deterrence, to send a message that such crimes will not be tolerated in society. The final orders of the court were for Till to serve an aggregate sentence of imprisonment of four years, with a non-parole period of two years.

Orders

Orders of the court

Aggregate sentence of imprisonment of 4 years with a non-parole period of 2 years

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Till [2024] NSWDC 298
Hearing dates:	10 May 2024
Date of orders:	10 May 2024
Decision date:	10 May 2024
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Haesler SC DCJ
Decision:	Aggregate sentence of imprisonment of 4 years with a non-parole period of 2 years
Catchwords:	CRIME — Child sex offences — Child abuse material — Possession CRIME — Child sex offences — Sexual intercourse with child >14 <16 SENTENCING — Mitigating factors — No record of previous convictions — Plea of guilty SENTENCING — Penalties — Imprisonment SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Form 1 offences — Moral culpability — Multiple offences — Objective seriousness SENTENCING — Sentencing procedure — Instinctive synthesis — Aggregate sentence SENTENCING — Subjective considerations on sentence — Mental illness — Autism Spectrum Disorder — Special circumstances
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Cases Cited:	Attorney General's Application under s 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 No 1 of 2002 [2002] NSWCCA 518; (2002) 56 NSWLR 146 Bell v R [2019] NSWCCA 251 Blackett v The Queen [2021] NSWCCA 210 Brown v R [2023] NSWCCA 330 Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1; [2010] NSWCCA 194 Donald (a pseudonym) v R [2021] NSWCCA 198 Minehan v R [2010] NSWCCA 140 Nelson v R [2016] NSWCCA 130 R v RD [2014] NSWCCA 103 R vTaane [2014] NSWCCA 330 Wakeling v R [2016] NSWCCA 33
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Christopher Till (the offender) Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)
Representation:	Counsel: S Fraser (for the offender) Solicitors: Maguire & McInerney Lawyers M Hayes for the for Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)
File Number(s):	2023/106442