R v Tippett

Case [2020] NSWDC 576


District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Tippett [2020] NSWDC 576
Hearing dates: 18 December 2020; 13 March 2020; 10 July 2020
Date of orders: 10 July 2020
Decision date: 10 July 2020
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: M L Williams SC DCJ
Decision:

In relation to count 1, a fixed term of imprisonment of 6 months and in relation to count 2, a fixed term of imprisonment of 8 months: at [15].

Catchwords:

SENTENCING — Federal offenders — Relevant considerations

SENTENCING — Penalties — Imprisonment

SENTENCING — Mitigating factors — Remorse — Plea of guilty

SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Purposes of sentencing

Legislation Cited:

Criminal Code 1995 (Cth)

Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)

Cases Cited:

Kristensen v R [2018] NSWCCA 189

DPP (Cth) v Walls [2014] VSCA 323

R v Engeln [2014] QCA 313

Texts Cited:

Nil

Category:Sentence
Parties:

Regina (Crown)

Donovan Tippet (Offender)
Representation:

Mr C Stevens (Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions)

Mr L Nicholls (Counsel for the offender)
File Number(s): 2018/185052

Judgment

  1. Donovan Tippett, now aged 35 years old, has pleaded guilty to one offence contrary to s 474.27A of the Criminal Code 1995 (Cth), of using a carriage service to send indecent material to a person under the age of 16 years which carries a maximum penalty of seven years imprisonment, and one offence contrary to s 91H(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), of possess child abuse material which carries a maximum penalty of ten years imprisonment.

  2. It is common ground that he has served 12 days in custody in relation to this matter and that fulltime custody is appropriate in this case, so it is unnecessary for me to consider any alternatives when sentencing in accordance with the purposes of sentencing both for the State and Commonwealth offences.

  3. The facts are agreed and there is very little contest between the very helpful submissions of Mr Nicholls for the offender, and the Crown. There has been no dissent from my suggested sentences raised with counsel during the course of submissions, so that I can deliver relatively brief remarks on sentence.

  4. The Commonwealth offence arises out of events in 2018, when South Australian Police used an assumed online identity (AOI) of a 14 year old female on a social networking site. The offender sent a message to the AOI and was told that she was 14 years of age. Conversations continued over a number of days, with the offender asking the assumed AOI on multiple occasions for a picture. He was reminded that she was only 14 years of age. On 20 February 2018 the offender sent a photograph of a close-up of his erect penis to the AOI and continued asking for a picture of her, and sent her suggestive messages. He continued to ask for a photograph of the AOI between 21 February and 7 March and engaged in sexualised conversation.

  5. He was arrested on 14 June 2018 at his home at Maroubra. On execution of a search warrant child…

Continue reading R v Tippett

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Tippett [2020] NSWDC 576
Case
[2020] NSWDC 576
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, the case of R v Tippett addressed the sentencing of an individual convicted on two counts of serious criminal offences. The defendant, Tippett, was found guilty and the court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence that balanced the seriousness of the crimes with any mitigating factors present.

The legal issues central to the decision involved assessing the appropriate term of imprisonment for each count, considering the purposes of sentencing, and weighing mitigating factors such as the defendant's remorse and plea of guilty. The court had to consider the severity of the crimes, the need for deterrence and rehabilitation, and the defendant's conduct both during and after the commission of the offences.

The court determined that the defendant's remorse and early guilty plea warranted some consideration in mitigation. However, given the seriousness of the offences, the court imposed a fixed term of imprisonment of 6 months for the first count and 8 months for the second count. The reasoning underscored the need to ensure that the sentence served the purposes of deterrence, rehabilitation, and punishment, while also acknowledging the mitigating factors presented.

The final orders of the court were that Tippett would serve a fixed term of imprisonment of 6 months in relation to count 1 and 8 months in relation to count 2.

Orders

Orders of the court

In relation to count 1, a fixed term of imprisonment of 6 months and in relation to count 2, a fixed term of imprisonment of 8 months: at [15].

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.