R v. Vantoosten

Case [2009] QDC 2


DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Vantoosten [2009] QDC 2

PARTIES:

R

v

VANTOOSTEN, Craig Daniel

FILE NO/S:

628 of 2008

DIVISION:

Criminal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence

ORIGINATING COURT:

Brisbane District Court 

DELIVERED ON:

12 January 2009

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane District Court

HEARING DATE:

12 January 2009

JUDGE:

M W Forde DCJ

ORDER:

(1)        On each of counts 1 and 2 sentence the prisoner to

imprisonment for 12 months;

(2)        Both terms of imprisonment to be served concurrently;

(3)        The parole eligibility date is 12 May 2009.

CATCHWORDS:

Criminal law – possession of child exploitation material – sentence – principles of sentencing - factors to be taken into account – sexual offence 

Correctives Services Act 2006 (Qld) Schedule 1

Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld) s 228D

Criminal Code and Other Acts Amendment Act 2008 (Qld), s 136

Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), ss 9(2)(a), 9(6A), 9(6B), 160D

R v Riley [2007] QCA 391, referred to

R v Daw [2006] QCA 386, referred to

R v Richardson [2007] QCA 294, referred to

R v Plunkett [2006] QCA 182, referred to

COUNSEL:

A Meisenhelter for the Crown

L Dollar for the Defendant   

SOLICITORS:

Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the Crown  

Fisher Dore for the Defendant

Introduction

  1. The defendant has pleaded guilty to two counts of knowingly possessing child exploitation material under section 228D of the Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld) (“the Criminal Code”). This matter was set for trial today. The defendant indicated that he would plead guilty on last Friday after the Crown indicated that it would not proceed on count 3. Count 3 related to another 44 images. It is unlikely that the sentence on count 3 would have added to the criminality on counts 1 and 2. The material on counts 1 and 2 could be considered the worst type for this offence.

  1. The details of the counts are as follows:[1]

    [1]Transcript 1-2.23 to 1-4.33

Facts

The details of the counts are as follows, as appears in the agreed summary, exhibit 2.   A person with whom you were living found the relevant material and passed it on to police.  In total, you had in your possession, 71 images, 33 videos and two text files, all of which, it is agreed, constituted child exploitation material.

Count 1

"Child exploitation material on the 90 gigabyte hard drive was found in the following folders."  I will now summarise those.

Three child exploitation picture files, such as, "13 year, My little sister posing nude", and "Pedo Mum and Daughter." 

Two child exploitation text files in a folder entitled, "Pics.rar."  The folder is password protected and was accessed by analysts.

You gave your password to police.  There were some 68 child exploitation images.  The names in the file included, Six year old girl about to have sex with father."  "Seven year old girl playing with seven year old boy in shower."  "Eight year old, Natasha, about to have sex."  "Nine year old having sex with Dad."  "Eight year…

Continue reading R v. Vantoosten

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Vantoosten [2009] QDC 2
Case
[2009] QDC 2
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Vantoosten was charged with possession of child exploitation material under Australian criminal law. The dispute involved the interpretation and application of sentencing principles in relation to this offence. The case was heard in the relevant Australian court, where the presiding judge was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence for Vantoosten. The court was required to decide the legal issues surrounding the principles of sentencing for this type of offence, particularly focusing on the factors that should be taken into account when determining an appropriate punishment. The primary consideration was the gravity of the offence, the circumstances of the offender, and the need to balance punishment with deterrence, rehabilitation, and protection of the community.

The court examined the nature of the offence and the relevant legal principles. It considered the gravity of the crime, the impact of the material on the victims, and the offender's role in the distribution and possession of such material. The court also took into account Vantoosten's background, his personal circumstances, and any mitigating or aggravating factors. In determining the sentence, the court aimed to balance the need for punishment with the opportunity for rehabilitation, while also considering the need to protect the community from further harm.

In its decision, the court sentenced Vantoosten to imprisonment for 12 months on each of the two counts, to be served concurrently. The court set the parole eligibility date as 12 May 2009, providing an opportunity for Vantoosten to demonstrate rehabilitation and reintegration into society. The court emphasised the importance of deterrence and the need to send a strong message about the seriousness of possessing and distributing child exploitation material. The final orders were in line with the sentencing principles applied, ensuring a fair and proportionate punishment for the offence committed.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) On each of counts 1 and 2 sentence the prisoner to

imprisonment for 12 months;

(2) Both terms of imprisonment to be served concurrently;

(3) The parole eligibility date is 12 May 2009.

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.