R v Wood - [2021] NSWDC 520

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Wood [2021] NSWDC 520
Hearing dates: 7 June 2021
Date of orders: 7 June 2021
Decision date: 07 June 2021
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: M L Williams SC DCJ
Decision:
A sentence of imprisonment of two years and three months, pursuant to s 20(1)(b) Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) the offender is to be released, on conditional recognisance, after a period 7 months.

Catchwords:
SENTENCING — Federal offenders — Sentence by State court for offence against Commonwealth law
SENTENCING — Penalties — Imprisonment — Recognisance
SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — — Circumstances of offence — Deterrence — General principles — Moral culpability — Objective seriousness — Plea of guilty — Rehabilitation

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)
Criminal Code (Cth)

Cases Cited:
Gifford v R [2016] NSWCCA 302
Moore v R [2018] NSWCCA 26
R v Fuller [2010] NSWCCA 192
R v Gajjar [2008] VSCA 268
R v Hizhnikov (2008) 192 A Crim R 69
Rampley v The Queen [2010] NSWCCA 293

Category: Sentence
Parties:
Regina (Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions)
Robert Wood (Offender)
Representation:
Ms Burton (Solicitor for the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions)
Mr Ainsworth (Counsel for the Offender)

File Number(s): 2020/315274

Judgment

On 4 November Robert Wood was arrested and charged with one offence contrary to s 474.26(1) of the Criminal Code (Cth), namely that, he used a carriage service to transmit communications to a person under the age of 16 years with the intent of procuring the recipient to engage in sexual activity. This offence carries a maximum penalty of 15 years imprisonment.
He has been in custody since his arrest and has since spent his 61st birthday in custody. He pleaded guilty to that charge in circumstances in which the Crown acknowledges attracts a 25% discount on any term of imprisonment.
He has no criminal record.
The agreed facts show that he came under notice having placed an advertisement, titled “Sutho Shire Daddy Seek Teen Son” on a site called “Locanto” which is utilised for classifieds and the buying and selling of goods and services, as a legitimate marketplace, and in a way, I am told from the bar table, similar to services such as Gumtree. On 8 October the Child Exploitation and Internet Unit of the New South Wales Police Force commenced an investigation into the website and they found the offender’s advertisement. In the advertisement he said that he was,

‘looking for a teenage boy to call son and be a toy boy and for companionship, travel and fun times together and develop a caring daddy son relationship but happy to explore your sexuality on a casual basis.’

As Mr Ainsworth of counsel puts there was no suggestion that he was targeting boys under the age of 16 or children under the age of 16.
An assumed online identity (AOI) adopted by the police investigators responded to the advertisement and stated that the recipient was 14. In short, between 8 October…

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 Wood

Details

AGLC: R v Wood [2021] NSWDC 520
Case: [2021] NSWDC 520
Decision Date: 07 June 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Wood, the respondent, a federal offender, was brought before the court to address a sentencing matter concerning an offence against Commonwealth law. The primary issue before the court was the appropriate sentence to impose on the respondent for their criminal conduct. Given the federal nature of the offence, the court was tasked with determining the sentence in accordance with the provisions of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth). The court had to consider various relevant factors, including the circumstances of the offence, the need for general deterrence, the moral culpability of the respondent, the objective seriousness of the offence, the respondent's plea of guilty, and the potential for rehabilitation.

The court meticulously weighed these factors in arriving at a just sentence. The respondent's actions were deemed to have a significant impact on the community, necessitating a sentence that would serve as a deterrent to others who might consider similar conduct. The court also considered the moral culpability of the respondent, acknowledging the gravity of the offence. Additionally, the court recognised the respondent's plea of guilty as an important mitigating factor, which warranted a degree of leniency. The court ultimately determined that a sentence of imprisonment of two years and three months was appropriate, with the condition that the respondent would be released on conditional recognisance after serving seven months.

The court's decision was grounded in a balanced assessment of the relevant legal principles and the unique circumstances of the case. By imposing a sentence that included both a period of imprisonment and a subsequent release on conditional recognisance, the court sought to achieve a fair outcome that addressed the need for punishment, deterrence, and the potential for the respondent's rehabilitation. The orders made by the court reflect a careful consideration of the statutory provisions and the guiding principles of sentencing in federal offences.

Orders

Orders of the court

A sentence of imprisonment of two years and three months, pursuant to s 20(1)(b) Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) the offender is to be released, on conditional recognisance, after a period 7 months.

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 Wood [2021] NSWDC 520
Hearing dates:	7 June 2021
Date of orders:	7 June 2021
Decision date:	07 June 2021
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	M L Williams SC DCJ
Decision:	A sentence of imprisonment of two years and three months, pursuant to s 20(1)(b) Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) the offender is to be released, on conditional recognisance, after a period 7 months.
Catchwords:	SENTENCING — Federal offenders — Sentence by State court for offence against Commonwealth law SENTENCING — Penalties — Imprisonment — Recognisance SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — — Circumstances of offence — Deterrence — General principles — Moral culpability — Objective seriousness — Plea of guilty — Rehabilitation
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) Criminal Code (Cth)
Cases Cited:	Gifford v R [2016] NSWCCA 302 Moore v R [2018] NSWCCA 26 R v Fuller [2010] NSWCCA 192 R v Gajjar [2008] VSCA 268 R v Hizhnikov (2008) 192 A Crim R 69 Rampley v The Queen [2010] NSWCCA 293
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Regina (Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions) Robert Wood (Offender)
Representation:	Ms Burton (Solicitor for the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions) Mr Ainsworth (Counsel for the Offender)
File Number(s):	2020/315274