Legal Research
Cases
R v Yardley

R v Yardley

Case [2021] ACTSC 2 25 January 2021

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Yardley
Citation:	[2021] ACTSC 2
Hearing Date(s):	12 November 2020; 10 December 2020
DecisionDate:	25 January 2021
Before:	Loukas-Karlsson J
Decision:	See [111]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – Commonwealth and Territory offences – use carriage service to access, transmit, and solicit child pornography – pleas of guilty – prospects of rehabilitation
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) s 65 Criminal Code 1995 (Cth) ss 474.17, 474.19, 474.22, 474.24A, 474.27 Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) ss 15, 16, 16A, 19AJ, 19C, 23ZD Crimes Act 1901 (NSW) s 91H Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) s 70 Criminal Code Act 1983 (NT) s 125B Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld) s 210(f), 288D Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 6, 7, 33, 35
Cases Cited:	Barbaro v The Queen; Zirilli v The Queen [2014] HCA 2; 253 CLR 58 Bugmy v The Queen (1990) 169 CLR 525 Bui v DPP (Cth) [2012] HCA 1; 244 CLR 638 Deakin v The Queen (1984) 58 ALJR 367 Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v D’Alessandro [2010] VSCA 60; 26 VR 477 Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa [2010] NSWCCA 194; 79 NSWLR 1 Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v Garside [2016] VSCA 74 Director of Public Prosecutions v Dalgliesh (a pseudonym) [2017] HCA 41; 262 CLR 428 Edwin v The Queen [2014] ACTCA 47 Hili v The Queen [2010] HCA 45; 242 CLR 520 James v R [2009] NSWCCA 62 Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25; 228 CLR 357 Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59 Minehan v The Queen [2010] NSWCCA 140; 201 A Crim R 243 Pantelic v The Queen [2010] VSCA 105; 200 A Crim R 510 Postiglione v The Queen (1997) 189 CLR 295 Power v The Queen (1974) 131 CLR 623 R v Arthur [2017] ACTSC 23 R v De Leeuw [2015] NSWCCA 183 R v Ferguson [2015] ACTSC 363 R v Gent [2005] NSWCCA 370; 162 A Crim R 29 R v Honeyman [2016] ACTSC 2 R v Howe [2017] QCA 7 R v Israil [2002] NSWCCA 255 R v KB [2019] ACTSC 136 R v Major [2016] ACTSC 161 R v Mara [2009] QCA 208; 196 A Crim R R v Meyboom [2012] ACTCA 48 R v Pham [2015] HCA 39; 256 CLR 550 R v Porte [2015] NSWCCA 174 R v Sutton [2017] ACTSC 95 R v Tsiaris [1996] 1 VR 398 R v Verdins [2007] VSCA 102; 169 A Crim R 581 The Queen v Hancock [2011] NTCCA 14 Zdravkovic v The Queen [2016] ACTCA 53
Parties:	Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions ( Crown) Ernest Henry Yardley ( Offender)
Representation:	Counsel B Morrisroe ( Crown) C Brown ( Offender)
Solicitors Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions ( Crown) Legal Aid ACT ( Offender)
File Number(s):	SCC 38 of 2020

LOUKAS-KARLSSON…

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 Yardley

Details

AGLC: R v Yardley [2021] ACTSC 2
Case: [2021] ACTSC 2
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Ernest Yardley pleaded guilty to a series of Commonwealth and ACT child pornography offences, which the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory sentenced him for on 25 January 2021. The court heard evidence from a number of psychiatric experts, and determined that Yardley had good prospects of rehabilitation. In determining sentence, the Court found the objective seriousness of the offending to be significant, given the depravity of the content, the number of images and the length of time over which the offending occurred. The court took into account the subjective circumstances of the offender, in particular his Autism Spectrum Disorder, Tourette's syndrome, and social anxiety disorder, in determining sentence. The Court also took into account the pleas of guilty, and the lack of remorse shown by the offender, in determining sentence. The court sentenced Yardley to imprisonment, with a recognizance release order set to take effect after 15 months imprisonment. The Court also made a forfeiture order in relation to the electronic devices used in the commission of the offences.

Orders