Legal Research
Cases
The Queen v Hancock

The Queen v Hancock

Case [2011] NTCCA 14 18 November 2011

Statutory Interpretation

Type to search within this case.

The Queen v Hancock [2011] NTCCA 14
PARTIES:THE QUEEN
v

VERNON HANCOCK

TITLE OF COURT:  COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
JURISDICTION:  CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT EXERCISING APPELLATE JURISDICTION
FILE NO:NTCCA 8 of 2001
DELIVERED:  18 November 2011
HEARING DATES:  2 November 2011
JUDGMENT OF:  RILEY CJ, MILDREN AND SOUTHWOOD JJ
APPEAL FROM:  BARR J
CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentencing guidelines – sexual offences – possession of child abuse material – using carriage service to transmit child abuse material and child pornography – crown appeal against sentence – whether sentences manifestly inadequate – relevance of general deterrence in sentencing process – relevance of previous good character – appeal allowed in part
Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) s 20(1)(b)
Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) ss 474.19(1)(a)(ii), 474.19(1)(a)(iii), 474.22(1)(a)(ii)
Criminal Code (NT) s 125B(1)
Sentencing Act (NT) ss 5 (2)(e), 6, 40 (1), 40 (6)
Bretherton v Moore [2006] NTSC 44; Mouscas v R [2008] NSWCCA 181; R v Booth [2009] NSWCCA 89; R v Jones (1999) 108 A Crim R 50; Ryan v The Queen (2001) 206 CLR 267; Walker v The Queen (2008) NTCCA 7; followed.
Buddle v The Queen [2011] TASCCA 11; R v Oliver & Ors [2003] 2 Cr. App. R (S) 15; R v Stroempl (1995) 105 CCC (3d) 187; Romeyko v Samuels (1972) 2 SASR 546; State of Tasmania v Cooper (sentencing remarks) Tennant J 17/5/2011; referred to.
REPRESENTATION:
Counsel:
Appellant:M. McColm
Respondent:  S. Cox QC
Solicitors:
Appellant:Director of Public Prosecutions
Respondent:  Northern Territory Legal Aid Commission
Judgment category classification:    B
Number of pages:  23

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
OF AUSTRALIA
AT DARWIN
NTCCA 8 of 2011
The Queen v Hancock [2011] NTCCA 14

No. NTCCA 8 of 2001
BETWEEN:

THE QUEEN

Appellant

AND:

VERNON HANCOCK

Respondent

CORAM: RILEY CJ, MILDREN AND SOUTHWOOD JJ
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Delivered 18 November 2011)
RILEY CJ:

I agree with the judgment of Mildren J and the orders he proposes.
MILDREN J:
This is an appeal brought by the Crown against inadequacy of sentence, that being the sole ground of appeal.
The respondent pleaded guilty to one count of possession of child abuse material, contrary to Section 125B (1) of the Criminal Code (NT) (count one); two counts of using a carriage service to cause child pornography material to be transmitted to himself, contrary to Section 474.19 (1) (a) (ii) of the Criminal Code (Cth) (counts two and four); one count of using a carriage service to cause child abuse material to be transmitted to himself contrary to Section 474.22 (1) (a) (ii) Criminal Code (Cth) (count three); two counts of producing child abuse material contrary to Section 125B (1) of the Criminal Code (NT) (counts five and six) and one count of using a carriage service to make available child pornography material contrary to Section 474.19 (1) (a) (iii) of the Criminal Code (Cth) (count seven).
The sentences imposed by the learned sentencing Judge…

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 The Queen v Hancock

Details

AGLC: The Queen v Hancock [2011] NTCCA 14
Case: [2011] NTCCA 14
Decision Date: 18 November 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Queen, represented by the Crown, appealed against sentences imposed on the respondent, Hancock, by a lower court. The dispute concerned the adequacy of the sentences handed down for offences involving the possession and transmission of child abuse material and child pornography, specifically via a carriage service. The appeal was heard by Riley CJ, Mildren and Southwood JJ.

The central legal issues before the Full Court were whether the sentences imposed were manifestly inadequate, and if so, what sentences should be substituted. In determining this, the Court was required to consider the relevance of general deterrence in the sentencing process for such offences, as well as the weight to be given to the respondent's previous good character.

The Court reasoned that while previous good character is a relevant factor in sentencing, it must be balanced against the gravity of the offences and the need for general deterrence. The Court found that the original sentences failed to adequately reflect the seriousness of the offences and the public interest in deterring similar conduct. Consequently, the appeal was allowed in part, and the Court substituted more severe sentences for those originally imposed.

Orders