Site Logo

Kristenson v The Queen

appeal against sentence — using carriage service to send indecent material to person less than 16 years of age offence contrary to s 474.27A(1) of Commonwealth Criminal Code — offence related to a rolled up charge concerning several chats with persons less than 16 years — original sentence imposed 1 year and 9 months’ imprisonment with offender to be released on recognizance after 1 year 3 months and 23 days — guilty plea — sentencing judge in error in not having regard to utilitarian value of offender’s guilty plea — offender entitled to considerable credit for early admissions to police and entry of guilty plea at first available opportunity — Xiao establishes that offender entitled to discount for utilitarian value of plea — given error offender must be resentenced — general deterrence — s 16A(2)(ja) — these types of offence can have profound impact upon victims who are vulnerable due to young age — intrinsic harm is caused by indecent internet communications with children even if repercussions do not become apparent immediately — difficulty of detecting this behaviour and need to protect children from online predators means that general deterrence is of great importance — specific deterrence — s 16A(2)(j) — fact that no steps taken prior to sentencing by offender to undergo counselling of concern given offender’s failure to demonstrate insight into impact of offending upon children involved — there is a need for specific deterrence at least to some extent — rehabilitation — s 16A(2)(n) — positive conclusion about offender’s prospects of rehabilitation difficult to make — while psychologist’s evidence that offender unlikely to reoffend not directly contradicted, absence of evidence from offender means psychologist’s evidence given little weight — offender does have some prospect of rehabilitation based on affidavit evidence showing offender regrets offending — deportation — offender’s possible deportation not taken into account in accordance with position in New South Wales (R v Mirzaee [2004] NSWCCA 315, R v Van Hong Pham [2005] NSWCCA 96 and AC v R [2016] NSWCCA 107) — even if Victorian (Guden v R (2010) 28 VR 288) and Queensland (R v Schelvis; R v Hilderbrand [2016] QCA 294) approach adopted this is a case where evidence about offender’s likely deportation speculative — if there is to be a challenge to long standing New South Wales approach to relevance of possible deportation to sentencing, this case not an appropriate vehicle for such a challenge — leave to appeal granted — offender resentenced to 1 year and 6 months’ imprisonment with offender to be released on recognizance after 12 months
The CSD acknowledges Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as First Australians and recognises their culture, history, diversity and their deep connection to the land. We acknowledge that we are on the land of the traditional owners and pay respects to Elders past and present.

© 2024 The National Judicial College of Australia (NJCA). Powered by

Privacy Policy|Terms and Conditions

top-arrow