Site Logo

R v Hutchinson [2018] NSWCCA 152

appeal against sentence — two counts of using carriage service to transmit child exploitative materials offences contrary to s 474.17(1) of Commonwealth Criminal Code — state offence — sentencing judge imposed sentence of 12 months’ imprisonment with recognisance release orders after serving 3 months for each Commonwealth offence and 6 months’ imprisonment for State offence — total effective sentence imposed was 1 year and 5 months’ imprisonment with minimum custodial component of 8 months — second commonwealth count was a rolled-up charge involving four unidentified victims — objective seriousness — list of factors that may bear upon assessment of objective seriousness of offences concerning child abuse material in Minehan v R [2010] NSWCCA 140 of assistance to sentencing judges —list of factors not closed and appropriate to update list — 9th item on list amended to include deception to read: “The degree of planning, organisation, sophistication and/or deception employed by the offender in acquiring, storing, disseminating or transmitting the material.” — a new 10th item added to list to read: “The age of any person with whom the offender was in communication in connection with the acquisition or dissemination of the material relative to the age of the offender.” — it has been said that viewing sample of material is necessary for judicial officer to obtain full appreciation of its nature which is significant in assessment of objective seriousness of offence — no binding authority that viewing a sample essential — incumbent on prosecuting authorities to provide written description of material — in vast majority of cases that should suffice — in present case description of material within statement of facts reasonably detailed so viewing sample of material not necessary — no requirement for sentencing judge to identify and articulate every possible feature that bears upon assessment of objective seriousness — sentencing judge not in error in finding that that objective seriousness “in the low range” — taken to have meant that objective seriousness somewhere between the middle and bottom of range — difficult to be precise in stating objective seriousness — recognizance release order — s 19AC(1) — sentencing judge clearly in error in making recognizance release order in respect of each Commonwealth sentence — sentencing judge should have determined sentence for each and then determined single recognizance release order if total sentence 3 years or less or non-parole period otherwise — whether this error has any practical impact on overall sentence is not apparent — if sentencing judge being mindful of totality determined there should be overall sentence of 1 year 5 months with minimum custodial component of 8 months sentencing judge could have achieved that by making single order that offender be released on recognizance after serving 5 months of sentence — manifest inadequacy — sentences very lenient — more emphasis on general and specific deterrence and denunciation should have been reflected — present case should not be regarded as benchmark for assessment of sentences in other cases — however unable to conclude that sentences are unreasonable or plainly unjust as to be manifestly inadequate — appeal dismissed  
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.

© 2023 The National Judicial College of Australia (NJCA). Powered by

Privacy Policy|Terms and Conditions