R v Freedman [2017] NSWCCA 201

R v Freedman [2017] NSWCCA 201

The sentence imposed—two wholly concurrent Intensive Correction Orders—was manifestly inadequate for the serious criminality involved in using a carriage service to access child pornography and possessing child abuse material. The sentencing judge failed to accumulate the sentences or reflect the distinct criminality, did not properly effect general deterrence, and gave excessive weight to rehabilitation at the expense of objective seriousness. The errors justified appellate intervention, and the appropriate sentences were fixed terms of imprisonment for each offence, partly accumulated, with conditions for release on recognisance for the federal offence in accordance with statute.

Parties
Appellant: Regina; Respondent: Michael Ian Freedman
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 August 2017
Procedural Posture
Crown Appeal Against Sentence / Appeal Judgment (final Orders Made)
Outcome
Crown appeal allowed. Sentences of 10 March 2017 set aside. Respondent resentenced to terms of imprisonment as set out in orders.
Legal Topics
Sentencing, Child Pornography Offences, Crown Appeal, Manifest Inadequacy of Sentence, Intensive Correction Order, General Deterrence, Accumulation of Sentences, Rehabilitation
Criminal Law Sentencing Child Pornography Offences Crown Appeal Manifest Inadequacy of Sentence Intensive Correction Order General Deterrence Accumulation of Sentences +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 30 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Appellant

Michael Ian Freedman

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Crown Appeal Against Sentence / Appeal Judgment (final Orders Made)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate for offences of using a carriage service to access child pornography and possessing child abuse material
  2. 2 Whether the sentencing judge erred in failing to accumulate sentences, failing to have proper regard to general deterrence, or giving excessive weight to rehabilitation
  3. 3 Whether the Court's residual discretion should be exercised to decline to intervene given delay and prejudice to the respondent

Ratio Decidendi

The sentence imposed—two wholly concurrent Intensive Correction Orders—was manifestly inadequate for the serious criminality involved in using a carriage service to access child pornography and possessing child abuse material. The sentencing judge failed to accumulate the sentences or reflect the distinct criminality, did not properly effect general deterrence, and gave excessive weight to rehabilitation at the expense of objective seriousness. The errors justified appellate intervention, and the appropriate sentences were fixed terms of imprisonment for each offence, partly accumulated, with conditions for release on recognisance for the federal offence in accordance with statute.

Court Disposition

Crown appeal allowed. Sentences of 10 March 2017 set aside. Respondent resentenced to terms of imprisonment as set out in orders.

Orders

  • The Crown appeal is allowed.
  • The orders of Judge McLoughlin SC of 10 March 2017 are set aside.