Larkins v R [2013] NSWDC 159

Larkins v R [2013] NSWDC 159

Sentences for child pornography cartoon offences were excessive and should be replaced by a bond; sentences for the dishonesty offences and thumb drive child pornography were appropriate, but the ratio for non-parole period to head sentence should be more favourable due to special circumstances promoting...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Steven Andrew Larkins; Respondent: The Crown
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 January 2013
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Severity Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Dishonesty, Forgery, Child Pornography, Sentencing
Criminal Law Dishonesty Forgery Child Pornography Sentencing

Source-derived case record

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 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Steven Andrew Larkins

Appellant

The Crown

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Severity Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentences for offences of dishonesty and child pornography were excessive
  2. 2 Appropriateness of custodial versus suspended sentences
  3. 3 Ratio of non-parole period to head sentence

Ratio Decidendi

Sentences for child pornography cartoon offences were excessive and should be replaced by a bond; sentences for the dishonesty offences and thumb drive child pornography were appropriate, but the ratio for non-parole period to head sentence should be more favourable due to special circumstances promoting rehabilitation.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • Sentences of imprisonment for The Simpsons child pornography offences quashed; offender placed on a two-year good behaviour bond under section 9 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act
  • Sentences of imprisonment for dishonesty offences confirmed