Gifford v R [2016] NSWCCA 302

Court of Criminal Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Gifford v R [2016] NSWCCA 302 Hearing dates: 25 November 2016 Decision date: 16 December 2016 Before: Ward JA at [1]; Bellew J at [140]; Hidden AJ at [141] Decision: 1. Grant leave to appeal. 2. Appeal dismissed. Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – sentence appeal – use carriage service to procure a person under 16 for sexual activity – whether judge erred in rejecting unchallenged evidence of counsellor relating to applicant's apparent lack of intention to meet with victims – whether judge erred in characterisation of objective seriousness of offences or in assessment of applicant's prospects of rehabilitation – whether sentence manifestly excessive – leave to appeal granted but appeal dismissed Legislation Cited: Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), s 5(1)(c) Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth), ss 5.2, 5.6(1), 474.17(1), 474.26(1), 474.28(8) Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 218A Cases Cited: Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Rich [2005] NSWCA 152; (2005) 218 ALR 764 Barbaro v The Queen; Zirilli v The Queen (2014) 253 CLR 58; [2014] HCA 2 Dinsdale v The Queen (2000) 202 CLR 321; [2000] HCA 54 Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1; [2010] NSWCCA 194 Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v Hizhnikov [2008] VSCA 269; (2008) 192 A Crim R 69 Goodridge v R [2014] NSWCCA 37 Hammond v R [2008] NSWCCA 138 Heath v R [2016] NSWCCA 24 Hili v The Queen; Jones v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520; [2010] HCA 45 Hone v Western Australia [2007] WASCA 283; (2007) 179 A Crim R 138 House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40 Jolly v R [2013] NSWCCA 76; (2013) 229 A Crim R 198 Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357; [2005] HCA 25 Mulato v R [2006] NSWCCA 282 O'Neil-Shaw v R [2010] NSWCCA 42 R v Bonython (1984) 38 SASR 45 R v Chard (1971) 56 Cr App R 268 R v Fahda [2013] NSWCCA 86 R v Fuller [2010] NSWCCA 192 R v Gajjar [2008] VSCA 268; (2008) 192 A Crim R 76 R v Hays [2006] QCA 20; (2006) 160 A Crim R 45 R v Klamo (2008) 18 VR 644; [2008] VSCA 75 R v Loveridge [2014] NSWCCA 120; (2014) 243 A Crim R 31 R v Makoare [2001] 1 NZLR 318 R v Palu [2002] NSWCCA 381; (2002) 134 A Crim R 174 R v PCB [2012] NSWSC 482 R v Poynder [2007] NSWCCA 157; (2007) 171 A Crim R 544 R v Qutami [2001] NSWCCA 353; (2001) 127 A Crim R 369 R v Rodriguez [2010] NSWSC 198 R v Thomson; R v Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 383; [2000] NSWCCA 309 Reberger v R [2011] NSWCCA 132 Tector v R [2008] NSWCCA 151; (2008) 186 A Crim R 133 The Queen v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270; [1999] HCA 54 The Queen v Pham (2015) 256 CLR 550; [2015] HCA 39 Veen v The Queen (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465; [1988] HCA 14 Western Australia v Collier [2007] WASCA 250; (2007) 178 A Crim R 310 Texts Cited: JD Heydon, Cross on Evidence (10th ed, 2014, LexisNexis) Category: Principal judgment Parties: Aaron Michael Gifford (Applicant) Regina (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: D Randle (Applicant) L Fernandez (Respondent)