Gilshenan v R [2019] NSWCCA 313

Court of Criminal Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Gilshenan v R [2019] NSWCCA 313 Hearing dates: 9 October 2019 Date of orders: 20 December 2019 Decision date: 20 December 2019 Before: Macfarlan JA at [1] Johnson J at [2] Cavanagh J at [106] Decision: 1. Grant leave to appeal against sentence. 2. Appeal against sentence dismissed. Catchwords: APPEAL – offender pleaded guilty to a range of child pornography and related offences – whether sentencing Judge erred in assessment of objective seriousness of an offence – no error in assessment demonstrated in approach taken – whether sentencing Judge erred in applying the principles in Veen v The Queen (No. 2) – offender had demonstrated a continuing attitude of disobedience to the law – no misapplication of principle – whether sentencing Judge erred in elevating sentence by reason of a Form 1 offence – orthodox approach to use of Form 1 offence on sentence – whether sentence was manifestly excessive – where reliance placed on assertions of express errors – where other sentencing decisions do not establish pattern or range – sentence was not unreasonable or plainly unjust – leave to appeal granted and appeal dismissed Legislation Cited: Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Act 2000 (NSW) Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) Criminal Code (Cth) Cases Cited: Abbas v R (2013) 231 A Crim R 413; [2013] NSWCCA 115 Alarcon v R [2018] NSWCCA 298 Baumer v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 51; [1988] HCA 67 Carroll v The Queen (2009) 83 ALJR 579; [2009] HCA 13 Dennis v R [2017] VSCA 251 Hili v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520; [2010] HCA 45 Hong v R [2017] NSWCCA 238 Maine v R [2018] VSCA 56 Obeid v R (2017) 96 NSWLR 155 at 241; [2017] NSWCCA 221 Peters v R [2018] NSWCCA 126 R v De Leeuw [2015] NSWCCA 183 R v Freedman (2017) 268 A Crim R 453; [2017] NSWCCA 201 R v McNaughton (2006) 66 NSWLR 566; [2006] NSWCCA 242 R v Porte (2015) 252 A Crim R 294; [2015] NSWCCA 174 RLS v R [2012] NSWCCA 236 Veen v The Queen (No. 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465; [1988] HCA 14 Texts Cited: --- Category: Principal judgment Parties: Mark Gilshenan (Applicant) Regina (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: Mr B Dean (Applicant) Mr D Patch (Respondent)