BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
Irish Court of Criminal Appeal |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Irish Court of Criminal Appeal >> D.P.P.-v- Carl Loving [2006] IECCA 28 (10 March 2006) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IECCA/2006/C28.html Cite as: [2006] 3 IR 355, [2006] IECCA 28 |
||
[New search] [Help]
|
Judgment Title: D.P.P.-v- Carl Loving Composition of Court: Fennelly J., Gilligan J., Dunne J. Judgment by: Fennelly J. Status of Judgment: Approved
Outcome: Quash sentence and impose sentence | ||||||||||
16 COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL Fennelly J. Gilligan J. Dunne J. 115/05 THE PEOPLE AT THE SUIT OF ApplicantTHE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS -v- CARL LOVING JUDGMENT of the Court delivered on the 10th day of March, 2006 by FENNELLY J. The applicant sought leave to appeal against severity of sentence. The Court has already pronounced its decision reducing the sentences imposed. It now gives its reasons. The case raises an important issue concerning sentencing for possession of child pornography. The Offences The Applicant pleaded guilty before the Dublin Circuit to two offences as follows: 1. Making a gain by deception contrary to section 6 of the Criminal Law (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act, 2001, in that, on 9th July 2003, by deception, he induced one Theresa Corcoran to pay him €700 cash. The Applicant was sentenced by His Honour Judge McDonagh, in respect of the deception offence to two years imprisonment, with the final six months suspended, and in respect of the child-pornography offence to five years imprisonment, with the last two years suspended. At its hearing on 10th February 2006, this Court announced that it was reducing the first of these sentences to six months imprisonment and the second to one year’s imprisonment. The Facts The deception happened as follows. Mrs Theresa Corcoran saw a newspaper advertisement for the fitting of kitchens in the name of Jewel Kitchens. She responded to the telephone number given in the advertisement. She spoke to the Applicant, who gave a false name, calling himself Alex Condren. He visited her home, showed a video of other work, measured and designed for a kitchen and gave a quotation of €2,000. He asked for a deposit of €700, which was paid. He left a receipt and an order form in the name of Jewel Kitchens, with an address that turned out to be false, though he also gave a telephone number, which turned out to be that of his home at Lucan. She attempted unsuccessfully to reach “Alex Condren” by telephone - the number had been disconnected - and became suspicious when she saw similar advertisements in the newspaper. She contacted the gardaí, who conducted a thorough investigation and traced the Applicant to his home. The gardaí obtained a search warrant pursuant to section 48 of the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act, 2001, which was executed on 9th September 2003. Items found on the search led the gardaí to seize the Applicant’s computer and computer related materials including floppy discs. Upon forensic examination, images of child pornography were found. Fifty floppy discs were found. They contained a large amount of adult pornography. Relevantly to the present case, they contained what was described in the evidence as 175 discrete images of child pornography. The discs were marked and tagged. The child pornography included naked poses of young girls as well as young girls in the 7-14 age group either in naked poses engaged in sexual intercourse or oral sex with adults. On interview by the gardaí, the Applicant was described as being neither cooperative nor uncooperative with regard to the deception matter. He disclosed some but not all of the facts. He offered as an excuse the fact that he had been in partnership with another man, who had effectively bought him out and that they had gone their separate ways. In respect of the child pornography, on the other hand, the garda witness accepted that he was frank and admitted that he had saved the material onto floppy discs. It was accepted that there was nothing of the nature of distribution going on. Nor had he paid for any of the child pornography. He downloaded free samples, but did not go further. Background and previous convictions The applicant was born in 1952 in the United States. He moved to Ireland in 1979. He has been married both in the United States and in Ireland. He has also had a number of relationships and has children from several of them. Some are grown up, but he has one child aged about six. He has a history of irregular employment, though he has been working in the kitchen business for a number of years. He set up his own business and got into debt. He is now an Irish citizen. According the garda evidence, he has three convictions on his record in this jurisdiction: six counts of larceny and six counts of criminal damage in 1980, for which he received a suspended sentence at Limerick Circuit Court; possession of cannabis resin in 1982, for which he was fined; conviction and fine for a drink driving offence in 1991, for which a disqualification and a fine were imposed. Evidence was also given that he had served a sentence of two years imprisonment in the United States in 1970 for theft of a motor vehicle. He was also convicted of theft of $50 in 1972, for which he does not appear to have served any sentence. The applicant was arrested in September 2003. When questioned, he stated that he had been alone at the time he began accessing pornography. He had been drinking very heavily and would go to the computer after coming home from the pub. He said that he had not originally been interested in pornography and certainly not child pornography, but pop-ups appeared which were continuous and appetising and that his curiosity got the better of him. He thought he was merely looking at advertisements for the particular sites but accepted he had got drawn into them over a couple of months, and had saved them onto floppy discs. He had also printed some pornographic photographs of children from the internet. He said that he then lost interest and threw them in a closet, where had not bothered about them since. He said that he had had a curious fixation for a couple of months. He said that he was alone, that he had no partner and that he was bored. He dropped it after a couple of months. The garda, in answer to a question from the learned trial judge said that the images were downloaded over a period from December 2003 to January 2004. It had occurred on about fifteen occasions. The applicant told the garda that he is not a paedophile, has no interest in young women or boys and that, once he had got over his curiosity, he did not go near that area again and would have no interest in doing so in the future. He pointed out that he had children himself. He was released on bail. He failed to appear in Court in February 2004. A bench warrant was issued. He was working, as an employee, under his own name. He explained to the garda that he feared shame and embarrassment from the publicity, especially in relation to his children. A psychiatric report on the applicant indicated that, at the time of the offences, everything had snowballed: his mother had died; his drinking; his financial trouble. He was then off drink, though moderately depressed. The psychiatrist indicated that, prior to his arrest, the applicant’s main problem was one of alcohol dependence syndrome. The applicant had also claimed to have suffered sexual abuse in childhood. The Sentence The learned trial judge asked counsel for the prosecution to place the offence in terms of a scale of horror. Counsel replied that this Court had not yet indicated a scale and that she could not point to any existing scale. “Without prejudice to section 5(1)(e) and subject to subsections (2) and (3), any person who knowingly possesses any child pornography shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable— (a) on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £1,500 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or both, or (b) on conviction on indictment to a fine not exceeding £5,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years or both.” “(i) on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £1,500 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or both, or (ii) on conviction on indictment to a fine or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years or both.” It will be noted that both an offence under section 5 and under section 6 may be dealt with summarily and that, on summary conviction, the same maximum penalty applies. In the case of a conviction on indictment under section 6, unlike section 5, a fine, subject to a maximum of the euro £5,000 may, as an alternative to or in addition to imprisonment be imposed. Moreover, the maximum term of imprisonment under section 5 is fourteen years and under section 6 five years. It is well established that, when imposing sentence, the courts will have regard, together with all other relevant elements, to the maximum term of imprisonment prescribed by the Oireachtas. It is undoubtedly the case that there have been very few cases, in fact only one, where this Court has had to consider the appropriate sentence in the case of a conviction for an offence under section 6 of the Act. Counsel for the applicant has provided the Court with a very helpful list of fourteen cases reported in the Irish Times from 1st January 2003 to 1st February 2006. Counsel for the prosecution did not dispute the accuracy of this material. In every case, there was a guilty plea. In seven cases, heard in the Circuit Court, the court imposed a suspended sentence of two or three years, in three of those cases accompanied by a fine. In one case, a term of nine months (not suspended) was imposed. In one, involving a very large number of images, many of extremely young children, the court imposed a sentence of two years, with the last six months suspended. Both these cases were Circuit Court cases based on Operation Amethyst. That meant that the culprits had been traced as a result of investigations in the United States, where credit cards had been used to purchase child pornography. In the remaining three cases, heard in the District Court, the sentences were respectively, six months suspended, six months (not suspended) and a fine of €1,000 and 240 hours Community Service. Only one significant case has come before this Court. In Director of Public Prosecutions v G.McC. [2003] 3 I.R. 609. The judgment of the court was delivered by Geoghegan J). The applicant had pleaded guilty, before the Central Criminal Court, to a number of offences against six young male victims. One was of male rape, which was accompanied by the recording of a video. Other offences were under section 5(1) of the Act of 1998. They included producing child pornographic images of a victim and allowing a victim to be used for the production of child pornography. In one case, the boy was not only shown child pornography on the applicant’s computer, but gross sexual acts were filmed and recorded on to the computer. It is clear that the offence of possession of child pornography in that case was accompanied by the gravest possible abuse of the boys. The trial court imposed lengthy sentences on the other counts and one of five years imprisonment on the section 6 count. There were 200,000 images on various discs, including 783 of child pornography. The court referred to the decision of the English Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) in R. v Oliver [2003] 1 Cr. App. R. 28, where the court suggested the following graduated levels of seriousness in respect of images of child pornography: 1. Images depicting erotic posing with no sexual activity; Rose L.J., writing for that court, suggested the following elements as being relevant to the offender's proximity to and responsibility for, the original abuse (see page 467 of the report):
Merely locating an image on the internet will generally be less serious than down-loading it. Down-loading will generally be less serious than taking an original film or photograph of indecent posing or activity ..." The judgment of the court also remarked on a number of the other elements that appeared in that case:
The offence of possession of child pornography is comparatively new in our law. It is a response to the very serious evidence of gross and shocking child abuse that has emerged over recent decades. It also highlights the possibility of the abuse of the wonders of the internet to transmit degrading images of abuse of both adults and children. The legislature has chosen to criminalise activities concerning child pornography. It has been discovered that many individuals have a propensity to access and use images of child pornography. The task of the courts is, following the guidance given by the Oireachtas, to measure the seriousness of individual cases and to fix appropriate penalties. Two points emerge from the legislation itself. Firstly, the Act it distinguishes between cases of active use of child pornography involving either dissemination of images for commercial or other exploitative purposes (section 5) and mere possession (section 6). Secondly, the Act recognises the offence of possession as a “hybrid” one. It may be tried summarily, at the behest of the Director of Public Prosecutions. It follows that the Oireachtas did not intend that every offence of possession of child pornography must automatically attract a penalty of more than one year’s imprisonment, still less the imposition of the maximum of five years. The Oireachtas did not prescribe any minimum penalty. Any court imposing a sentence for possession of child pornography will have regard to two of the basic mitigating factors in sentencing. They are: firstly whether the accused accepts responsibility for the offence, including his plea of guilty. Secondly, the previous character of the accused with particular reference to the offence in question. The court believes that the applicant was entitled to put both these factors forward as mitigating factors, subject, it is true, to some qualification. The value of his acceptance of responsibility is necessarily tempered by the fact that, once the incriminating material had been found in his home, there was little scope for plausible denial. Nonetheless, the garda accepted that he had facilitated their inquiries and he undoubtedly relieved them of the necessity to prove their case. On the second point, the applicant had some previous convictions, but these, as the learned trial judge fairly acknowledged, dated back for a good number of years and none at all related to this type of offence. Secondly, it is necessary to consider the individual offence. The first question is how serious and numerous were the actual pornographic images. The evidence did not address in any detail the seriousness of the pornographic images. So far as it goes, it suggests that some of the images were in the first category and that some, though not all, of the images qualified for inclusion in the third and even the fourth category of the classification adopted by the English Court in R. v English. On the other hand, the number of images of child pornography was, at 175, much fewer than that in other cases where a shorter sentence of imprisonment has been imposed. The great bulk were of adult pornography. Thirdly, a court should consider the circumstances and the duration of the activity leading to the possession of the images. In the present case, the garda evidence was that they were downloaded during a comparatively short period from December 2002 to January 2003, when the applicant accessed the sites in question a maximum of fifteen times. He did not subscribe to these sites. Most significantly, it seems clear that he ceased using them after that time. When his house was searched in September 2003, it seems clear that he had not accessed any of them since January of that year. There is no reason to dispute his own statement that he had lost interest and had left the material unused in a box over that time. It is also of note that he had ceased to abuse alcohol, which, as was accepted by his psychiatrist, was a significant factor in his becoming engaged in this activity. Fourthly, it is fully accepted that the applicant had never shared the material with any other person or otherwise circulated or distributed it in any way. Unlike the case of DPP v GMcC, there was no link whatever with the commission by the applicant of any other sexual offence or any improper relations with children. Counsel for the applicant was at pains to emphasise that, in spite of the suspension of the final two years, the sentence imposed by the learned trial judge should properly be analysed as a sentence of five years for the purpose of the present application. The English Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) in a decision of 13th October 1983 in R v David Ivanhoe Cohen Mah-wing held that: “When a court passes a suspended sentence, its first duty is to consider what would be the appropriate immediate custodial sentence, pass that and go on to consider whether there are grounds for suspending it. What a court must not do is pass a longer custodial sentence than it would otherwise do, because it is suspended.” The Court does not think the learned trial judge has offended that proposition in the present case. He indicated from the start that he considered that the maximum sentence was warranted. However, it is correct that the sentence has to be considered by this court as one of five years and not of three. It is also necessary to consider the sentence of two years, with the last six months suspended, which was imposed for the offence of deception. There is no doubt that the offence involved a nasty piece of fraud. It may be that it was not an entirely calculating one, as it seems to have been accepted that, to some extent, the applicant was hoping that the work on the kitchen would be done by another person. Counsel for the applicant submitted to the learned trial judge that this matter would have been tried summarily, had it not been for the fact that it was linked with the other offence. Decision It should be said at once that the learned trial judge was left with a very difficult position in the absence of any guidance from counsel or from previous decisions of this court. In particular, he did not have the benefit of the history of sentencing of similar cases from which this Court has been able to examine the pattern of sentencing for this offence over a three year period. This is not a criticism of anyone involved. It is a feature of our system of sentencing. Counsel for the prosecution are precluded from making submissions as the appropriate level of sentence. There is no system of sentencing guidelines. Nonetheless, the court is satisfied that the learned trial judge was in error in imposing the sentences which he did. There is no record of any comparable sentence for an offence involving no other sexual crime. It is unusual to impose the maximum sentence allowed by the law for any offence. Such a decision implies that the actual offence is at the highest level of seriousness. It also fails to make any allowance for the two most basic mitigating points: previous good character and an early admission of guilt. A sentencing policy which fails to make allowance, in particular, for the latter element provides no incentive to accused persons to plead guilty. For reasons already given, the applicant was entitled to some mitigation of sentence for the two reasons mentioned. Furthermore, the imposition of the maximum sentence allowed by the legislature necessarily implies that the particular offence is at the highest level of seriousness capable of being envisaged for that offence, both as to its intrinsic quality and as to the circumstances in which it was committed. This judgment has recited in some detail the individual elements of this offence. The acts of accessing child pornography were committed over a short period of time and then stopped. The pornographic materials were left unused thereafter. The applicant had ceased to abuse alcohol, which had played a large part in his offending. It was not disputed that the applicant was genuinely remorseful and ashamed, though the learned trial judge entirely discounted this element. Most importantly, there was no suggestion whatever, in contrast with the case of DPP v G.McC., that the applicant had spread or circulated or shown any of the material to anybody else or that he was likely to do so. The court must approach the matter objectively. It must consider the seriousness of the offence from all the aspects mentioned. It must observe the principle of proportionality, considering, on the one hand, the policy of the law as laid down by the Oireachtas and, on the other the circumstances of the individual and his degree of culpability. As to the offence of deception, the court agrees with the submission made by counsel in the court of trial that the matter would have been tried summarily, had it not been for the fact that it had become linked with the child-pornography matter. If it had been tried in the District Court, the maximum penalty would have been twelve months’ imprisonment. In addition, the applicant had not been convicted of any offence of dishonesty for more than twenty years. On the whole he came across as a person who had worked regularly, if in a number of different jobs, for a long number of years. The Court has accordingly decided to treat the application for leave to appeal as the hearing of the appeal and to reduce the sentence on Count number 1 to six months’ imprisonment. In respect of Count Number 4 it reduces the sentence to one of one year’s imprisonment. The applicant has already spent more than a year in prison. This decision does not imply that the applicant should have received an unsuspended prison sentence in the first place. An examination of the cases shows that the courts have frequently imposed suspended sentences or fines in cases where much more child pornography was involved and where credit cards had been used. Where the offence is at the lower levels of seriousness, there is no suggestion of sharing or distributing images, the accused is cooperative and it is a first offence, the option of a suspended sentence should at least be considered. Finally, it should be recalled that the applicant will be placed on the register of sex offenders. | ||||||||||
