appeal against sentence — two counts of procuring a child to engage in sexual activity outside Australia offence contrary to s 272.14(1) of the Commonwealth Criminal Code, one count of engaging in persistent sexual abuse of a child outside Australia offence contrary to s 272.11(1) of the Commonwealth Criminal Code, and one count of engaging in sexual activity (other than sexual intercourse) with a child offence contrary to s 272.9(1) of the Commonwealth Criminal Code — two additional State offences — original sentence imposed 11 years’ and 4 months imprisonment, with a 7 year and 4 month non-parole period — guilty plea — s 16A(2)(g) — pleas entered on first day of the trial — although earlier plea on first day of the trial has some value that may be reflected in discount on any sentence to be imposed, albeit value of such plea reduced, with a discount of 10% usually being allowed— no basis for concluding sentencing judge did not take utilitarian value of pleas into account — discount applied consistent with discounts given for utilitarian value of plea on the first day of a trial — given facilitation of justice brought about by willingness to plead guilty early will in practical terms coincide with utilitarian benefit thereby secured, there is no reason for thinking that 10% discount did not take into account both subjective and objective factors — nature and circumstances of the offence — s 16A(2)(a) — sentencing judge regarded the Commonwealth offences as mid-level representation of offending falling within the offence provision — payment of $26,286.93 to the victim’s mother leads to overwhelming inference that payments served to ingratiate offender within the family generally — requests for money for particular purposes were frequently made at the same time or in close proximity to the ongoing sexual dialogues —payments for the purposes of basic needs, such as medication and education, only serve to highlight the exploitative nature of the conduct and the taking advantage of not only human vulnerability on account of the ages of the children but their economic vulnerability — one of the payments was evidently for a computer with webcam so as to facilitate ongoing interactions and offences — gradual nature of the grooming, lack of physical proximity of children to offender and lack of any physical intercourse by reason of that fact does not assist offender, especially in circumstances where not as though offences constituted offender’s first involvement with unlawful sexual interaction with children — no error in sentencing judge’s assessment of objective seriousness — leave to appeal refused
