Site Logo

DPP v Hore [2022] VCC 663

The offender was sentenced following a plea of guilty to 1 count of using a carriage service to transmit an indecent communication. Offender was sentenced for additional State offences.

Family and Dependants: Offender’s increased burden flowing from their knowledge of their parents’ health predicament is to be taken into account. Given the recent concessions in the case of Rodgerson and Totaan, and the fact that the issue remained undecided in this State, the sentence proceeds on the most favourable basis to the offender to take into account their prison burden and its impact upon their parents. Though there is very little provided as to the impact upon the offender’s parents, it is accepted that given their age and health situation, offender’s absence will have had and continue to have some impact on them.

Nature and Circumstances: Image sent was a single one and is taken into account, but was a pretty bad image to be sending to a 12 year old girl. Offending was a serious and discrete offence quite separate from the State offences.

Offender sentenced to 10 months imprisonment for a total effective sentence of 2 years and 10 months imprisonment, commencing three months after serving the Federal sentence. Discretion not to order a recognisance release order with respect to the Commonwealth charge exercised pursuant to s 19AC(3) and (4) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth).
The CSD acknowledges Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as First Australians and recognises their culture, history, diversity and their deep connection to the land. We acknowledge that we are on the land of the traditional owners and pay respects to Elders past and present.

© 2024 The National Judicial College of Australia (NJCA). Powered by

Privacy Policy|Terms and Conditions

top-arrow