appeal against sentence — one charge of using a carriage service to procure a person under 16 years of age offence contrary to s 474.26(1) of the Commonwealth Criminal Code and one charge of using a carriage service to transmit indecent communication to a person under 16 years of age offence contrary to s 474.27A(1) of the Commonwealth Criminal Code — original sentence imposed 4 years’ imprisonment with a 2 year and 3 month non-parole period — manifest excess — nature and circumstances of the offence — s 16A(2)(a) — no error in sentencing judges’ description of offending in procurement charge as serious example of that offence, or description of offending constituting transmission charge as being mid-range — offender aware almost immediately that they were communicating with young boy — instead of desisting, offender persisted in lengthy conversation to propose oral sex, using highly sexualised language for that purpose — offender went on to arrange a meeting with the boy, leaving no room for doubt offender’s aim was to procure boy to engage in penetrative sex with him — for the purposes of s 474.26(1), the ‘sexual activity’ to which the conduct was directed was at serious end of the scale — criminality constituted by offender’s transmission to a young boy of an explicit image of sexual arousal was quite separate from criminality constituted by conversation in which offender sought to procure T for sex — unnecessary to decide whether presence of ‘actual victim’ is to be regarded as aggravating factor — what matters for present purposes is that 11 year old boy suffered psychologically as a result — not reasonably arguable that sentences imposed by judge were manifestly excessive — application for leave to appeal against sentence refused
