appeal against sentence — two counts of using carriage service to transmit child exploitative materials offences contrary to s 474.17(1) of Commonwealth Criminal Code — state offence — sentencing judge imposed sentence of 12 months’ imprisonment with recognisance release orders after serving 3 months for each Commonwealth offence and 6 months’ imprisonment for State offence — total effective sentence imposed was 1 year and 5 months’ imprisonment with minimum custodial component of 8 months — second commonwealth count was a rolled-up charge involving four unidentified victims — objective seriousness — list of factors that may bear upon assessment of objective seriousness of offences concerning child abuse material in Minehan v R [2010] NSWCCA 140 of assistance to sentencing judges —list of factors not closed and appropriate to update list — 9th item on list amended to include deception to read: “The degree of planning, organisation, sophistication and/or deception employed by the offender in acquiring, storing, disseminating or transmitting the material.” — a new 10th item added to list to read: “The age of any person with whom the offender was in communication in connection with the acquisition or dissemination of the material relative to the age of the offender.” — it has been said that viewing sample of material is necessary for judicial officer to obtain full appreciation of its nature which is significant in assessment of objective seriousness of offence — no binding authority that viewing a sample essential — incumbent on prosecuting authorities to provide written description of material — in vast majority of cases that should suffice — in present case description of material within statement of facts reasonably detailed so viewing sample of material not necessary — no requirement for sentencing judge to identify and articulate every possible feature that bears upon assessment of objective seriousness — sentencing judge not in error in finding that that objective seriousness “in the low range” — taken to have meant that objective seriousness somewhere between the middle and bottom of range — difficult to be precise in stating objective seriousness — recognizance release order — s 19AC(1) — sentencing judge clearly in error in making recognizance release order in respect of each Commonwealth sentence — sentencing judge should have determined sentence for each and then determined single recognizance release order if total sentence 3 years or less or non-parole period otherwise — whether this error has any practical impact on overall sentence is not apparent — if sentencing judge being mindful of totality determined there should be overall sentence of 1 year 5 months with minimum custodial component of 8 months sentencing judge could have achieved that by making single order that offender be released on recognizance after serving 5 months of sentence — manifest inadequacy — sentences very lenient — more emphasis on general and specific deterrence and denunciation should have been reflected — present case should not be regarded as benchmark for assessment of sentences in other cases — however unable to conclude that sentences are unreasonable or plainly unjust as to be manifestly inadequate — appeal dismissed
