The offender was sentenced following pleas of guilty to 1 count of using a carriage service to make available material, being child abuse material, contrary to s 474.22(1) of the Commonwealth Criminal Code and 1 count of possessing or controlling child abuse material obtained or accessed using a carriage service contrary to s 474.22A of the Commonwealth Criminal Code.
Nature and Circumstances: With the exception of one animation image, actual children were used in the creation of the material. The total number of 868 depictions is not very large for offending of this type. The gravity of the offending and depravity involving depictions of infant, toddler and early years children is particularly high. The offender was not part of an organised collaborative network but nor did they act alone. Given the purpose of the legislation to protect children, a higher level of vulnerability of the victims is an aggravating factor in the assessment of objective seriousness. Offender’s obtaining of the depictions inherently encouraged injury and damage to all the victims. Possession offence is in the low range but toward the middle range. Distribution offence falls into the low range.
Rehabilitation: Offender has previously been sentenced for State child abuse offences. Offender’s letter to the court is devoid of expression of appreciation of harm done to the victims and is a direct exposure of lack of insight into offending. Offender has previously breached parole in 2004. While offender remained for 17 years in control of his sexual attraction, and whilst the subject offending did not, as prior offending did, involve contact offending, seeing the child abuse material was sufficient to trigger offending and overcome resources of control.
Mental Condition: Offender’s moral culpability is less than for an offender whose formative years have not been marred by deprivation of basic needs of love and safety, by severe physical violence from their father combined with a lack of protection from their mother, starvation of affection and having been sexually assaulted at the age of 14. Psychologist did not say that those factors did in fact contributed to the offending but that they may have contributed to the development of deviant attraction. The moderation is not as significant as it might otherwise be in a case where the hardship more informs the criminal conduct. Offender was assessed to not suffer any specific post-traumatic stress response to those experiences.
Offender sentenced to 4 years and 6 months imprisonment with a 3 year, 3 month and 10 day non-parole period.
Nature and Circumstances: With the exception of one animation image, actual children were used in the creation of the material. The total number of 868 depictions is not very large for offending of this type. The gravity of the offending and depravity involving depictions of infant, toddler and early years children is particularly high. The offender was not part of an organised collaborative network but nor did they act alone. Given the purpose of the legislation to protect children, a higher level of vulnerability of the victims is an aggravating factor in the assessment of objective seriousness. Offender’s obtaining of the depictions inherently encouraged injury and damage to all the victims. Possession offence is in the low range but toward the middle range. Distribution offence falls into the low range.
Rehabilitation: Offender has previously been sentenced for State child abuse offences. Offender’s letter to the court is devoid of expression of appreciation of harm done to the victims and is a direct exposure of lack of insight into offending. Offender has previously breached parole in 2004. While offender remained for 17 years in control of his sexual attraction, and whilst the subject offending did not, as prior offending did, involve contact offending, seeing the child abuse material was sufficient to trigger offending and overcome resources of control.
Mental Condition: Offender’s moral culpability is less than for an offender whose formative years have not been marred by deprivation of basic needs of love and safety, by severe physical violence from their father combined with a lack of protection from their mother, starvation of affection and having been sexually assaulted at the age of 14. Psychologist did not say that those factors did in fact contributed to the offending but that they may have contributed to the development of deviant attraction. The moderation is not as significant as it might otherwise be in a case where the hardship more informs the criminal conduct. Offender was assessed to not suffer any specific post-traumatic stress response to those experiences.
Offender sentenced to 4 years and 6 months imprisonment with a 3 year, 3 month and 10 day non-parole period.
