Adamson v The Queen

In the case of Adamson v The Queen, the appellant, Adamson, was convicted of multiple sexual offences involving children through the use of the internet. The appellant also faced charges of blackmail and conspiracy to blackmail. Adamson appealed against the total effective sentence of six years and seven months, which was comprised of a three-year and nine-month sentence for the first indictment and a five-year and seven-month sentence for the second indictment. The appellant argued that the sentencing judge erred by not considering his moral culpability and that the individual sentences for the first indictment were lenient.

The court was required to determine whether the presumption of harm to child victims in cybersex offences applies and if so, the extent to which it should influence the sentencing. Additionally, the court needed to examine the arguments regarding the appellant's moral culpability and the appropriateness of the individual sentences for the first indictment.

The court found that the presumption of harm to child victims in cybersex offences is persuasive and applies to cases involving pornography offences where the victims are under 18 years old. This presumption was considered in light of Clarkson v The Queen and Cooper v The Queen. The court also noted that harm need not be immediate or manifest and that the nature of the acts committed permits an assumption of harm. However, the court dismissed the appellant's argument regarding his moral culpability, as the harm to the victims had been conceded at first instance. The court held that the total effective sentence was well within the appropriate range and did not represent an error.

The court refused leave to appeal, upholding the total effective sentence of six years and seven months for the appellant.