Cairncross v The King

In the High Court, Cairncross appealed against his sentence for multiple online child sex offences. He was convicted of transmitting and soliciting child abuse material, with some victims being aged 16 or 17 years. The central issue before the Court was whether the presumption of harm should be moderated for children aged 16 or 17 years, and if the objective gravity and moral culpability of the crimes should be assessed differently in this context. The Court was also required to determine whether the sentences imposed were consistent with the principle of totality.

The Court held that the presumption of harm with respect to child abuse material applies to children aged 17 years or under, and such offences involving children aged 16 or 17 years were not inherently less serious. The Court emphasised that the age of the victims should be considered as one of many factors in assessing the objective gravity and moral culpability of the offences. In following Adamson v The Queen, the Court held that the presumption of harm should not be moderated for children aged 16 or 17 years. Furthermore, the Court found that the sentences imposed did not offend the principle of totality, and Cairncross's appeal against sentence was dismissed.

The Court found that the sentences imposed were appropriate and did not contravene the principle of totality. Consequently, Cairncross's leave to appeal was refused. The Court held that the presumption of harm applies to all child abuse material offences involving children aged 17 years or under, and that the age of the victims is but one factor in assessing the gravity of the offence and moral culpability.