CDirector of Public Prosecutions v Safdar

[2024] VCC 432

IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA

AT MILDURA

CRIMINAL DIVISION

Revised
Not Restricted
Suitable for Publication

Case No. CR-23-00210

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

(CTH)

v

ARSLAN SAFDAR

---

JUDGE:	HER HONOUR JUDGE TODD
WHERE HELD:	Mildura
DATE OF HEARING:	24 July 2023 & 3 April 2024
DATE OF SENTENCE:	9 April 2024
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	CDPP v Safdar
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2024] VCC 432

REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---

Subject:CRIMINAL LAW 

Catchwords:              Encouraging an offence; procuring a child to engage in sexual activity outside Australia; using a carriage service to transmit child abuse material.

Legislation Cited:      Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) sch 1 ss 272.14(1), 272.19(1), 474.22(1); Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) ss 16AAA, 16A, 16A(1), 16A(2) 16A(2AAA), 17A(1), 19(5) Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) s 6AAA; Sex Offenders Registration Act 2004 (Vic) sch 2.

Cases Cited:Hurt v The King; Hurt v The King; Delzotto v The King [2024] HCA 8; DPP v Meharry [2017] VSCA 387; Adamson v The Queen (2015) 47 VR 268; Rivo v The Queen [2012] VSCA 117; R v Harrison; Ex parte Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) (2021) 294 A Crim R 1; R v De Leeuw [2015] NSWCCA 183; Worboyes v The Queen [2021] VSCA 169.

Sentence:                  Total effective sentence of eight years’ imprisonment; minimum of five years and two months before becoming eligible for parole.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth)	Mr M. Keks (For Plea) Mr S. Hogan (Sentence)	Commonwealth Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Offender	Ms E. Allan (For Plea) Ms A. Addamo (Sentence)	Leanne Warren & Associates

HER HONOUR:

1Arslan Safdar, you have pleaded guilty to two charges:

· Encouraging an offence against ss 272.14(1) of the Criminal Code,[1] (being procuring a child to engage in sexual activity outside Australia), contrary to ss 272.19(1) of the Criminal Code;[2] and

· One charge of using a carriage service to transmit child abuse material contrary to ss 474.22(1) of the Criminal Code.[3]

[1]Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) sch 1 (‘Criminal Code’).

[2]Ibid.

[3]Ibid.

2Charge 1, I note, is concerned with your encouragement of a woman in Thailand to procure children to have sexual activity with her, in order that this could be video recorded and provided for you to watch.

3Charge 2 is concerned with your transmission of five files constituting child abuse material to four separate people.

4The maximum penalty for the 'encouragement to procure' offence, Charge 1, is 25 years’ imprisonment;[4] the maximum penalty for using a carriage service to transmit child abuse material is 15 years’ imprisonment.[5]

[4]Criminal Code (n 1) s 272.19(1).

[5]Ibid s 474.22(1).

5The sentence that I must impose on Charge 1 is also subject to a minimum sentence of six years.[6]

[6]Crimes Act1914 (Cth) s 16AAA Item 8.

Facts

6On your plea, the prosecution tendered an amended summary of facts dated 20 July 2023.  That document is attached to and forms part of this sentence. I will refer to just parts of it in summary form here.

Summary

7Between 5 May and 12 July 2021, you were in on-line conversation with a person using the name 'Phorn', who was then based in Thailand. Briefly, your offending on Charge 1 consists of you asking Phorn to find children who would then be paid to engage in sexual activity with her. You asked for that sexual activity to be filmed and transmitted to you.  This is a broad summary of Charge 1.

8Between 11 May and 6 October 2021, you used a carriage service to transmit child abuse material to multiple recipients. This is a broad summary of Charge 2.

9Turning first to some further detail in relation to Charge 1.

Charge 1

10On 16 June 2022 you arrived at Melbourne airport having been overseas since 7 May 2022.

11You were met by Australian Border Force (ABF) officers who conducted a preliminary examination of your iPhone and laptop. They found two 'thumbnails' (a miniature version of a file showing a 'cover image') of video files on the phone, which appeared to show pre-pubescent boys being anally penetrated by adult men. Both devices were seized but you were not arrested at that point.

12You participated in an interview with ABF officials.

13Subsequently, your devices were examined and the case was referred for further investigation. On 9 August 2022, Australian Federal Police executed a warrant at your work address and at your home address in Mildura. Nothing of evidentiary value was found, but the AFP then undertook a more thorough examination of the iPhone originally seized from you at the airport.

14One of the applications on your phone was the 'Line Chat' application. This is an application that allows instant communication via text, images and videos and has capacity for voice-over-internet calls. It is end-to-end encrypted. Your Line Chat username was 'Arsi'.

15Police found several text-based conversations between you and a person called Phorn. The relevant exchanges from that conversation are extracted at paragraph 13 of the prosecution opening. I have read that entire exchange and it is that which forms the basis for your sentence. I will extract a small part of that exchange here, which will convey the tone but not the extent of the conversations:

[…]

You: 'I want to fuck like that, what about a young guy?'

Phorn: 'Young man is you.'

You: 'Ha ha, okay, but I want to see you with really young guy or a girl.'

Phorn: 'You mean I want me to shoot a video with a boy or a girl for you to

watch?'

You: 'Yes, babe, can you please do that?'

Phorn: 'I can, but it takes money to hire kids to have sex that I don’t have

money to pay. Or would you pay me to hire a kid to film you? Are you ok so I can find a child?'

You: 'How much? And how old the kid will be?'

Phorn: '1000-1500 baht, children aged 15, boys which he is a youth so have to spend money or it is illegal.'

You: 'Okay, done.'

16In another part of the conversation there is the following exchange:

You: 'Did you watch these videos?'

Phorn: 'Yes, I like to watch and tonight I will do that with the boys and send you a video clip.'

You: 'What about doing it? Okay thank you babe, you are best. Can he speak English in video?'

Phorn: 'How?'

You: 'I want him to say something.'

Phorn: 'How, please tell me.'

You: 'I will tell you later.'

Phorn:  'I will wait for you.'

You:  'I want him to say fuck me harder mommy.'

Phorn: 'Yes, I will do as you say.'

You: 'Okay, good.'

17In another exchange, you say:

You: 'Send me a video if you have made it of yourself.'

Phorn: 'Are you going to give me money to buy a baby to fuck? I want. But if you don’t agree, that’s okay baby I always understand you.'

You: 'I will baby, how much, find one please.'

Phorn: 'The child’s wages are 2000 baht, and then I will fill up gas to pick up the kids and my food costs another 1000 baht. Are you okay, my dear? If you think okay you can transfer money to me. Then I’ll find a child to fuck. I indulge you in everything.'

18In parts of the conversation you and Phorn refer to money requested, and money being received. On one occasion you say, 'Check your account' (5 May 2021) in relation to transfers of funds;  on another you say, 'I will transfer the money’ (6 May 2021), and later, 'Here I have sent you 200 extra'.   There is discussion of rates for, for example, a 15 year old boy to participate.  Phorn acknowledges receipt of '500 baht' on 6 May 2021.

19I will refer later to the offer by Phorn to obtain a 'baby'.

20No videos matching the description of those referred to in the conversation between 5 and 12 May 2021 were ever found.

Charge 2 - using a carriage service to transmit child abuse material

21Charge 2 relates to the transmission of five video files to four separate users, though one of them is Phorn from Charge 1.

22On 11 May 2021 you commenced another conversation on the Line Chat application.  This time with the user calling themselves 'yanoyves'.

23In this conversation you immediately sent videos to ‘yanoyves' depicting child abuse and asking whether 'yanoyves' liked the material.

24The conversation evolved to you directing the subject toward engaging in sexual activity with children of 12 to 13 years of age saying, 'Try 12-13' and 'Noo, the guys now know how to fuck'.

25Thumbnail images of the material transmitted to 'yanoyves' depicted:

·        A prepubescent male being anally penetrated by the erect penis of an adult male lying on his back; and

·        A prepubescent male lying on his back being anally penetrated by an adult male.

26When 'yanoyves' replied that she did not want to engage in sexual activity with children the conversation ended.

27On 12 July 2021 you started a conversation with another online chat user calling themselves 'Chocolate'. During that conversation you sent a child abuse video to Chocolate and requested that they 'make a video' for you. At the end of this conversation you confirmed that your name is 'Arslan Safdar'.

28On 12 July 2021, in a continuing conversation with Phorn, as detailed in paragraph 13 of the Crown opening, you sent a video depicting child abuse to Phorn, and asked whether she had any similar videos. Phorn told you that she did not.  The thumbnail image is the same as that sent to 'Chocolate' above. It depicts penetrative sexual activity between an adult and a naked prepubescent male.

29On 6 October 2021 you started a conversation with another Line Chat user calling themselves 'Watermelon'. You sent 'Watermelon' an image of a female child aged 14 to 15 years sitting astride the groin of a naked adult man, lying on his back.

30Police were unable to open and view the videos sent during these conversations for technical reasons, however the thumbnails of these videos can be seen.  

31Police conducted an interview with you during the execution of the search warrant at your house.  You made some partial admissions. You admitted to possessing the devices that had been seized. You admitted to being aware of a female named Phorn and to communicating with her; you admitted sending money to Phorn once, and that sometimes Phorn would participate in live sexual camera shows for you. You said that you engaged in the conversation the subject of Charge 1 as you thought Phorn was attempting to take money from you, so you would 'see where it went'.

32In sentencing you I must have regard to the matters set out in s 16A of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth).

Nature and circumstances

33Turning first to the nature and seriousness of your offending on Charge 1. The offending took place between 5 May and 12 July 2021, and while the purported videos made by Phorn were never found, your plea indicates that you encouraged the recruitment of young people for, and payment for, sexual offences to be conducted against a number of children. The intention disclosed in the messages was that the offending would be videoed. Some of the children discussed were aged 14 and 15. There is a persistence to your participation. You follow up. You send extra payment.

34It is not possible to be precise about how many children were the object of your exploitive arrangements, nor can there be certainty about the ages of the children concerned. I sentence you on the basis that the children the subject of the charge were 'a really young guy or girl'; a '14 or 15 year old' as you discussed. You made a request for one child to say specific things while being abused.

35At one stage Phorn raises the offer of what at first appears to be the procurement of an infant for penetrative sexual abuse – though I accept that it was not you who first promoted the idea, and the context allows for the possibility that it was not necessarily an infant that was being discussed.

36The prosecution pressed for a finding that part of your offending on Charge 1 involved the intended procurement of an infant. I do not make that finding beyond reasonable doubt. It is clear however, that you were seeking the procurement of children, both male and female.

37It is clear that the procured sexual activity was to involve penetrative offending, that would be recorded.

38The tone, content and persistence of your requests establishes a degraded and unbelievably bleak landscape.  

39You sent money and Phorn acknowledged receipt.  Several payments were made. The conversations have a practical, almost mercantile quality. You discuss children as if they are commodities.

40Your activity giving rise to Charge 1 is ongoing and contemplated, occurring over several days between 5 May and 12 July 2021.  

41Obviously there are no trivial examples of this offence, and it is difficult to assess the relative gravity of your offending, partly because of the lack of a sentencing landscape available to me.

42Your offending’s gravity certainly ascends past the 'least grave' category on the scale, by reference to the duration of the conversations, and the fact that the abuse of more than one child is contemplated. You made payment, at the request of Phorn, on more than one occasion. It is unknown whether there were in fact videos made, or whether the acts occurred. In any event, your plea acknowledges that your behaviour was directed at achieving these outcomes; you sent more money when asked.  I am also informed by the 25 year maximum penalty that Parliament has provided as the ‘ceiling’, and by the 'floor' of six years’ imprisonment, where an offence of the least serious objective gravity lies.[7] As I have said, your offending does not reside at that level.

[7]Hurt v The King; Hurt v The King; Delzotto v The King [2024] HCA 8 [33] (Gageler CJ and Jagot J).

43Charge 2 is a rolled-up count, relating to five files transmitted to four other users. The content of the material the subject of Charge 2 can only be assessed in relation to the thumbnails, one of which includes the penetration of a prepubescent male by an adult male. Your conduct was repeated on a number of occasions with various users of the chat service, and at least in some of the conversations you are the protagonist, in that you are clearly the party introducing the concept and the images of child abuse.

44The number of images the subject of Charge 2 was five, but I also take into account the context of the way these images were transmitted by you in the online conversations. There is an alarming persistence and brazenness about your conduct on Charge 2 that contributes to my finding that the offending on Charge 2 is also of a serious nature.  That said, the number of images transmitted is, relatively speaking, very modest.

45Your counsel conceded, in relation to Charge 1 in particular, that your offending is 'unequivocally serious'. She also submitted that your offending was unsophisticated; your communication on Charge 1 unfolded over isolated dates across three months, and the volume of child abuse material on Charge 2 was comparatively small. All this, it was argued, resulted in the offending being properly described as falling into the 'lower to mid-range' of seriousness.  I note that the prosecution ultimately did not dispute this categorisation of your offending.

46I find that your offending on Charge 1, by reference to its duration, the number of children involved (more than one), the quality of the content of the requests and the payments made, falls somewhere in the low to mid-range of offences of its type. In saying this, I do not overlook the submission that your offending was unsophisticated; reference was made to your use of your own name while communicating online. I do not accept that your offending was necessarily easy to detect though; online offending in this category is always difficult to detect.

47General deterrence is a paramount consideration when sentencing for offences committed against children via the Internet.[8] The technology is sophisticated, and more and more capable of facilitating conduct that is more and more difficult to detect. The legislative scheme is designed to deliver the message that those who exploit children overseas will be identified and will receive significant punishment. [9]

[8]DPP v Meharry [2017] VSCA 387 [166]; Adamson v The Queen (2015) 47 VR 268 [47]; Rivo v The Queen [2012] VSCA 117 [30]-[31], [43].

[9]R v Harrison; Ex parte Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) (2021) 294 A Crim R 1, [67].

48The dominant sentencing consideration for offences contrary to Division 272 of the Criminal Code (Cth) is to deter people from sexually exploiting children overseas. While you did not travel to do so, your exploitation via the internet attracts some of the same considerations. [10]

[10]Commonwealth, Parliamentary Debates, House of Representatives, 4 February 2010, (Mr Brendan O’Connor, Minister for Home Affairs. 

49The market for the creation of images of the sexual abuse of children is sustained by you and other people in your category. It is your money, and your requests, and your gaze that fuels the commission of terrible acts committed against children.[11] You, and others who transmit child abuse images compound the shocking suffering of those children, who know well that these images will circulate in the world infinitely and perpetually.

[11]See R v De Leeuw [2015] NSWCCA 183 [72].

50You have no prior convictions, and no subsequent offences arising.

Personal circumstances

51You are now 30 years old. You were born in a small rural village in Pakistan; you have a younger brother and sister, who still live in Pakistan.

52You had a healthy and stable early life; your father held the job of civil engineer, and your mother cared for the home and her children.

53From an early age you were the subject of harsh physical discipline in the context of pressure on you to perform academically. Your father brought this pressure and you came to fear him. Your attachment to your mother was secure; your fear of your father persists.

54You got excellent marks at school, finishing your education in Pakistan at 16 years. You then moved to Australia to further study, while your family remained in Pakistan. Initially you studied a Diploma of Community Welfare, but the institution closed, your course was incomplete. You later completed a Certificate IV in Business and Horticulture, working casually at McDonalds for seven years to fund your study. At McDonalds you advanced to become a shift supervisor.

55In 2017 you moved to Mildura to commence work with a transport business as a horticulture technician. The business sponsored you and this allowed you to achieve permanent residency, and then citizenship.

56Initially, the business asked for your resignation as it was felt that local publicity about your charges was damaging for the company. Later, however, you were asked to return and you have been working full-time. Your employer has indicated a willingness to re-engage you in the future.

57In May 2022, via an arrangement, you returned to Pakistan and married Zainab. The wedding took place on 15 May 2022 during a visit to see your mother who was unwell. Your mother passed away suddenly as the result of heart failure, and this loss has had a profound impact on you. Your wife currently remains in Pakistan.

58Your barrister submitted that after the interview with the psychologist you did tell your father, your wife and your brother about your offending. It appears the relationships will be sustained notwithstanding this.

59You have formed close friends through a local sporting club in Mildura. Friends there remain supportive, however, the club had to terminate your involvement due to the nature of your offending.

60You currently live alone.

Matters in mitigation

61You pleaded guilty to the charges at the earliest opportunity. This is, I accept, a profoundly important matter in mitigation of your sentence.  Your plea facilitates the course of justice and spares the community the costs, human and financial, of a trial. 

62You pleaded guilty in mid-2023, at a time which attracts the additional and palpable benefit described in the case of Worboyes v The Queen.[12]

[12][2021] VSCA 169.

63Your final plea and sentence was delayed because the High Court was, at the time your case was before me, deciding the case of Hurt v The King[13] which was a crucial determination for this sentence, and which I will refer to more fully later in these reasons. The delay in the end was over eight months during which time you were awaiting sentence in a state of great uncertainty, and I take this delay into account as an additional burden on you.

[13](n 7).

64Moreover, you co-operated with the investigation in that you provided a passcode for your mobile phone and made some admissions at interview;  you also provided the details of your various email accounts. On a scale of the value of this assistance, it is not insignificant, but nor is it of the kind that earns a very great reduction on sentence, and can be contrasted with the more significant occasions, such as agreement to testify against a co-accused or other similar kinds of assistance.

Psychological report

65A psychological report authored by Marlese Bovenkerk was tendered on your plea. I take its contents into account more generally; you are experiencing appropriate levels of distress arising from the proceedings. The report’s contents did not form the basis for any more formal arguments in mitigation of your sentence.

66You have no substance abuse issues or mental illness; you have otherwise led a pro-social life, and you are in good health.

Specific deterrence, prospects of rehabilitation

67The insight you demonstrate in your record of interview and in your conversation with the assessing psychologist was described by your counsel as 'evolving'. It is certainly uneven, and includes statements of minimisation (you describe your offending, for example, as you having made a 'mistake'). Elsewhere you recognise your behaviour as very wrong. 

68I must consider your prospects of rehabilitation in imposing this sentence, and whether it is appropriate that the length of the sentence or non-parole period include sufficient time for your doing rehabilitation programmes. [14]

[14]Crimes Act 1914 (n 6) s 16A(2AAA).

69It is clear that you have engaged in minimisation of your offending and that you are at least, for now, unable to express any real insight about how you came to inhabit this seriously dark corner of the internet. You have not yet begun that work in earnest, and you will need to do it. You are contrite, but lacking in any real or complex insight at this point.

70Other indicia of your capacity to rehabilitate are certainly there.  You have a good employment history and work ethic, no drug or alcohol issues and your intellectual capacity is firm. You are held in very high regard by your employer.  You have no prior convictions.  It remains to be seen whether you can frankly confront what you did, and this is why I retain some small reservations about what otherwise appear to be strong prospects for your rehabilitation. You have, however, indicated a willingness to participate in appropriate sex offender treatment programmes. I find your prospects of rehabilitation are good to very good, notwithstanding your current levels of insight.

Purposes of sentence

71General deterrence is the paramount sentencing consideration for both these offences; the sentence must also record the community’s abhorrence of your conduct. You must be justly punished and deterred from behaving in this way again. Because I have found you willing to address your offending, and otherwise in possession of strong prospects of rehabilitation, I do reduce the emphasis on specific deterrence.

Sentencing practice

72I have had regard to a range of cases where sentences were applied for similar offending in this State and in the intermediate appellate Courts in other jurisdictions. I must, however, regard prior sentences with caution; while they are instructive on matters of principle, they all pre-date the increase of the maximum penalty and the introduction of the minimum penalty – there is no sentencing practice at all for Charge 1.

Sentencing submissions

73Mr Keks who appeared for the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions, submitted that the offending on Charge 1 is an inherently serious example of an inherently serious offence. He submitted that a sentence exceeding the minimum penalty ought to be imposed on Charge 1 and that specific deterrence, punishment, and protection of the community were also important sentencing objectives.

74Ms Allen, who appeared on your behalf, conceded that the only form of sentence available to me is a head sentence with a minimum non-parole period. However, she also submitted that, in particular, when setting the non-parole period, the matters weighing in your favour – notably your early plea of guilty, your lack of prior convictions and positive prospects for rehabilitation, as well as your assistance to authorities in the investigation, all warrant a reduced sentence and non-parole period.

Approach of sentence when a mandatory minimum sentence is provided for

75Pursuant to s 16A(1) and (2),[15] I must impose a sentence that is of a severity appropriate in all the circumstances of the offence, and in addition to any other matters, I must take into account each of the matters set out in s 16A(2).

[15]Ibid.

76The offence giving rise to Charge 1 is identified in s 16AAA at Item 8 in the table, which prescribes a mandatory minimum sentence of six years. [16]

[16]Ibid, s 16AAA provides that, subject to s 16AAC.

77I may reduce this period by up to 25 per cent for each of the factors of plea of guilty and co-operation with law enforcement authorities. I will make the relevant reductions for each of those two categories but will not articulate separate figures for these amounts.

78The statutory minimum sentence of six years, like the statutory maximum sentence of 25 years, is part of the 'circumstances of the case'.[17] The statutory maximum and minimum are also 'other matters' which I must take into account in considering the matters in s 16A(2). [18]

[17]Ibid ss 17A(1), s 16A(1).

[18]Hurt v The King (n 7) [32] (Gaegler CJ and Jagot J).

79The statutory minimum must be considered at all steps of the sentencing process; it is a yardstick.[19] That yardstick of six years represents the sentence for the 'least worst' category of case for which a sentence of imprisonment is required (before applying any plea or assistance discounts).  I have already indicated your offending does not belong in the 'least worst' category, but somewhere further along on the scale of seriousness.

[19]Ibid [33].

Consideration

80I have considered the parties’ submissions in this case. Pursuant to s 17A and for the reasons I have here set out, I have considered all of the other available sentences, and I am satisfied that only a sentence of imprisonment is warranted in this case.

81I regard the offending on Charge 2 as distinct and requiring of additional punishment. There will be some concurrency to reflect the principle of totality. I do order some concurrency and do so cognisant of the 'presumption' of cumulation expressed in s 19(5) of the Crimes Act 1914.

82So Mr Safdar, I am going to now tell you the actual sentence, so if you will stand up now for me please.

Disposition

83The base sentence is imposed on Charge 1. On Charge 1, you are convicted and sentenced to a period of imprisonment of seven years.  This sentence will commence today, 9 April 2024.

84On Charge 2, you are convicted and sentenced to two years' imprisonment.  That sentence is to commence 12 months before the expiration of the sentence on Charge 1, resulting in 12 months of that sentence being served cumulatively upon the base sentence, being Charge 1.

85This results in a total effective sentence of eight years' imprisonment.  I direct that you are to serve a minimum period of five years and two months before becoming eligible for parole.

86Mr Safdar, I am obliged to explain to you the feature of your sentence which involves potential grant of parole.  You may or may not be granted parole at the earliest opportunity, or sometime after that, which is five years and two months.  If you are granted parole, this is conditional, meaning that you will have to do certain things while you are at liberty in the community.  If you breach those conditions, it is likely that you will be required to serve further time in custody on this sentence. Parole can be amended or it can be revoked; it is a conditional release.

87I declare pursuant to s 6AAA of the Victorian Sentencing Act 1991[20] that but for your plea you would have been sentenced to a total effective sentence of 11 years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of seven years, and I cause that declaration to be entered into the records of the court.

[20](Vic).

88I note that there is no pre-sentence detention to be declared.

89You may take a seat, Mr Safdar.

90Charges 1 and 2 are Class 2 offences pursuant to the Sex Offenders Registration Act2004,[21] and it is the result of your conviction for these offences that you are now a registrable offender and are required to comply with the reporting obligations under that Act.  The period of your registration is mandated at 15 years, and I make that order.

[21](Vic) (Schedule 2).

91Before I come back to explain that order a little more, first I will ask you, Mr Hogan, in terms of the calculus of the sentence and the way I have expressed it, is it lawful?

92MR HOGAN:  Yes, Your Honour. 

93HER HONOUR:  Thank you.  Mr Safdar, I am going to now mention the Sex Offenders Registration Act.  There is some paperwork that is being transferred to Mildura for you to read and sign.  The obligations under the Sex Offenders Registration Act are separate obligations from any conditions that you might have on parole.  They require you to do certain things, for example, tell the police where you live, what car you are driving, where you are working, and to update those details if and when they change.  I am going to ask your lawyer, Ms Addamo, to explain to you that those obligations will sustain for 15 years from today's date. 

94It is important for me to tell you that if you breach any of the conditions of that order then that will give rise to a criminal offence to be prosecuted potentially separately to anything else.  So you need to understand that breaching that order gives rise to a criminal offence.

95I make the order for forfeiture as sought.

96Ms Addamo, I might ask for the court to re-focus on you there in Mildura.  Thank you, I can see you now.  Ms Addamo, what I am going to do is ask that you take Mr Safdar through the Sex Offenders Registration Act paperwork and that once he understands that he has a range of obligations that he signs that paperwork and that is re-transferred to my staff.  Does that seem clear?

97MS ADDAMO:  Yes.

98HER HONOUR:  Thank you very much for your assistance, Ms Addamo.  Counsel, is there anything remaining?  Have I missed any orders, Mr Hogan?

99MR HOGAN:  Nothing further, Your Honour.

100HER HONOUR:  All right.  And thank you for your attendance, Ms Addamo, we will adjourn.

- - -