CDirector of Public Prosecutions v Trim
[2022] VCC 1124
•15 July 2022
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION
CR 21-00374
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS (CTH) |
| v |
| BRANDON TRIM |
---
JUDGE: | HER HONOUR JUDGE SYME |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne |
DATE OF HEARING: | 5 April 2022 |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 15 July 2022 |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | CDPP v Trim |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2022] VCC 1124 |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Subject: Cognitive impairment – Possession of child pornography
Catchwords: Deficiencies in Justice Plan obligations – Limited assistance from Crown – Lower end of objective seriousness – Commonwealth Program Probation Order both appropriate and available
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)
Cases Cited:The Queen v Gent [2005] NSWCCA 370; R v Booth [2009] NSWCCA 89 at [47]; Muldrock v The Queen [2011] HCA 39 at [53] and DPP (Cth) v Zarb [2014] VSCA 347; Heathcote (a pseudonym) v The Queen [2014] VSCA 35; R v De Leeuw [2015] NSWCCA 183; DPP (Cth) v Watson [2016] VSCA 73 at [47]; DPP (Cth) v Lesley Albert Garside [2016] VSCA 74.
Sentence:Convicted and placed on a Commonwealth Probation Order of 3 years duration; Justice Plan of 2 years duration (concurrent to Commonwealth Probation Order).
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
For the Commonwealth | Mr E. Diwell | Ms C. Caretti |
For the Accused | Mr T. Bourbon | Ms E. King |
HER HONOUR:
1Mr Brandon Trim, you have pleaded guilty to one count of possessing child pornography obtained or accessed using a carriage service. The maximum penalty for that offence is 15 years' imprisonment. That is contrary to section 474.22 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code. There is an unrelated summary offence relating to the possession of a knuckle knife, for which the maximum penalty is two years' imprisonment.
Circumstances of offending
2Mr Trim, you have previously been found guilty of a similar matter. In the Magistrates Court at March 2019, you pleaded guilty to two counts of knowingly being in possession of child abuse material. The matter was ultimately adjourned, and you were required to accept treatment as directed through a Justice Plan.
3You apparently failed to comply with some obligations as a registered person and the supervision was extended. Unfortunately, I have not been given any details of the previous offending, so I am unable to ascertain whether the offending was of a similar or a different nature.
4I am told that the failure to comply with reporting obligations was in part you failing to understand exactly what and why those obligations were in place. Again, I have little information on this particular point, and it is disappointing that the prosecution had failed to provide this in order to assist the court.
5Further detail is now provided in an extended pre-sentence report. I perceive that at least some of the failure was driven by your inability to understand the requirements and consequences of failing to comply. The failure to comply was partly attributable to deficiencies in the Justice Plan concerning the requirement to ensure that you understood what was required of you.
6A complicating feature in 2019/2020 was the shifting of all or some of the counselling you were required to undertake to online sessions. According to later reports, such sessions did not properly engage your attention. This is an observation I shall refer to later when discussing how this matter should be dealt with today.
Objective seriousness
7In deciding what sentence to impose the first duty of the court is to assess the objective seriousness of the charged offence by considering the circumstance which resulted in the charge being laid.
8This is a different process from simply looking at the nature of the charges laid and assessing the seriousness on the basis of the potential maximum. You acknowledge, through your barrister, that the possession of child abuse material is, in and of itself, a serious offence. It carries a significant maximum penalty. An assessment of the circumstances of your offending is required to discern where your offending sits in the scale of objective seriousness.
9The prosecution opening sets out, apparently, what the only relevant circumstances are. It is noted that you were subject to a sex offender registration order. You were obliged to comply with reporting obligations, which included cooperating with home visits.
10On 28 September 2020, officers from the appropriate enforcement team attended your residence and were met by your father. They were allowed entry to the premises. You provided your mobile phone to police and informed them of the password. Although you were required to do so, your cooperation is noted.
11Initial and subsequent investigation showed that there were a number of child abuse images on your phone, which you indicated you had downloaded from an unknown Russian website just prior to police attending. Two devices, a Galaxy tablet and a mobile phone were seized alongside a curved knuckle knife. It is not suggested that the knuckle knife has any relevance to the other offences.
12Analysis of the phone revealed that there were 142 saved images which constituted child abuse material.
13I am told that representative samples included
File No.153, which is a still image of a completely naked female child aged between 10 and 12 years, with her torso and genital area visible. File No.163 is a still image of a completely naked female child aged between 10 and 12 years with her torso and genital areas visible. There appear to be other naked children but their bodies have been edited from that image. File No.612 is a still image of a completely naked female toddler between the ages of three and four years. Her torso and genital area are visible.14Also found in the files were indicative files of children in what are referred to as modelling poses. Those children are clothed in swimsuits or other clothing. They are not considered to be child abuse material.
15The prosecution do not suggest that there are any depictions of children in a category above Category 1.[1] The inclusion of nudity brings the examples referred to above within this category. There is no descriptor that they are sexual in nature.
[1] Category 1 concerns the depiction of children in a sexually suggestive or sexual manner without any actual sexual act taking place in the image.
16The objective seriousness of offending in matters such as this is ordinarily determined by reference to matters referred to in the case of The Queen v Gent [2005] NSWCCA 370. Gent's case sets out the following relevant factors - The nature and content of the material, in particular, the age of the children and the gravity of the sexual activity depicted.
17The images possessed by you represent a degree of seriousness at the lowest level for the offending charge. The offending includes a potential category of one to five. All the images you possessed were in Category 1 and they were all still images. The ages of the children were between three and 12 years.
18The next matter the court is required to take into account according to the Gent criteria are the number of images possessed. In this regard, it is conceded by the prosecution that in the context of offences of this nature, the number of images you possessed was relatively small. Frequently, there are thousands or tens of thousands of images and videos. That is not the position in your case.
19The next thing the court must take into account is whether the material was for the purpose of sale or distribution and whether you stood to profit from the offending. There is no evidence of these matters.
20The court must also take into account the number of children depicted and thereby victimised. In this case, I have no information available. I am told that the 154 images were not duplicates but there is no information of the number of children involved. Three children have been referred to.
21And finally, the length of time for which the pornography material was possessed. The information suggests that it was possessed for one day or less.
22Each of the above matters that I have referred to are guides and, in this case, they point to the very lower end of the scale of objective seriousness.
23It was suggested by counsel for the Commonwealth that the lack of more serious category images does not materially diminish the objective gravity of all of the offending. While this may sometimes be true, and they have referred me to several cases from the Court of Appeal, their submissions seemed to take the Court’s observations, in my view, out of context. As the point is raised, I must address it.
Appellate commentary and the matter at hand
24Each of the Commonwealth authorities referred to by the prosecution have been the subject of recent analysis. Particularly, the case of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v Lesley Albert Garside.
25In that matter, the respondent pleaded guilty to an offence similar to that which Mr Trim has pleaded guilty to. However, the images were more serious than those possessed by Mr Trim and appeared in much greater quantity. Analysis of the material seized in Mr Garside's case indicated a total of over 6000 items including images and videos of child pornography material. The bulk of the material fell into Category 1 classification but also included several hundreds of images and videos across the remaining categories, that is, Categories 2 to 5. The differences between Garside's case and Mr Trim's case are obvious, at least to me.
26The Commonwealth appealed the total sentence of a four-year CCO and a $5000.00 fine. The sole ground of the appeal was manifest inadequacy. The submissions made in Garside's case were similar to those made in Mr Trim's case and the Full Court rejected those. The Full Court also noted that the sentencing discretion is an important issue. There was little available in the form of unusual circumstances relating to the offender. He was 56 years of age and of prior good character.
27The prosecution's submissions also referred to a number of other cases and, indeed, Garside's case referred to a number of those cases as well, including Zarb, a 2014 Victorian case, and Watson, a Commonwealth case. Again, those cases involved some images of sexual poses and genitalia display.
28Similar sentiments were echoed in the case of De Leeuw where the court observed that the fact that images fell within only Category 1 and Category 2 was of limited assistance to the respondent, but again, I note the facts in that case dealt with a far greater number of images of Category 1 material and a significant number of images of Category 2 material.
29In Heathcote's case, the court stated, and I will paraphrase, that 'it is important to consider the actual content of the images and not merely their classification’.[2] Although the bulk of the images in Heathcote were classified as Category 1 materials, the images were explicit and were at the higher end of that level.
[2]Heathcote (a pseudonym) v The Queen [2014] VSCA 35 at [44].
30The court went on to say that 'the volume of images is not the single determinant of an appropriate sentence. Rather, it is necessary to consider the culpability of the applicant in the context of the offending as a whole'.[3] Pertinently, thousands of images were involved, and the offending occurred over a significant period of time.
[3] Ibid at [45].
31In any event Garside was dismissed, with the Full Court ultimately accepting the discretionary nature of the sentencing process.
Samples at hand
32I pause here to note that I invited the Commonwealth to provide me with copies or samples of the relatively few images in this case, but that offer was not taken up. I do not know why. I therefore have available to me only the narrative of three examples included in the prosecution opening to assess the nature of those images. They are, I am told, still photos, rather than videos. The children are alone. There is no indication that the images are overly sexualised but the young girls are naked. They are undoubtedly child abuse images but I cannot find that they are at anything other than at the lower end of the Category 1 scale.
33No one suggests that this is a matter in mitigation. However, it must be recognised that, in total, considering the above considerations of the objective seriousness of the offending, this offending is very much at the lower end of the scale of objective seriousness for the offence charged. An aggravating factor is that Mr Trim was on supervision of a supervised order for similar offending less than two years prior. Again, this circumstance will be discussed below. A breach of a supervision order where you were not afforded the assistance required to comply is of less seriousness than a blatant disregard of the Order. That is what I find has probably occurred here.
Sentence Considerations
34At paragraph 7 of their submissions, the Commonwealth seem to acknowledge that Mr Trim's intellectual functioning is related to both his offending and the appropriate sentence to impose. However, they appear to have lost a little perspective in being able to relate how the culpability of Mr Trim ought to be taken into account in the sentencing process.
35General sentencing considerations, as stated in various cases, are relevant to the sentence to be imposed in this case and they are acknowledged. They are statements relevant to all cases of this nature as a statement of principle and to understand why offences of this nature are serious. These sentiments have been expressed by various courts over time and are well expressed in the case of Booth, where Justice Simpson spoke of the callous and predatory nature of such material.[4] It is not necessary to repeat this oft quoted observation about the consequences for the subjects of the abuse material to adopt its sentiments.
[4]R v Booth [2009] NSWCCA 89 at [47].
36The imposition of appropriate sanctions stifle the activities of prospective purchasers and collectors of child pornography and may go some distance to smother the market for child pornography altogether. Ideally, that should substantially reduce the motivation to produce pornography in the first place.
37The court in Gent's case, to which I have referred earlier, confirmed that general deterrence remains the paramount consideration in sentence matters of this nature. This has been confirmed in many cases. Pertinently, in Muldrock, the High Court observed:
'General deterrence should often be given very little weight in the case of an offender suffering from a mental disorder or abnormality because such an offender is not an appropriate medium to make an example to others'.[5]
[5]R v Mooney unreported, Victorian Court of Criminal Appeal, 21 June 1978 at [5], cited in R v Anderson [1981] VR 155 at [160] and ultimately cited in Muldrock v The Queen [2011] HCA 39 at [53].
38They observed, and I paraphrase a bit here, that the principle is well recognised; it applies to sentencing offenders suffering from mental illness and those suffering from an intellectual handicap. A question will often arise as to the causal relationship, if any, between an offender's mental condition and the commission of the offence.
39The Court thought that such a question is less likely to rise in sentencing an intellectually disabled offender because of the lack of capacity to reason as an ordinary person might, as to the wrongfulness of the conduct. In most cases, this will substantially lessen the offender's moral culpability for the offence.
40The retributive effect and denunciation element of a sentence that is appropriate to a person with ordinary capacity will not appropriately carry over to situation of a mentally disabled offender and a consideration of the needs of the community. This is an important principle and a most important consideration. It is uniquely relevant to Mr Trim's position.
41When considering the sentence to be imposed, I accept that s 16A of the Commonwealth Crimes Act requires the court to impose an order that is of a severity appropriate in all the circumstances of the offence, taking into account all relevant matters under s 16(2).
42Relevantly for you, Mr Trim, is your early plea of guilty. In general terms, the court must weigh the need or relevance of general and specific deterrence to Mr Trim in particular, considering his character, antecedents, age, means and physical and mental condition, and if I know about it, any prospects of rehabilitation.
43In the context of this sentencing exercise, the consideration of rehabilitation must take into account Mr Trim's background of prior offending and what was able to be achieved through a previous Justice Plan order and subsequent NDIS assistance. The extended pre-sentence assessment report contains, I might say, very helpful information and tells the court that since around about early 2021, assistance has been more focussed and apparently, more fruitful.
Personal circumstances
44In order to understand this, I need to go into some background for Mr Trim. It is an important starting point. Detail of his current presentation is contained in the report of psychologist, Carla Lechner, dated 27 December 2021, and is not in dispute. Other information is available through historical assessments, and
Ms Lechner had access to that information. I will quote and summarise from parts of that report because it puts what I am about to do into context.45Mr Trim was assessed as being intellectually disabled at a moderate level when he was 11 years of age. His full-scale IQ was measured at 57 and gave him a percentile rank of 0.2. That is an overall thinking and reasoning ability exceeding 0.2 per cent of other children of his age.
46He had a number of difficulties at school and left midway through Year 8 at high school. Ms Lechner noted Mr Trim's verbal ability to be at the extremely low borderline range with approximately 95 per cent of adults performing better in verbal comprehension.
47Ms Lechner assessed Mr Trim as being most likely suffering from a mild, rather than a moderate intellectual disability. However, she observed that his verbal skills remained poor, particularly, his ability to think abstractly. Ms Lechner observed that Mr Trim demonstrated some concrete rather than conceptual style thinking. Hence, he was inclined to interpret the world around him in a subjective manner and to have difficulty taking perspectives other than his own or to see the bigger picture.
48She observed that when working with him, one needed to bear in mind that simple language was required and a continuous need to check for comprehension. Ms Lechner needed to use one piece of information at a time, encouraging a step-by-step approach to a problem and solving all illustrating ideas with concrete examples.
49I further observe that Mr Trim has, in recent years, been assisted by the NDIS process and the Department of Health and Human Services in circumstances to which I will refer later. It is this targeted assistance that is shown to be more helpful than the other assistance I can observe.
50In addition, between 2018 and 2021, Mr Trim was receiving counselling related to gender dysphoria and was contemplating gender reassignment surgery. He had been experiencing distress relating to gender and/or sexuality confusion for many years prior to that. This type of confusion, for this young man, has been complicated by his current predicament.
51Mr Trim, in particular, was unhappy with his own maturing body and he had counselling over some years in relation to that issue from a psychotherapist. That may or may not have been particularly helpful. Mr Trim reports that, currently, he is not considering changing his gender but is still confused about his sexuality. I might observe that that is a situation for many young people of Mr Trim's age.
52This is an observation to one of his stated reasons for accessing child pornography. That is, he was curious to see the genitals of females. This explanation makes some sense in light of Mr Trim's background. I accept this is not the only reason that he accessed the child pornography, but it is one along with another, perhaps, of obtaining sexual gratification from those images.
53As to his general mental and physical health, he is prescribed antidepressants and anti-anxiety medication. He suffers from Type 1 Diabetes for which he is medicated. There is no report that he takes illicit drugs, and he drinks alcohol only occasionally. It is with this background that his previous and current offending must be understood.
Verdins considerations
54The prosecution submits and concedes that Mr Trim's mental condition warrants the consideration and application of all Verdins principles. They, with respect, subsequently lose perspective in their submissions. This much is clear when they submit that an immediate term of imprisonment is required to address general deterrence and other sentencing principles that are relevant to offenders without Mr Trim’s mental condition and disabilities. Their position is difficult to reconcile.
55It is apt to remind ourselves of the Verdins principles. The Court of Appeal identified six ways that mental impairment may be relevant to sentencing, and they are that: (1) it may reduce an offender's moral culpability and so affect what is considered to be a just punishment and lessen the need for denunciation;[6] (2) it may have a bearing on the kind of sentence that is imposed and the conditions under which it should be served; (3) general deterrence may be moderated or eliminated as a consideration, depending on the nature and severity of the offender's symptoms and the effect of their impairment at the time of offending, sentence or both; (4) specific deterrence may similarly be moderated or eliminated in the same circumstances; (5) the existence of an impairment at the time of sentencing or its reasonable foreseeable recurrence may mean that a specific sentence may weigh more heavily on the offender than it would on a person of normal health. In Mr Trim's position there is no expectation that his intellectual capacity will change at any time from the date of the offending to the date of sentencing and in the future; and finally, if there is a serious risk that imprisonment will have a significantly adverse impact on the offender's mental health it will be a mitigating factor.
[6] I have already referred to Mr Trim’s reduced moral culpability.
56These Verdins principles or considerations may moderate both the minimum term and the head sentence, but they are exceptional and should not be invoked in routine cases. I observe that this is far from a routine case.
57There appears to be no dispute that the totality of Mr Trim's presentations amount to such exceptional circumstances. In the circumstances of this case, I cannot see that s 17 would be satisfied. Mr Trim's intellectual disability combined with recent gender confusion and sexuality confusion reduces his moral culpability significantly.
58Specific and general deterrence are reduced on this basis. Even if s 17 were satisfied, it is obvious that an imprisonment term would have a disproportionately poor effect on his mental health. His level of understanding of the concept of specific deterrence is clearly limited. He is not an appropriate vehicle for general deterrence in the community and specific deterrence appears to be a misguided sentencing principle for him. It was not until
Mr Trim was able to engage in counselling with Mr Wainwright that the consequences of offending such as this became known to him.59For various reasons, none of which are the fault of Mr Trim, appropriate counselling did not commence until after this offence occurred. Prior to that, for various reasons, the counselling that he was having was apparently directed at another direction and not aimed at his real cognitive limitations. In these circumstances, the usual aggravating effect of committing an offence such as this, while theoretically under supervision for a similar matter, is significantly ameliorated.
60The report of Ms Lechner sets out the requirements of any teaching for Mr Trim to be delivered with an understanding of his cognitive limitations. Anything less is a pointless exercise.
Remorse
61Further submissions from the prosecution suggest that Mr Trim’s plea is not evidence of genuine remorse. This ignores the intellectual difficulties facing this young man. The concept of acceptance of responsibility and genuine remorse requires an intellectual understanding of why an act is morally wrong.
62At this stage, Mr Trim is only at the beginning of being able to grasp the concept that looking at pictures causes damage to the subject of the photo. It may be appropriately described in the cases I have quoted above, but these are complex ideas that Mr Trim will need to be taken through, as Ms Lechner suggests, bit by bit, and with reinforcement in plain language that is likely to be understood.
63It is observed that even though I have no details of the previous possess child abuse material finding that occurred in March 2019, it is clear that the offender was placed on a Justice Plan for a period of one year. It was pointed out to me that participation in the Justice Plan, which continued from March 2019 until March 2020, and continued again until December 2020, may have been less than optimal due to COVID difficulties experienced by therapists during 2020 in Melbourne. Again, I note that Mr Wainwright's assistance did not commence until after the conclusion of the previous Justice Plan, that is, in May 2021. Again, I observe it has reportedly been useful.
64The current Justice Plan that I sought at the conclusion of the plea hearing in this matter was requested over the objection of the prosecution, who stated that, 'Mr Trim has successfully engaged in offence specific treatment with
Mr Wainwright to address his deviant sexual interest and would benefit [if] this intervention [were] to continue'. Mr Wainwright is a forensic psychologist. He is appropriately qualified to offer the treatment that seems to be required and he has been engaged to treat Mr Trim, as I said, since May 2021, with the assistance of the Health and Human Services Department.65Mr Wainwright reported that Mr Trim is really trying; that he is engaging well with treatment. I do not know if it continues to this day, but I hope it will be
re-engaged shortly. Mr Wainwright also observed that his client struggled to remain focussed during tele-conferences sessions due to distractions from his home. This observation of the report writers from the Justice Plan seem to support this conclusion. I have referred to how and why the breach of supervision is a less aggravating circumstance than might usually be the case. This is further information which supports that view.66When considering the appropriate sentence to be imposed in this case, a court shall not pass a sentence of imprisonment on any person for a Federal offence unless the court, after having considered all other available sentences, is satisfied that no other sentence is appropriate in the circumstances.
67I observe that s 20B(2) of the Commonwealth Crimes Act provides that unless the court is satisfied that exceptional circumstances exist, a period of imprisonment must be completed prior to release on a recognisance order. As I noted before, the Commonwealth concede the existence of exceptional circumstances in this matter due to the combination of the comparatively small number of images, the early plea of guilty, the offenders mental or intellectual condition and his age. However, notwithstanding that, they still suggest that a term of imprisonment with immediate release is an appropriate option. There is no cogent argument to support this proposition, especially with the concession of each of the Verdins principles.
68The s 17 requirement to effectively utilise imprisonment as a last resort, even an imprisonment sentence from which there is an immediate release, must be observed. In light of the exceptional circumstance of Mr Trim, all sentencing options are open to the court, but few are suitable.
69It is noted that Mr Trim is observed to meet the criteria for paedophilic disorder. The evidence of acting out is the downloading of images and an admission to masturbating when viewing them, further supports this diagnosis. There is no suggestion that Mr Trim has ever considered acting out in any other way with a person.
70I note Mr Trim is now 23 years of age. He has the support of family and community members and now, I might observe, of the necessary support of the HHSC and the NDIS in many areas of his life. It is regrettable that appropriate assistance was not available during the currency of the previous Justice Plan supervision, but that is the reality that courts are dealing with at present, unfortunately.
71It is not appropriate for Mr Trim to be punished because of the previous failures of supervision. Mr Trim's prospects of rehabilitation are presently unknown. There is no doubt that his prospects of reoffending in this way will diminish with appropriate education delivered in a way that he can understand. Without such help his prospects are, of course, less positive. However, with the insight now available, his prospects of not reoffending have improved.
72The prosecution made significant submissions on the availability or otherwise of a Justice Plan. This was an unnecessary distraction. It is not necessary that I deal with this, and I do not propose to do so. In any event, defence did not suggest it. Of most relevance is the Commonwealth sentencing regime for persons suffering from a mental illness or intellectual disability. This is the most obvious disposition, I would have thought.
73Division 9, Part 1B of the Commonwealth Act is entitled, 'Sentencing Alternative for Persons Suffering From a Mental illness or Intellectual Disability'.
Section 20BY provides that:'Where a person is convicted of a Federal offence, the court can, without passing sentence, and with the consent of the person, order that the person be released on condition that that person undertake the program or treatment specified in the order for the period specified in the order. Before making the order, the court must be satisfied that the person is suffering from an intellectual disability'.
74I am so satisfied and further satisfied that the disability contributed to the commission of the offence and that an appropriate treatment program is available. I make such findings with regard to an extensive Justice Plan report, a supporting sentencing assessment report and the other information that I have since received.
75S 20BY is similar in terms of s 20BV, which are psychiatric probation orders. They apply to qualifying mentally ill offenders and, for convenience, s 20BY(2) picks up the same provisions for matters of consent, procedures concerning the making of the order, additional conditions, variations, breaches and enforcement. Each of the above conditions are well and truly satisfied.
Sentence
76On the charge of possess child abuse material, I propose to convict you Mr Trim. Without passing sentence, I propose to place you on a s 20BY Program Probation Order with conditions that are to be complied with for a period of three years. That is from today until the 14th or 15th of July 2025.
77I propose to further order that the Justice Plan conditions which are contained as part of the report that I have received, be attached to the Program Probation Order. These conditions must be complied with for a period of two years. That is from today until 15 July 2024.
78I propose that the following conditions will apply to the probation order:
That you must report to the supervising officer, who at the moment is
Ms Sheargold, at the Department of Families, Fairness and Housing, within two working days or whatever time might be suitable;You must, pursuant to the conditions, continue to report to the supervising officer, Ms Sheargold, or at her direction, somebody else, until 15 July 2024. That is two years;
You must accept supervision, monitoring and management as directed by Ms Sheargold or whoever else she nominates, and this might involve regular supervision appointments, goal setting, discussions, and addressing responsive issues until July 2024;
You must engage with a disability Justice coordinator from the Department of Families, Fairness and Housing and participate in further planning as required;
You must continue to engage in treatment to address your offending behaviour and you must agree to recommendations made in the resulting department report until 15 July 2024;
You must continue to engage in offence specific treatment with
Mr Wainwright or such other person as is recommended from time to time to address the deviant sexual interest described in the Justice Plan report;on the expiry of the Justice Plan conditions, that is after two years, you must accept supervision, monitoring, and management as directed by Corrections until the expiration of the program probation order, that is until July 2025;
and importantly, you must not reoffend during the period of these orders.
79The other things you have to do or not do are:
You must not leave the State of Victoria without the written permission of the secretary or Ms Sheargold or whoever she appoints for the duration of these orders, that is for three years. You can leave with written permission;
You must notify your supervising officers of any change of residence, school or employment within 48 hours of that change;
and you must obey the lawful instructions of your assigned officer for the duration of these orders.
80What I am going to do now, as I indicated, because it is a bit of a two-stage process, I think we have got the document for him to sign here. I have this here, this is it.
81ASSOCIATE: Yes, Your Honour.
82HER HONOUR: All right, good. There it is. What I am going to do now, it is three pages, it is closely typed, there are a lot of words in there, what I am going to do again is I am going to adjourn for a short time so that Mr Trim and you and those supervising him, perhaps his dad as well, can just make sure that he understands what I have just said.
83MR BOURBON: Thanks very much, Your Honour.
84HER HONOUR: All right.
85MR BOURBON: Could Mr Trim be - - -
86HER HONOUR: My associate will come back in and find out when you are ready.
87MR BOURBON: Yes. Could Mr Trim please be released from the dock while that is taking place?
88HER HONOUR: Absolutely, yes.
89MR BOURBON: Thank you, Your Honour.
90HER HONOUR: We will adjourn now for a short while. Thank you.
91(At 11.15 am Her Honour left the Bench.)
92(At 11.34 am Her Honour returned to the Bench.)
93MR BOURBON: Thank you for that time, Your Honour.
94HER HONOUR: I have the signed document in front of me. Is that the one?
95MR BOURBON: You do, Your Honour, but the conditions have been explained to Mr Trim and he agrees and consents to that.
96HER HONOUR: Thank you. Any questions?
97MR BOURBON: No, Your Honour.
98HER HONOUR: All right.
99MR BOURBON: There was just, I should note there was one typographical error on the front page.
100HER HONOUR: I am sure there is.
101MR BOURBON: It just had Ms Sheargold office as being located in Horsham. It is actually in Shepparton but that has been updated in the signed document.
102HER HONOUR: All right, great, thank you. Thank you for that, all right. So now we just come to the formal part of the sentence, which I will state and then I will ask if there is anything else that needs to be done.
103So, Mr Trim, as has just been explained to you, I am going to convict you of the offence that you have pleaded guilty to, which is the possession of child pornography offence.
104I am going to place you on a probation order, pursuant to s 20BY for a period of three years with the conditions that I read out before we adjourned. A lot of those conditions relate to complying with the Justice Plan, which I think is probably a better Justice Plan than the one you were on before. It has got more assistance in there and that Justice Plan will have to be complied with for two years. It requires a lot of cooperation from you and a lot of concentration for those two years. I note you have agreed to it, and I propose to make that order.
105Finally, there is a summary charge concerning the possession of a knuckle knife. Does anyone want to be heard on anything other than if I propose to note it and dismiss it without conviction?
106MR BOURBON: Nothing from me, Your Honour.
107MR DIWELL: Nothing from us, Your Honour.
108HER HONOUR: Thank you, I will order that the item be forfeited and destroyed.
109MR BOURBON: As Your Honour pleases.
110HER HONOUR: I am sure you will explain to your client why that item is not able to be possessed.
111MR BOURBON: Yes.
112HER HONOUR: All right. Anything else, Mr Prosecutor?
113MR DIWELL: No, Your Honour, not from us.
114HER HONOUR: Thank you very much. Anything else, Mr Bourbon?
115MR BOURBON: No, Your Honour.
116HER HONOUR: All right.
117MR BOURBON: As Your Honour pleases.
118HER HONOUR: Thank you for your submissions.
- - -
0
8
0