Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v Knipe
[2024] VCC 207
•19 April 2024
IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION
Revised
Not Restricted
Suitable for PublicationCase No. CR-23-00303
CR-23-01080
COMMONWEALTH DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS v STEPHEN JAMES KNIPE ---
JUDGE:
HIS HONOUR JUDGE McINERNEY
WHERE HELD:
Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:
8 February 2024
DATE OF SENTENCE:
19 April 2024
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:
DPP (Cth) v Knipe
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:
[2024] VCC 207
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---Subject:CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence
Catchwords: Groom a person to make it easier to engage in sexual activity with a child outside Australia (13 charges) – procure a child to engage in sexual activity outside Australia (4 charges) –use a carriage service to solicit and transmit child abuse material (8 charges) – use carriage service to possess or control child abuse material (2 charges) – summary offences of commit indictable offence whilst on bail and contravene a conduct condition of bail – pleas of guilty
Legislation Cited: Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth), s272.15A(1), s274.22A(1), s272.14(1), s274s474.22(1); Bail Act 1977 (Vic); Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), s19.6, s19.7(b); Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic)
Cases Cited:R v Porte [2015] NSWCCA 174; R v Oliver [2003] 1 Cr App R 463; R v De Leeuw [2015] NSWCCA 183; R v Verdins & Ors (2007) 16 VR 269; Brown v The Queen (2020) 62 VR 491; R v Richard [2011] NSWSC 866; Hassan v The Queen (2010) 31 VR 28; Worboyes v R [2021] VSCA 169; Director of Public Prosecutions v Rivett [2017] VSCA 150; Director of Public Prosecutions v Frewstal Pty Ltd (2015) 47 VR 660; Director of Public Prosecutions v Felton (2007) 16 VR 214; Director of Public Prosecutions v Dalgleish (a pseudonym) [2017] ALJR 91
Sentence: Total effective sentence of three years and ten months’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of two years and eight months.
Section 6AAA Sentencing Act declaration: Sentence of five years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of forty-two months.
---
APPEARANCES:
Counsel Solicitors For the Commonwealth DPP Mr J Manning Commonwealth Office of Public Prosecutions For the Accused Mr P Kounnas Gallant Law HIS HONOUR:
1On 8 February 2024, Mr Knipe pleaded guilty to the 27 charges on Commonwealth Indictment CR-23-01080 and CR-23-00303. The Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions was represented by Mr Manning, and Mr Knipe was represented by Mr Kounnas.
2Mr Knipe is aged 59, being born in July 1964. The offending in this matter occurred when he was aged between 57 and 58 years.
3The offences involved:
(a)eleven charges where the grooming involved a person, in order to attain a child to engage in sexual activity: Section 272.15A(1) – Charges 1, 3, 6, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20.
– Maximum penalty – 15 years’ imprisonment;
(b)two charges of groom a person in order to attain that person’s child to engage in sexual activity: Section 272.15A(1) – Charges 2 and 5.
– Maximum penalty – 15 years’ imprisonment;
(c)four charges which relate to procuring a child in order to have that child engage in sexual activity: Section 272.14(1) – Charges 4, 19, 21 and 22.
– Maximum penalty – 15 years’ imprisonment;
(d)eight charges in regard to either soliciting or transmitting child abuse material or both: Section 474.22(1) – Charges 7, 8, 12, 13, 16, 24, 25 and 26.
– Maximum penalty 15 years’ imprisonment;
(e)two charges of possession of child abuse material: Section s274.22A(1) – Charges 23 and 27.
– Maximum penalty 15 years’ imprisonment.
4The offending took place over a period of nine months. Exhibit A was tendered, being the Prosecution Summary by way of opening for the plea. This summary was expansive, detailed and included within it, three annexures, A, B and C, for which I thank the Prosecution.
5In addition, counsel, on behalf of Mr Knipe, pleaded guilty to two summary charges laid under the Victorian Bail Act 1977, being one charge of commit an indictable offence while on bail and a further charge of contravene a condition of bail.
6Mr Knipe also formally admitted two indictable offences to be taken into account pursuant to s16BA of the Crimes Act 1914, being item 1 on such document, in regard to Charge 4, and item 2 on such document to be taken into account on Charge 19, see Exhibit C.
Summary of offending
7As I have indicated, the Prosecution Opening was particularly detailed, and for the purpose of this sentence, I will include Annexure A of Exhibit A as a part of this sentence (Annexure A) which provides a summary of the offending.
8Objectively, this offending is most serious, involving the breach of Australian laws to protect foreign nationals from prey by Australian nationals, seeking to utilise economic deprivation and disadvantage in order to achieve their sexual desires.
9The grooming charges, and procuring in four instances, which I have detailed, involve communicating with persons overseas to make it easier to engage in sexual activity with children, under the age of sixteen, such activity taking place outside Australia.
10As there is no evidence of Mr Knipe ever going to the Philippines or any other country, I conclude such activity was to be remote or online sex, despite his references to coming to the Philippines.
11As I have said, there were four charges of procuring a child directly to engage in sexual activity, being Charges 4, 19, 21 and 22.
12In addition to the grooming and procuring charges, there are eight charges of soliciting and or transmitting of child abuse material laid under s474.22(1) of the Criminal Code (Cth). An analysis of these charges shows that in regard to Charge 8, the material detailed at [129] was what I would describe as “low key”. Charge 12 was more detailed and concerning. Charges 7 and 26, which involved soliciting and transmission, involving, as to Charge 7, an expression of desire to have sex with a ten-year-old and seeking the recipient to arrange such, this is detailed at [124] to [128].
13In regard to Charge 26, as set out at [36], the transmission relates to Mr Knipe dreaming, hoping, or seeking that there be a “pretence” in regard to such activity and a suggestion of him masturbating at the same time.
14In regard to Charges 13 and 16, they involved both soliciting and transmission of sexual material which are sexualised messages. In Charge 13, as detailed at [35], the sexualised messages were sent to a recipient detailing his sexual desires and request for sex with a particular person’s daughter. In Charge 16, as detailed at [124], he is talking to a recipient about masturbating and dreaming of sexual activities, of activities which make him “horny”. At [178], “pretence” is spoken of again, and a request from Mr Knipe for the recipient to make up a story so that he could masturbate, and he is particularly friendly with the recipient.
15Coming to the possession charges – Charges 23 and 27 – they were respectively brought to light as a result of warrants executed upon Mr Knipe’s premises. Annexure B details the material found in his possession on 15 September 2022, and Annexure C details the material found subsequently on 29 March 2023.
16Unlike previous cases I have had to determine, there were no attempt by the Prosecution to classify such material on what is known as the COPINE or ANVIL scales. However, from my perusal of the descriptions, such, is my view at the plea, accorded with Level 4 on the COPINE scale, and counsel for Mr Knipe did not dispute this when I offered such opinion in Court. In this regard, it is important to note that I was advised that there is no evidence that any of the CAM material, found on either date at Mr Knipe’s premises, could be connected in any way to the grooming, procuring or transmission charges.
17On the basis of the CETS Scale (R v Porte [2015] NSWCCA 174, [77]) or the COPINE Scale (R v Oliver [2003] 1 Cr App R 463 at 467 [10]), and upon closer analysis, following the further hearing, in Annexure B to Exhibit A, as I have said, on closer analysis, items 2, 3 and 4 are level 1, item 6 is level 2 and the balance are level 4 on the COPINE Scale. Insofar as Annexure C, items 1, 2 and 3 are level 1, item 4 is level 2 and item 5 is level 4 on the COPINE Scale.
Subjective factors as to the offending
18In the Record of Interview, Mr Knipe maintains all of his offending as being part of a sexual fantasy (Questions and Answers 155, 279-281). Mr Knipe maintained in the Record of Interview that he had never been physically involved in any sexual activity with children.
19Clearly, the “chats” were entered into in order to sexually excite him while, according to him, masturbating. Sexual excitement generally, also no doubt, was the purpose of watching his own videos (See Question and Answer 490).
20In this regard, it is of interest to note in the history given to the psychologist, Mr Candlish, exhibit 2, that Mr Knipe stated that he had never actually ejaculated or achieved an orgasm [31]. Perhaps the excitement of such chats was the event itself and the masturbation (albeit perhaps without ejaculation).
21In regard to Mr Candlish’s report, it was of great assistance to the Court in understanding the totality of circumstances surrounding these crimes.
22Mr Candlish noted that Mr Knipe is a 59-year-old person with no prior offences. He noted the strong sense of underlying personality inadequacy, and him being a person who has engaged in no prosocial activity in his life. The history given was that Mr Knipe had never had any social contact with women and certainly had never had intercourse. Mr Candlish at [64], opined that his sexually deviant arousal to children was a paedophilic disorder.
23Mr Candlish’s opinion was that Mr Knipe used online activity as an alternative to actual sex and to manage mood, [98].
24Mr Candlish also opined [89] that such offending appeared to be late onset, Mr Knipe having managed to desist from offending previously.
Prosecutor’s submissions
(a)An immediate term is warranted – see exhibit D(6(a)), which is not disputed (exhibit 2, [3]);
(b)Schedule 16BA offences need to be taken into account when sentencing on Charges 4 and 19:
(i)Item 1 relates to Charge 4 and concerns the alleged child, Jeilai, who was said to be between the age of nine to ten at the time of this offending, from 13 June to 22 June, and relates to conversations had by Mr Knipe with Nam, described as either a grandmother or mother of Jeilai in regard to seeking her to perform sexual activity. This is detailed at paragraphs [65] through to [67] of Exhibit A;
(ii)Item 2 relates to Charge 19 and concerns activities from 24 August to 9 September whereby Mr Knipe had communication with Ms Patian as to her 12-year-old daughter, Katlyn. He was seeking to make arrangements to make it easier for him to engage in sexual communication or activity with Katlyn;
(iii)In the sentencing relevant to both Charges 4 and 19, I note the principles relevant to s16BA as detailed in the Prosecutor’s submission as to sentence (Exhibit D), [7]-[8], and the need for greater weight to be given in regard to the sentence respectively of Charges 4 and 19 given the additional respective uncharged acts under s16BA which have been admitted and the additional weight required when sentencing from taking those into account;
(c)General deterrence must be of prime importance for such criminality [9](e) as also is the public interest in promoting the protection of children [9](h);
(d)In sentencing as to online material, the nature of the material, the position of the offender, the power differential and the issue as to whether the victims are real, are all important.
(e)One notes the Parliamentary intent behind such provisions [13];
(f)At [19], the Prosecutor submitted the offending was of high order seriousness which was carried out over a period of nine months with the use of funds sent to the intermediaries, as part of the grooming/procurement, and which was at times utilised by way of manipulation [19](g);
(g)Charges 1 to 22 are rolled-up charges. Each of these individual charges involve more than one example of such criminal conduct and as such, necessarily expose greater criminality by Mr Knipe as detailed in R v De Leeuw [2015] NSWCCA 183, at [116] and in R v Richard [2011] NSWSC 866, [65](f);
(h)Charges 24 to 27 were committed while on bail, and I have discriminated in regard to sentencing upon these Charges, as is detailed in my Sentence;
(i)Undisputedly, child victims were subject to the crimes set out in the possession charges, Charges 26 and 27;
(j)It was submitted that Mr Knipe was aware of the wrongdoing in the chats and at times took steps to hide his identity;
(k)I take into account s272.30 of the Code and in this regard, the submission of the prosecution as to sentence at [23]. Insofar as sub-paragraph [1](b), I accept that in regard to Charge 1, there is reference to really young girls, with Sha’s cousin’s daughter believed to be under 10 years old, and another child being 7 years old.
As to Charges 29 and 18, Acaicie’s daughter was represented as being nine years of age, and in regard to Charge 4, Nam’s daughter, Jeilai, was represented as being between nine and ten years, and in regard to Charges 5, 10 and 14, Betcha’s daughter was represented as being five years of age. All the other alleged children identified in [25] are between twelve and fifteen, and hence pursuant to the statute such charges do not aggravate the offending;
(l)I also take into account all of the matters set out in s16A, and have regard to s16A(2AAA).
25I note generally the Prosecutor’s comments as to comparative cases (see Exhibit D [46] to [48]) and the table of cases set out in Exhibit E. In such regard, I take into account the words in Hassan v The Queen (2010) 31 VR 28 [47].
26In further submission on 22 April of this year, the Prosecution made the following submissions:
(a) As to the applicability of Verdins’ principles, one to three, that there was, on the evidence, no significant impact on the mental functioning of Mr Knipe (see Exhibit F, [22]);
(b) That an aggregate sentence would not be appropriate (see Exhibit F, [33]).
27In the further submission of the Prosecution insofar as discernment of physical makeup or age, at [13], the Prosecution submitted an analysis of the communications should lead to the irresistible inference that the offender had viewed photographs, video or video chat of persons or children the subject of the discussion. Insofar as the four charges of procurement of children under s272.14(1), having considered the references made to those charges in [13], I am not satisfied that such irresistible inference can be made beyond reasonable doubt, insofar as those charges are concerned.
28The Prosecution submitted that in regard to the grooming charges and, I refer to the two examples given in [14], that I should accept that Mr Knipe was able to discern who he was talking to, in particular, in certain instances, given the plea to the extent that such was relevant. The Prosecution accepted that there is no separate charge for such actions and that such knowledge should be taken as context relevant to each charge, insofar as demonstrated by the chat logs.
29In order to consider such submission, it was necessary for me to reread the chat extracts as detailed in Exhibit B. I have read such extracts again, which involves a considerable number of pages by way of summary in regard to all of the charges, but for Charges 8, 11 and 21, which are detailed in the Prosecution Opening. My conclusion as to Exhibit B is that there is a marked similarity in the sexual activity in regard to each particular charge.
30What stands out to me is that Mr Knipe has engaged in such conversations in order to create sexual excitement and satisfaction for himself. He indulged in an expansive and detailed undertaking to excite himself by way of the sexual conversations. The chats, present an unreal, intricate and sustained situation of pretence, created I find by Mr Knipe’s personal inadequacies.
31Throughout those chats, four files are exchanged: one of him masturbating – in the s16BA material relevant to Charge 19 at [25] on 25 August 2022; reference to an attachment of a video of a vagina in the s16BA material relevant to Charge 4 is detailed at [384], in Charge 1, the reference to a previous photograph or video sent to him by Sha to which he refers as a displaying small vagina ([40]) and as to Charge 10, there appears to be files exchanged, being a file in regard to his penis and an unknown file from an unknown person (See [12] and [13]). As I have said, none of those make up charges which Mr Knipe faces, but are put as context.
32On at least ten occasions, monies forwarded by Mr Knipe are referred to; however, he regularly bemoans that he is being used, see Charge 6, [128] where he says “Why does everyone hurt me? All use me [three crying emojis]” and in Charge 9, [37], that persons are lying to him.
33I am satisfied from the material before me, beyond reasonable doubt, as detailed in Exhibit B, despite the submissions of the Prosecution, that Mr Knipe would not have been able to identify any child or adult, in particular a child he was communicating with in the four procurement charges.
34However, I accept, of course, the proposition put by the Prosecution that I must take account of the plea in that regard.
Plea of Mr Kounnas
35As I have said, Mr Kounnas did not dispute a sentence of imprisonment was appropriate. He, however, given what he said would be a proper understanding of the offending, the age of his client and his health, together with his mental condition, submitted that a merciful sentence should be given, with the principles of totality and concurrency being very important. In mitigation, Mr Kounnas submitted that these actions indeed were a fantasy undertaking by his client. (See Exhibit 3, [26]-[40]).
36Mr Kounnas submitted that the plea was utilitarian, and that the principles of Worboyes v R [2021] VSCA 169 applied, in this case given its complexity and the fact that the prisoner has been in jail for nearly one year, during dire times for Court efficiency.
37Mr Kounnas stressed the fact that Mr Knipe has no prior offences, and relied on Mr Candlish’s opinion that Mr Knipe was socially and sexually stunted by way of emotional development.
38Mr Kounnas accepted that his client was a paedophile, that his purpose was to obtain sexual gratification from such activity, despite the prevarication by his client as to this in his discussions with the psychologist.
39Mr Kounnas submitted that the opportunity for successful rehabilitation should be seen very optimistically, given the history, and further submitted that the impact of imprisonment will assist in that regard. He noted the steps taken to date as to rehabilitation (Exhibit 3, [85] and [105]-[106]).
40Mr Kounnas submitted that in mitigation one must take into account the fact that Mr Knipe suffers from diabetes, a medical condition post stroke and, unfortunately, has a personality which leads to difficulties for him while in jail. There was no dispute as to the appropriateness of Verdins[1] principle five in this regard and I note the opinion of Mr Candlish in this regard (see Exhibit 3, [100]-[101]).
[1]R v Verdins & Ors (2007) 16 VR 269
41Mr Kounnas also pointed to the excellent work history of his client and maintained that this was a sentence that called for mercy from the Court.
42In further submissions on 11 April 2024, Mr Kounnas, as to the Verdins’ applicability – principles one to three – submitted that the earlier cases referred to in the Prosecution’s further submission (Exhibit F), must give way to the principles expanded in Brown v R (2020) 62 VR 491. Mr Kounnas also accepted the propositions put by the Prosecution, in further submission, that the Court would need to balance any such findings in regard to Verdins with the need to protect the community.
Offending of Mr Knipe
43I accept that the offending here lacks sophistication, and could be, and was, easily detected. It is clear that Mr Knipe has a simplistic appreciation of the harm/potential harm of such crimes. Clearly, he is a person who indulges in simplistic language and appreciation, and I note the references to “sweetie” and that he “loved” his intermediaries.
44As to the impact of the limited financial funding that he had forwarded, I accept the Prosecution’ view that he must have known utilisation and benefits of such funding would assist his cause, albeit I consider such needs to be kept in perspective.
45I have perused all of Exhibits A + B insofar as there are references to money and exchange thereof. I accept the details as particularised in [21] of the Prosecution submissions and the numerous references to having forwarded money, albeit it is somewhat unknown as to what denomination, but for the reference as to Charges 6 and 9 at [117] of the Opening, to $100 AUD. Mr Knipe offered to pay and sent money for tablets, phones, funding of a party, and to provide various staples of life. Although it is noted at [47] of the Prosecution Opening in regard to Charge 3, Mr Knipe referred to the fact that, at that stage, he had no money and that he would send money as requested “if he was able.”
46In regard to Charges 5, 11 and 20, albeit there is reference to numerous occasions of sending money for Betcha and her daughter, it is noted at [99] of Exhibit A that he communicated that he had not sent much.
47Again, in regard to Charges 6 and 9, he remarked at [113] of Exhibit A that he had nothing left, and in regard to Charges 14 and 17, at [168] of the Opening, that he needed to get money off his sister in order to send payments to Betcha.
48Finally, in regard to Charge 19, at [202] of Exhibit A, he sent “3900” for Katlyn in order to buy shoes.
49It is also clear that the plans discussed in the various procuring conversations were never actually fulfilled; however, I accept that the charges for procuring to which Mr Knipe has pleaded, contain within them the relevant intent as detailed in subsection (b). I concluded, despite the plea to the s272.14(1) charges, and what is involved thereby, due to subsections (3) and (4), that there were never any actual children, spoken to and such were in fact the intermediaries indulging Mr Knipe. I also have strong doubts, despite the pleas, whether the alleged child recipients in Charges 4, 19, 21 and 22 were in fact children.
50I again note my comments made during the plea hearing, that I doubted that Mr Knipe had ever been out of Victoria, much less Australia. I note that I have received no evidence to disabuse me of that view.
Unique case
51As Mr Candlish has opined, Mr Knipe is a stunted person with no social skills. Mr Knipe has used his online sexual activity to overcome a lack of actual emotional and sexual contact (Exhibit 3, [98]).
52The above use of internet facilities (the crimes in this instance) was bought about, I find, by his mild depressive disorder [57], mild personality impairment with features of negativity and detachment [63] and his paedophilic disorder [64] which, in combination, has led to a reduction in empathetic regard and consequential thinking skills, leading to a reduction in capacity for self restraint regarding his deviant arousals. [98]
53I find, upon rigorous scrutiny of all the facts in regard to the offending and after taking into account Mr Candlish’s professional opinion, that Verdins’[2] principles one to three are enlivened. In this regard, I note the enlightenment of these principles provided in Brown v The Queen (2020) 62 VR 491, [5], [69].
[2]Ibid
54As to the arguments set out in [27] of Exhibit F, and the reference therein to [20] and [21] of Exhibit D, insofar as the Verdins’ determination is concerned, I find, while I accept that it is clear that there was an appreciation of his wrongdoing and illegality as demonstrated from the steps he took, such does not mean, that in the unique circumstances of this case, a positive finding, insofar as Verdins’ principles one to three, cannot be made, given, as already detailed in the professional opinion, his reduced capacity and cognition issues which lead him to being unable to resist participating in such crimes.
55The Prosecution also raised in the further submission (Exhibit F) in consideration of Verdins’ principles, the importance of this Court taking into account the issue of the protection of the community. In that regard, I take into account the quotations referred to in [28] from the detailed cases; however, all such cases were, of course, prior to Brown v The Queen (ibid). Given the pronouncements in [5] of Brown v The Queen, I accept the submission of Mr Kounnas that the paedophilic disorder cannot be disregarded. It is, in the circumstances of this case, upon the mentality of the person that this Court is dealing with, of vital importance.
56I accept, of course, the principle that having made such a determination pursuant to Verdins, one is required to take into account in sentencing, as a balancing factor, the protection of the community. Clearly, Mr Knipe’s history demonstrates that he is not predatory insofar as children are concerned. Mr Candlish’s risk scenario, insofar as future possession of CAM and participating in conversations concerning explicit sexual material, is seen as moderate, and insofar as actual contact with a young child, such risk is seen as low. [88]
57In this regard, I am satisfied, despite the offending while on bail, that this prison sentence, which I am about to hand down upon Mr Knipe, will in fact help to effect his rehabilitation.
58In the circumstances, I do not think any other sentence, but that which I intend to impose, is necessary to protect the community.
59The procurement and grooming charges are such that one must be particularly suspect of the participants and their role. Albeit this offending was rolled up and persistent, as I have detailed, it is made up of unrestrained and naïve conversations by a man, I find, who was living out a fantasy.
60As to Charges 23 and 27, being the possession of CAM, the victims are innocent real victims. While the content is, as I have found, the volume in each Charge is limited. Indeed, in Charge 23 – fifty-six videos and ten images; and Charge 27 – two videos and three images.
61I consider the totality of the circumstances here call for understanding by the Court and mercy, and in order to achieve same, appropriate concurrency and cumulation in regard to the sentencing of a stunted man with personality defects who comes before the Court at fifty-nine years of age with no prior offending.
62To effect such mercy and understanding, I have determined that the sentence in this matter calls for, where possible, the passing of aggregate sentences. I note the principles set out in Director of Public Prosecutions v Rivett [2017] VSCA 150 and the reference therein to the comment by the then President of the Court of Appeal, Maxwell P in Director of Public Prosecutions v Frewstal Pty Ltd (2015) 47 VR 660 at 670 [44], and consider that where I have passed aggregate sentences, such is both a flexible and pragmatic way of reflecting Mr Knipe’s conduct given the number of charges, the similarity of such charges to each other as to seriousness and the manner whereby such offences were committed.
63I should say that in this regard, I do not consider that an aggregate sentence as to these rolled-up charges would make the sentencing opaque by way of explanation to the community, despite what was said by Kellam AJA in Director of Public Prosecutions v Felton (2007) 16 VR 214 at [42], or the submission of the Prosecution in the further hearing, Ex F [33(e)].
64I, of course, take into account the factors detailed by both counsel, s16AB, s16A(2AAA), and that Mr Knipe was on bail when he committed Charges 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26 and 27.
65As detailed in Director of Public Prosecutions v Dalgleish (a pseudonym) [2017] ALJR 91, 1063 at 1072 [49], Mr Knipe is entitled to an individualised just sentence based upon the facts as I have found them in regard to his admitted criminality.
Sentence
66In regard to the two possession charges under s274.22A(1), I sentence you, in regard to Charge 27, to two-and-a-half (2.5) years’ imprisonment, and in regard to Charge 23, two (2) years’ imprisonment.
67I order that the sentence of two-and-a-half years on Charge 27 start today.
68I order that the sentence of two (2) years in regard to Charge 23 start today.
69In regard to Charges 24, 25 and 26, I order that on each charge you be sentenced to eighteen (18) months’ imprisonment, and pursuant to the comments in Director of Public Prosecutions v Felton (ibid), [46], each sentence be served concurrently and each such sentence is to begin, respectively, on 19 May 2025, 19 June 2025 and 19 July 2025.
70As to Charges 7, 8, 12, 13 and 16, I order that you be sentenced to imprisonment for twelve (12) months on each charge, each to be served concurrently. Charges 7, 8, 12 and 13 to begin on 19 January 2026 and the sentence in regard to Charge 16, is to begin on 19 February 2026.
71In regard to the eleven charges under s272.15A(1), being Charges 1, 3, 6, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 17, 18 and 20, for such offences I sentence you to an aggregate sentence of imprisonment of twelve (12) months’, to begin on 19 June 2026.
72In regard to the two charges under s272.15A(1), being Charges 2 and 5, for such offences I sentence you to an aggregate sentence of imprisonment of fourteen (14) months’, to begin on 19 June 2026.
73In regard to the two charges under s272.14(1), being Charges 4 and 19, I sentence you to an aggregate sentence of imprisonment of sixteen (16) months’, to begin on 19 October 2026.
74In regard to the two charges under s272.14(1), being Charges 21 and 22, I sentence you to an aggregate sentence of imprisonment of fourteen (14) months’, to begin on 19 October 2026.
75The effect of such sentencing and the dates detailed, is that upon the base sentence of two-and-a-half years’ (for Charge 27), will be cumulated three months of the concurrent sentences to be served on Charges 24, 25 and 26 by way of one (1) month each to be cumulated on the base sentence of two-and-a-half years, and in regard to Charges 7, 8, 12, 13 and 16, one (1) month of the sentence imposed on Charge 16 will be cumulated upon the base sentence and the cumulation of three months already pronounced.
76In regard to the aggregate sentence in regard to the eleven charges under s272.15A(1), I order that four (4) months be served cumulatively upon the base sentence and the four months already ordered to be served cumulatively.
77In regard to the aggregate sentence in regard to the two charges under s272.15A(1) , being Charges 2 and 5, I order that two (2) months of such aggregate sentence be cumulated upon the base sentence and the eight months already ordered to be served cumulatively.
78In regard to the two charges under s272.14(1), being Charges 4 and 19, I order that six (6) months of the aggregate sentence imposed in regard to those charges be cumulated upon the base sentence and the ten months already ordered to be served cumulatively.
79In regard to the two charges under s272.14(1), being Charges 21 and 22, and the aggregate sentence of fourteen months imposed therefore, I order that such sentence be served concurrently with the sentence imposed in regard to Charges 4 and 19.
80The end result therefore is a total effective sentence of three (3) years and ten (10) months’ imprisonment (46 months).
81I order that there be a non-parole period imposed of thirty-two (32) months.
82I declare that the 387 days served on remand, agreed by the parties, be deemed service of this sentence and that a declaration to that effect be entered in the records of this Court.
83Pursuant to s19AB, I order that when Mr Knipe is placed on parole, that the parole authorities implement the recommendations of Mr Candlish as to treatment, to the degree they are able.
84In regard to s6AAA of the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic), the Parliament requires me, Mr Knipe, to indicate to you what the benefit of you pleading guilty is. This is difficult in that such relates to one factor only, where your sentence relates to many factors. I therefore comply as best as I can. Albeit these are predominantly Commonwealth offences, I believe that the provisions still apply to your sentence and in that regard, I say that had you not pleaded guilty, the sentence I would have imposed is a sentence of five years’ imprisonment with a minimum period to be served of forty-two months, as against the sentence you received today for pleading guilty, being a total effective sentence of three years and ten months’ imprisonment with thirty-two months to serve before being eligible for parole.
85As to the summary offences, you will be convicted and discharged.
86Pursuant to s19.6 of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), I am satisfied that in imposing the above sentences, they are of the severity necessary and are appropriate in all the circumstances of this case. As such, the requirement of ss(5) does not apply, based on the matters that I have detailed and, of course, the principle of totality. I note that I have already detailed the reasons for such satisfaction and I further order, pursuant to s19.7(b), that these reasons be entered in the records of the Court.
87In order to assist counsel, I provide a chart as to the Orders made by the Court this day, which is as follows:
88 Charges
Sentence
Cumulative/Concurrent
Cumulation/ Commencement
Section 274.22A(1)
23
27
2 years
2½ years
(Base Sentence)Concurrent with Charge 27
Concurrent with Charge 23
19.4.24
19.4.24
Section 474.22(1)
24, 25, 26
7, 8, 12, 13, 16
18-months on each charge
12 months on each charge
1 month of each sentence to be cumulated on base sentence.
∴ 3 months cumulated.1 month on Charge 16 cumulated
∴ 1 month cumulated24 – 19.5.25
25 – 19.6.25
26 – 19.7.257, 8, 12, 13} – 19.1.26
16 – 19.2.26Section 272.15A(1)
1, 3, 6, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20
2, 5
12-months aggregate sentence
14-months aggregate sentence
4 months of aggregate sentence cumulated.
∴ 4 months cumulated.2 months of aggregate sentence cumulated.
∴ 2 months cumulated.19.6.26
19.6.26
Section 272.14(1)
4, 19
21, 22
16-months aggregate sentence
14-months aggregate sentence
6-months aggregate sentence
∴ 6 months cumulated.Concurrent with
Charges 4, 1919.10.26
19.10.26
Total Effective Sentence: 3 years and 10 months Non-Parole Period: 2 years and 8 months Pre-Sentence Detention Declared: 387 Days Section 6AAA Statement: 5 years with a non-parole period of 3 years and 6 months
Other Relevant Matters
Summary Offences – convicted and discharged.Sex Offenders Registration Act 2004
Charge 4, 19, 21 and 22 are all Class one offences. Balance of charges are Class 2. Mr Knipe must report for the rest of his life (s34).Section 19AB
When Mr Knipe is placed on parole, I would ask the parole authority to implement the treatment recommendations of Mr Candlish.Section 19.7(b)
For reasons detailed in this sentence, I am satisfied that the requirement of s5(5) does not apply, and these reasons are to be entered into the records of the Court.Dated the 19th day of April 2024.
Annexure A: Table of charges
Indictment No
Offence
Recipient
Summary of offending
1
Grooming person to make it easier to engage in sexual activity with a child outside Australia (s 272.15A(1))
Sha (Jackie)
8.6.22 – 14.9.22: online messages sent with the intention to make it easier
to procure multiple unidentifiable children to engage in sexual activity outside Australia
2
Grooming person to make it easier to engage in sexual activity with a child outside Australia (s 272.15A(1))
Aicie
9.6.22 – 13.9.22: online messages sent with the intention to make it easier to procure Aicie 9 year old daughter to engage in sexual activity outside Australia
3
Grooming person to make it easier to engage in sexual activity with a child outside Australia (s 272.15A(1))
Rowena
15.6.22 – 9.9.22: online messages sent with the intention to make it easier to procure multiple unidentified children to engage in sexual activity
outside Australia
4
Procuring child to engage in sexual activity outside Australia (s 272.14(1))
Jeilai
20.6.22 – 2.9.22: communications with Nam 9-10 year old daughter, Jeilai, with the intention of procuring Jeilai to engage in sexual activity
outside Australia
5
Grooming person to make it easier to engage in sexual activity with a child outside Australia (s 272.15A(1))
Betcha
21.6.22 – 7.9.22: online messages sent with the intention to make it easier to procure Betcha 5 year old daughter to engage in sexual activity outside Australia
6
Grooming person to make it easier to engage in sexual activity with a child outside Australia (s 272.15A(1))
Roxas
22.6.22 – 13.9.22: online messages sent with the intention to make it easier to procure Yoj 13 year old daughter, Katlyn (Lyn), to engage in sexual activity outside Australia
7
Use a carriage service to solicit and transmit child abuse material (s 474.22(1))
Haruko
1.7.22 – 14.8.22: online messages sent soliciting and transmitting text- based child abuse material
8
Use a carriage service to transmit child abuse material (s 474.22(1))
Jhena
8.7.22: online messages sent transmitting text-based child abuse material
9
Grooming person to make it easier to engage in sexual activity with a child outside Australia (s 272.15A(1))
Roxas
12.7.22 – 14.8.22: online messages sent with the intention to make it easier to procure Aicie’s 9 year old daughter to engage in sexual activity outside Australia
10
Grooming person to make it easier to engage in sexual activity with a child outside Australia (s 272.15A(1))
Unidentified 16 year old child
18.7.22 – 31.7.22: online messages sent with the intention to make it easier
to procure Betcha’s 5 year old daughter to engage in sexual activity outside Australia
11
Grooming person to make it easier to engage in sexual activity with a child outside Australia (s 272.15A(1))
Betcha
22.7.22: online messages sent with the intention to make it easier to procure an unidentified 15 year old boy to engage in sexual activity outside Australia
Annexure A: Table of charges
12
Use carriage service to transmit child abuse material (s 474.22(1))
Maria
26.7.22 – 13.8.22: online messages sent transmitting child abuse material
13
Use carriage service for child abuse material (s 474.22(1))
Ann
28.7.22 – 12.9.22: online messages sent transmitting (text-based), soliciting (text-based, pictures and videos), and causing to be transmitted (text-based) child abuse material 14
Grooming person to make it easier to engage in sexual activity with a child outside Australia (s 272.15A(1))
Ampe
3.8.22 – 19.8.22: online message sent with the intention to make it easier to procure Betcha’s 5 year old daughter to engage in sexual activity outside Australia
15
Grooming person to make it easier to engage in sexual activity with a child outside Australia (s 272.15A(1))
Aicie
9.8.22 – 12.8.22: online messages sent with the intention to make it easier to procure Ann’s 15 year old daughter to engage in sexual activity outside Australia
16
Use carriage service for child abuse material (s 474.22(1))
Abby
18.8.22 – 9.9.22: online messages sent transmitting, soliciting and causing to be transmitted, child abuse material
17
Grooming person to make it easier to engage in sexual activity with a child outside Australia (s 272.15A(1))
Ampe
23.8.22 – 24.8.22: online messages sent with the intention to make it easier to procure an unidentified 10-12 year old girl to engage in sexual activity outside Australia
18
Grooming person to make it easier to engage in sexual activity with a child outside Australia (s 272.15A(1))
Yoj
24.8.22 – 27.8.22: online messages sent with the intention to make it easier to procure Aicie’s 9 year old daughter (who is Yoj’s niece) to engage in sexual activity outside Australia
19
Procuring child to engage in sexual activity outside Australia (s 272.14(1))
Katlyn
25.8.22 – 9.9.22: communications with Yoj’s 12 year old daughter, Katlyn, with the intention of procuring Katlyn to engage in sexual activity outside Australia
20
Grooming person to make it easier to engage in sexual activity with a child outside Australia (s 272.15A(1))
Betcha
7.9.22 – 14.9.22: online messages sent with the intention to make it easier to procure 14 year old Princess to engage in sexual activity outside Australia
Annexure A: Table of charges
21
Procuring child to engage in sexual activity outside Australia (s 272.14(1))
Daughter of Ann
9.9.22: communications with Ann Santiago’s daughter with the intention of procuring Ann’s daughter to engage in sexual activity outside Australia
22
Procuring child to engage in sexual activity outside Australia (s 272.14(1))
Princess
10.9.22 – 12.9.22: communications with 14 year old Princess Cruz with the intention of procuring Princess to engage in sexual activity outside Australia
23
Possession or control of child abuse material obtained or accessed using a carriage service (s 474.22A(1))
N/A
15.9.22: possession of CAM on iPhone 13 and iPad
24
Use carriage service to solicit child abuse material (s 474.22(1))
Mavis
31.12.22: online messages sent soliciting child abuse material
25
Use carriage service to solicit child abuse material (s 474.22(1))
Zyleen
2.3.23: online messages sent soliciting child abuse material
26
Use carriage service for child abuse material (s 474.22(1))
Maria
27.3.23: online messages sent transmitting and soliciting child abuse material
27
Possession or control of child abuse material obtained or accessed using a carriage service (s 474.22A(1))
N/A
29.3.23: possession of CAM on iPhone 14
Scheduled Offences
1
Grooming person to make it easier to engage in sexual activity with a child outside Australia (s 272.15A(1))
Nam
13.6.22 – 22.6.22: online messages sent to Nam with the intention to make it easier to procure Nam’s 9-10 year old daughter, Jeilai, to engage in sexual activity outside Australia
To be taken into account in sentencing on charge 4
2
Grooming person to make it easier to engage in sexual activity with a child outside Australia (s 272.15A(1))
Yoj
24.8.22 – 4.9.22: online messages sent with the intention to make it easier to procure Yoj’s 12 year old daughter, Katlyn, to engage in sexual activity outside Australia
To be taken into account in sentencing on charge 19
Annexure A: Table of charges
| Summary Offences | ||
| 2 | Commit indictable offence whilst on bail (s 30B) | 31.12.22 – 29.3.23: charges 24-27 committed whilst on bail for charges 1-23 |
| 3 | Contravene conduct condition of bail without excuse (s 30A) | 16.9.22 – 29.3.23: use of internet and online services except as permitted, and failure to notify informant of possession and ownership of iPhone 14 |
13
0