Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v Rivo
[2021] VCC 1799
•11 November 2021
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA AT MELBOURNE CRIMINAL DIVISION | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
CR-19-00063
| COMMONWEALTH DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| ROGER ALLAN RIVO |
---
JUDGE: | HIS HONOUR JUDGE WRAIGHT | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 2 November 2021 | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 11 November 2021 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP (Cth) v Rivo | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2021] VCC 1799 | |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Subject:CRIMINAL LAW – Sentencing.
Catchwords: Plea of guilty – Offender encouraged sexual exploitation of children overseas – Offender arranged online live sex shows with children – Moral culpability very high – Relevant criminal history – Very poor prospects of rehabilitation – Totality – COVID-19.
Legislation Cited: Criminal Code (Cth) ss 272.8(2), 272.9(2), 474.22(1), 474.22A(1); Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) ss 16A, 17A(1); Sex Offenders Registration Act 2004 s 34; Sentencing Act 1991 s 6AAA.
Cases Cited:The Queen v Clarkson (2011) 32 VR 361; Adamson v The Queen (2015) 47 VR 268; Worboyes v The Queen [2021] VSCA 169; The Queen v Rivo, (Unreported, County Court of Victoria, Judge Campton, 9 November 2011); Rivo v The Queen [2012] VSCA 117; Postiglione v The Queen (1997) 189 CLR 295.
Sentence: Imprisonment for a period of 12 years imprisonment with a non parole period of 9 years.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions | Ms M Brown | Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused | Mr B Sonnet | Stary Norton & Halphen |
HIS HONOUR:
Introduction
1Roger Allan Rivo, you have pleaded guilty to the following offences:
· four charges of encourage an offence against s 272.9(2) of the Criminal Code (Cth) contrary to s 272.19(1) of the Criminal Code (Cth), which carries a maximum penalty of 15 years imprisonment on each charge (Charges 1, 5, 7 and 9);
· two charges of use carriage service to cause child abuse material to be transmitted to self, contrary to s 474.22(1) of the Criminal Code (Cth), which carries a maximum penalty of 15 years imprisonment on each charge (Charges 2 and 10);
· one charge of cause a child to engage in sexual intercourse outside Australia, contrary to s 272.8(2) of the Criminal Code (Cth), which carries a maximum penalty of 20 years imprisonment (Charge 3);
· one charge of use carriage service to solicit child abuse material, contrary to s 474.22(1) of the Criminal Code (Cth), which carries a maximum penalty of 15 years imprisonment (Charge 4);
· two charges of encourage an offence against s 272.8(2) of the Criminal Code (Cth) contrary to s 272.19(1) of the Criminal Code (Cth), which carries a maximum penalty of 20 years imprisonment on each charge (Charges 6 and 8); and
· one charge of possess or control child abuse material obtained or accessed using a carriage service contrary to s 474.22A(1) of the Criminal Code (Cth), which carries a maximum penalty of 15 years imprisonment (Charge 11).
2You have also admitted your Criminal Record.
Circumstances of the offending
3A prosecution opening was tendered on the plea and may be summarised as follows:
Charge 1
4On 5 May 2019, you chatted to a person purportedly called ‘Rozee Bing’[1] using Skype. You and Rozee discussed Rozee performing a show for you before you said, 'Find a small girl. I pay u good. Find small girl. Please can you? Young girl find. I like young'.
[1] A pseudonym.
5You reiterated the request for Rozee to 'find a small girl to can with u next. Time', 'cam' (that is camera). You offered to pay '5000 peso for small girl' and stated, 'Next time get small girl from six to eight year old,' 'I want u cam with her'.
6It is these facts that relate to Charge 1, encourage an offence of causing a child under 16 to engage in sexual activity.
Charges 2, 3, 6 and 8
7Between 21 December 2019 and 4 January 2020, you chatted to a person purportedly called ‘Anabel’[2] over Skype. The conversations involved detailed negotiations whereby you would offer to transfer sums of Philippine pesos to Anabel in exchange for her arranging young female children to engage in sexual activity and/or intercourse over webcam.
[2] A pseudonym.
8On 21 December, you and Anabel discussed arranging a 'cam show' before Anabel mentioned 'young girls'. You asked Anabel whether 'u have pic? Sample'. Anabel sent two files to you at 1.20. The prosecution is unable to say what the content of the files were. You and Anabel then discussed you transferring money to Anabel using Remitly, with Anabel providing her transfer account details throughout the conversation.
9You told Anabel, 'She's cute. Can you send another pic of her standing? Send sample'. Anabel sent five images to you. Two of the images depicted a naked female child aged approximately 13 to 15 years old that appeared to have been taken in the same room. One picture showed the child lying on her back with her legs spread. It is these facts that relate to Charge 2, use carriage service to cause child abuse material to be transmitted to self.
10Over the course of several hours, you and Anabel then negotiated a live child sex show. You said, 'I like her a lot. Get her. With a guy suck cock. Young girl. I love young'. You requested a 'preview' before agreeing to pay 1,500 Philippine pesos for a four-hour show. You asked Anabel, 'How far he's dick will go in. You zoom,' and offered to pay a bonus 'if inside'. In the context of the conversation, it is alleged you offered the bonus if the show featured vaginal penetration.
11You directed Anabel to 'Put it in and zioooom' and asked her to show you 'closer'. Anabel said to you, 'Look at now. Pussy of younger girl. They some white blood of guy cum inside'. You then directed Anabel to 'Put something in there. A pen or stick'. Anabel asked you to pay the bonus you had offered. You confirmed you had transferred the bonus, then told Anabel to get the female child to stand. It is these facts that relate to Charge 3, cause a child to engage in sexual intercourse outside Australia.
12Between 23 and 26 December 2019, you chatted again to Anabel and requested a further live child sex show featuring the same child from the previous show. You told Anabel, 'I want show'. Anabel offered to perform in a show with her older sister, but you stated, 'No want small girl'. Anabel told you the previous female child was in hospital bleeding from the earlier show, to which you responded, 'Sorry but I want her. I wait. I want young fuck old guy like last show'. You further stated you would need a preview before paying money and that you wanted 'One hour yesterday it was only 15 minutes'. You offered to pay 1,500 pesos for the show. You asked Anabel to 'Send pic of her on cock'.
13You and Anabel then negotiated a show where you wanted Anabel to 'Put ur finger in her deep not play' with a 'younger girl.' Anabel asked what you wanted her to do with the 'younger', to which you responded 'stand up sex, doggy, play with dog dick, pee from vergina [sic], tie her up with rope, put cum on vergina'. You then sent Anabel a screenshot showing a Remitly transfer of 2,004 Philippine pesos. It is these facts that relate to Charge 6, encourage an offence of causing a child under 16 to engage in sexual intercourse.
14A few days after this exchange, between 31 December 2019 and 4 January 2020, you and Anabel continued to negotiate arrangements for another live sex show. Anabel offered you a show featuring five girls. You told her, 'I want preview and get guy too'. Anabel sent you a photograph of a naked female child aged approximately eight to 10 years, to which you responded, 'Get small boy to fuck her too. I will pay more'.
15You then requested a young girl and asked whether the girl from the last show was available. Anabel appeared to send you a brief video preview of the girl that was to feature in the next show and told you the girl was 10 years old. You stated she looked 12 or 14 but that you liked her. After confirming the account details, you then sent Anabel a screenshot showing a money transfer of 1,500 Philippine pesos.
16Anabel and you then had an argument about whether you had in fact transferred the money. You sent a further two screenshots indicating you had transferred 1,500 Philippine pesos. Anabel requested you transfer through Remitly and stated, once she had confirmation of the payment, two younger girls would give a 'nice show'. You agreed to pay a bonus for 'both fucking cock'. Following further negotiations, you sent Anabel a screenshot showing a Remitly transfer of 2,030 Philippine pesos. It is these facts that relate to Charge 8, encourage an offence of causing a child under 16 to engage in sexual intercourse.
Charges 4, 5 and 7
17On 23 December 2019, you chatted to a person using the screen name 'HotGirl' on WhatsApp. During this conversation, you asked HotGirl whether she had a young girl available and asked 'how old'. You told HotGirl that you had money and would pay double. HotGirl told you she had an eight-year-old, to which you stated, 'I want to see preview. She looks older. Udreess [undress] let me see her first. Her pants please. I want preview my love. I want to see her' and 'Yes let me see 8old. One having bath.' Later you stated, 'I know but I need to see what I buy. Can I see her naked for two seconds'. It is these facts that relate to Charge 4, use carriage service to solicit child abuse material.
18You and HotGirl then agreed on a one-hour show featuring a 13-year-old, with you consistently requesting previews of the girl that was to feature in the show. You then sent HotGirl a screen shot of a Remitly transfer for 1,008 Philippine pesos. You then made a video call to HotGirl for 14 minutes and 38 seconds. It is these facts that relate to Charge 5, encourage an offence of causing a child under 16 to engage in sexual activity.
19Four days after the video call, you again chatted to HotGirl and told her, 'Last time it was so short, I didn't have a chance to cum'.
20On 24 December 2019, you chatted to a person using WhatsApp. During this conversation, the other user offered to show you her 14-year-old cousin in exchange for money. You requested a 'naked preview on cam' before you would send any money. After negotiating the price and length of the show, you agreed to pay 1,700 Philippine pesos for a 45 minute show, providing you received a preview and that the girl would 'fuck on cam'.
21The other user then told you the 14-year-old was no longer available but that she could offer a 23-year-old. You responded that was 'too old' and asked whether 'u have younger?' The other user said she had a 14-year-old available and video called you twice to preview the child. You confirmed the other user's Remitly details and then sent her a screenshot of a Remitly transfer for the sum of 1,730 Philippine pesos. You then video called the other user for 17 minutes and 36 seconds. It is these facts that relate to Charge 7, encourage an offence of causing a child under 16 to engage in sexual activity.
Charges 9 and 10
22From late December 2019 you chatted to a person purportedly called ‘Remy’[3] over Skype. Remy offered to 'do nudes on webcam live' for you before suggesting, 'How about 16 years old?' You asked how you would know the girl in question was 16, to which Remy sent you two images of a naked pubescent child, approximately 16 years of age. You said the girl was 'hot and young'. From that point onwards, the conversation centred around negotiations for a show featuring a child.
[3] A pseudonym.
23Between 2 and 3 January 2020 you negotiated with Remy a show that would feature her 10-year-old sister for 1,200 pesos and where 'Only stop show if u cum done'. You requested a preview and then complained that you were unable to see the child 'properly'. Remy promised you she would arrange the show for one hour and 50 minutes once she had received the money. You asked whether Remy could 'get guy to fuck with her' (that is the child). You then sent Remy a screenshot showing a transfer of 1,221 Philippine pesos. It is these facts that relate to Charge 9, encourage an offence of causing a child under 16 to engage in sexual activity.
24You continued to discuss arrangements for the show with Remy over 3 January, demanding she 'Send properly preview, then that's all I ask, is it so hard?' In response, Remy sent you an image of a naked female child aged between 13 and 15. It is these facts that relate to Charge 10, use carriage service to cause child abuse material to be transmitted to self.
Arrest and interview
25On 8 January 2020, members of the Australian Federal Police Joint Anti Child Exploitation Team executed a search warrant at your address at Pennsylvania Avenue, Batesford. You were present at the time police attended this address.
26Police conducted a preliminary taped conversation with you in which you claimed you had been 'set up'. You further claimed someone had tried to 'hack' your computer.
27Police searched your home and found the following items:
· an Oppo mobile phone, secreted within an en suite drawer; and
· a red USB drive in your bedroom.
28You were arrested and conveyed to the Geelong police station. You participated in a taped record of interview in which you largely made no comment answers in response to questions. You stated you had been sending money to your girlfriend in the Philippines.
29Forensic examination of the Oppo mobile phone showed extensive communication between you and people in the Philippines, using Skype and WhatsApp.
30Police located child abuse material on both the Oppo mobile phone and the red USB drive. It is these facts that relate to Charge 11, possess child abuse material obtained or accessed through a carriage service.
31I then reproduce the level 1 to level 5 descriptions and the table, which I will not read out.
32The child abuse material was categorised in the following five levels, where:
· Level 1 depicts nudity or sexual posing with no sexual activity;
· Level 2 depicts non-penetrative sexual activity between children or solo non-penetrative sexual activity;
· Level 3 depicts non-penetrative sexual activity between children and adults;
· Level 4 depicts penetrative sexual activity between children, or children and adults; and
· Level 5 depicts sadism, bestiality, humiliation or torture.
Oppo phone Level 1 2 3 4 5 Total Images 28 1 0 5 13 47 Videos 0 0 2 1 0 3 USB Level 1 2 3 4 5 Total Images 13 0 0 0 0 13 Videos 0 0 0 0 0 0
Nature and gravity of the offending
33As is well established, any sexual activity involving vulnerable children causes harm.[4] That presumption of harm applies with equal force to cybersex offending as well as physical offending. I respectively adopt what was said by the Court of Appeal in Adamson v The Queen:[5]
The subject matter, text and purpose of the legislation concerned with sexual offences against children through the use of a carriage service rests upon the same presumption as exists in relation to offences committed 'in person', or in the presence of the child. The legislature, in enacting the provisions prohibiting the use of a carriage service to engage in sexual activity with a child, sought to implement society's detestation of the practice of encouraging children to engage in inappropriate sexual behaviour, and to protect the child from immature decisions'.[6]
[4] The Queen v Clarkson (2011) 32 VR 361 at [3].
[5] Adamson v The Queen (2015) 47 VR 268.
[6] Ibid at [23]-[25].
34In this instance, as submitted by your counsel, your offending appears to be entirely motivated by 'deviant sexual gratification'. Further, as noted in the psychological material tendered, there is no evidence that gives rise to Verdins considerations or any other principles that may be called in aid to reduce your moral culpability. As such in my view your moral culpability, in the circumstances where you have committed very similar crimes in the past, can only be described as very high.
35Your offending occurred between 5 May 2019 and 8 January 2020 and, while that represents a seven month period, apart from the offending that occurred on 5 May 2019 the remaining offending occurred over a two week period from late December 2019 to early January 2020. Nonetheless, the charges to which you have pleaded guilty involve the encouragement of the sexual exploitation and indeed actual exploitation of a number of children over that period. Your conduct can only be described as reprehensible.
36Charge 3 is particularly serious as it involved a child performing sexual acts which you observed. During the call you directed another adult to perform acts of penetration on the child. The payment you made for that show was 1,500 pesos (approximately $40). In a subsequent call you requested a further live show 'using the same child from the previous show'. It is not in dispute that you were referring to the child victim the subject of Charge 3. The adult you were speaking with stated that the girl from the previous show was in hospital bleeding as a result of the acts performed on her. The conversation continued where you requested other acts including tying up the girl and performing acts with a dog. It is this call that is the subject of Charge 6.
37Charge 8 is also a serious offence as it involved payment by you to the another adult to arrange a further show which you were told would involve two young girls. This show was arranged after you requested the girl from the previous show but were told that she was not available. In relation to most of the remaining charges you either negotiated payment or had made actual payment for the shows that you were requesting.
38Charges 3, 6 and 8 are also viewed by Parliament as very serious offences as they carry maximum penalty of 20 years imprisonment in each case. The other offences on the indictment are also inherently serious and represent a continued desire for you to engage children in sexual activity for you own gratification.
39As to Charges 1, 5, 7 and 9, Ms Brown, who appeared on behalf of the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions, submitted that, while Charges 1 and 5 are serious, the conduct that gives rise to Charges 7 and 9 is more specific and identified actual children, thereby elevating the seriousness of those charges.
40As to Charge 11, while the possession of child abuse material is an inherently serious offence, Mr Sonnet, who appeared on your behalf, submitted that of the 60 images and three videos, the majority fell within the lower category 1 classification and as such Mr Sonnet submitted that the offending falls towards the lower end. Again, while acknowledging that the offending is serious, I accept that submission.
Personal circumstances
41You are now 57 years of age. Your parents migrated from Italy in the 1950s and you were raised in Geelong together with a sister and brother. You report engaging in sexual activity with your brother at a young age. Your father was a military policeman and your mother was a secretary. Your mother was a loving parent but your father was physically abusive towards you. You felt that he targeted you over your siblings.
42Your father died in 2007 and your mother, Maria Rivo, is now 85 years of age and in poor health. Your mother remains supportive of you. In a letter from your mother which was tendered on the plea she speaks highly of your knowledge and skill running your business in the television antenna industry. Ms Rivo states that while you are a disgrace to your family you have apologised to your mother and your own family for your conduct. Your sister died in 2013 from cancer and you are estranged from your brother.
43You completed secondary school up to Year 11 and obtained a certificate in electronics at Geelong East Technical College.
44You left the family home at the age of 20. You married a woman at the age of 25 and had a son and daughter together who are now 27 and 29 years of age respectively. Your marriage deteriorated and you separated after two and a half years. You did not see your children for around 10 years. A court order prevented you from seeing your children for a period and your ex-wife also did not allow you to contact them. You later had a son to a new partner, who you have met on a few occasions and is now 11 years of age.
45As to your employment history, you worked as a mobile phone technician for Telstra, a machinist at Ford for around five years and self-employed as a TV antenna technician for around seven years. Your mother worked for you doing administrative work when you were running the business. After selling that business you worked as a TV technician in Geelong until your first period of incarceration. You have not had stable employment since.
46You have no history of drug or alcohol abuse.
47In October 2011 you were sentenced to a total effective sentence of seven years imprisonment with a non-parole period of five years in relation to one charge of causing child pornography to be transmitted to yourself and one charge of engaging in conduct to procure children under the age of 16 to engage in sexual activity outside Australia. The offending involved you engaging in online chat sessions and sex shows with children in the Philippines. Your appeal against the sentence was dismissed in 2012.
48During your incarceration you engaged in a sex offender program. Your mental health declined when your children did not visit you in prison.
49In 2016 you were released from custody and lived alone on a hobby farm in Batesford. You saw a psychologist for around four months.
50At the time of this offending in 2019 and early 2020 you were experiencing insomnia and feelings of loneliness. You perceived that your conviction being known by others in the community exacerbated your disconnection from the community. You were also a member of the 'Grow Group' which is a support group for men between 2016 and 2018.
51Since being in custody you have turned to Christianity and attend at church services. You also regularly run. You experience sleep apnoea which causes you to frequently wake in the night and impacts your concentration and memory.
52Apart from the very relevant prior matter in 2011, you come before the court with a criminal history dating back to 1986. Your offending up until the 2011 sentence was predominantly driving, dishonesty and assault-related offending.
53A report prepared by Dr Fiona Best, consultant psychiatrist, was tendered on the plea. Dr Best confirmed that you do not suffer from any major mental illness and have no history of personality difficulties or disorders. On risk testing you scored an average to above average risk category for recidivism. Dr Best is of the view that you may meet the criteria for paedophiliac disorder. As to the specific offending, Dr Best observed that you relied on a number of cognitive distortions such as denial and minimisation.
54Dr Aaron Cunningham, psychologist, also prepared a report. Dr Cunningham conducted a risk assessment and found that you presented a high risk of sexual reoffending contributed to by your lack of self-awareness and ongoing offending. As noted by Dr Cunningham:
'In my opinion, Mr Rivo would present as an ongoing risk in the community. He continues to displace blame and does not take full responsibility for his actions. He presents with a lack of empathy for the victims of his behaviour and reoffended after serving a significant gaol sentence. In my opinion, Mr Rivo's risk would have to be monitored in the community'.[7]
[7] Dr Aaron Cunningham, 21 July 2021 at p4.
55A character reference was prepared by David Cooper of Certum Accountants. Mr Cooper writes that in his capacity as your accountant for over 10 years, he has found you to be a man of integrity and trust.
Sentencing considerations
56As the charges to which you have pleaded guilty are Commonwealth charges, I am required to take into account a number of matters pursuant to s 16A of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth). In her written submissions, Ms Brown who appeared on behalf of the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions, detailed a number of the matters in s 16A(2) that must be given weight and I have taken those matters into account. In cases such as this it was submitted that general deterrence must be the paramount sentencing consideration, which is undoubtedly correct.
57Mr Sonnet who appeared on your behalf at the plea outlined a number of matters in mitigation.
58First and foremost is your plea of guilty. Negotiations to resolve the matter were ongoing from the committal mention stage. A committal hearing took place on 15 January this year during which only the informant gave evidence. I was told at the plea that the matter was always going to proceed as a plea of guilty and that the committal was conducted in order to clarify the form of a plea indictment. The matter ultimately resolved to a plea of guilty on 25 May this year after a number of directions hearings. Whilst your plea was not entered at the earliest opportunity, it still has significant utilitarian value as it has spared the time and resources of a jury trial and witnesses from having to give evidence.
59Your plea carries additional weight which must be reflected in a further amelioration in sentence, as the plea has been entered in circumstances where the pandemic has caused a substantial backlog of cases in the criminal justice system.[8] Your willingness to facilitate the course of justice is therefore a matter I take into account in your favour.
[8] Worboyes v The Queen [2021] VSCA 169 at [39].
60Your time on remand has been particularly onerous as you entered custody in January 2020 just before the onset of restrictive conditions arising from the COVID-19 pandemic. Prisoners have been subjected to lockdowns, quarantine periods and restrictions on personal visits, education and rehabilitative programs. You have not had an in person visit since December 2020. Restrictions may remain for some time. I take these matters into account.
61In sentencing for offending of this nature, as noted above, general deterrence is the primary sentencing consideration. Denunciation of your conduct and protection of the community must also feature as part of the sentencing calculus in this instance.
62Further, in your case specific deterrence must be given weight. This offending commenced approximately 12 months after the expiry of your sentence for very similar offending. As noted in the reports of Dr Best and Dr Cunningham, you seek to shift the blame to others, which was also noted by Her Honour Judge Campton when sentencing you in 2011.[9] You appealed that sentence and, in refusing your application for leave to appeal, the Court of Appeal noted:
'The young age of the children involved, the fact that both adults and children were involved, the likely psychological consequences to the children and the lack of insight on the applicant's part into the impact on the welfare of the children all bore on aspects of the offending which required a penalty reflecting adequate denunciation and general deterrence of like offending. Again, the ongoing back of insight involved bore on the need for specific deterrence'.[10]
[9] The Queen v Rivo, (Unreported, County Court of Victoria, Judge Campton, 9 November 2011).
[10] Rivo v The Queen [2012] VSCA 117 at [31].
63As to your prospects of rehabilitation, they are very poor. Despite engaging in the sex offender program as a requirement of your previous sentence, you reoffended in a relatively short time and, as the psychological evidence discloses, you remain a risk to the community.
64Mr Sonnet submitted the principle of totality is engaged in the sentencing process in this instance in the sense that while Charge 1 was committed on 5 May 2019 the remaining charges are confined to a two week period from 21 December 2019 to 8 January 2020. While the criminality in relation to each charge must be appropriately reflected in the sentences imposed, I accept that the totality principle demands that the aggregate term I impose is 'a just and appropriate measure of the total criminality involved'.[11]
[11] Postiglione v The Queen (1997) 189 CLR 295 at 307-308.
65Your offending is very serious offending and in my view, pursuant to s 17A(1) of the Crimes Act 2014 (Cth), I am satisfied that no other sentence is appropriate other than a term of imprisonment that includes a head sentence and a non-parole period.
Sentence
66Mr Rivo, I am going to ask you to stand, please.
67Roger Allan Rivo, on Charges 1 and 5, encouraging an offence against s 272.9(2) of the Criminal Code (Cth), you are convicted and sentenced to 5 years imprisonment on each charge. On Charges 7 and 9, encouraging an offence against s 272.9(2) of the Criminal Code (Cth), you are convicted and sentenced to 6 years imprisonment on each charge. On Charges 2 and 10, using a carriage service to cause child abuse material to be transmitted to self, you are convicted and sentenced to 5 years imprisonment on each charge. On Charge 3, causing a child to engage in sexual intercourse outside Australia, you are convicted and sentenced to 8 years imprisonment. On Charge 4 using a carriage service to solicit child abuse material, you are convicted and sentenced to 4 years imprisonment. On Charges 6 and 8, encouraging an offence against s 272.8(2) of the Criminal Code (Cth) you are convicted and sentenced to 7 years imprisonment on each charge. On Charge 11, possess or control child abuse material obtained or accessed using a carriage service, you are convicted and sentenced to 2 years imprisonment.
68Charges 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 10 and 11 will commence today. The sentence on Charge 6 will commence two years after the sentence on Charge 3 commences. The sentence on Charge 8 will commence one year after the sentence on Charge 6 commences. The sentence on Charge 7 will commence two years after the sentence on Charge 8 commences. The sentence on Charge 9 will commence one year after the sentence on Charge 7 commences. Therefore the total effective sentence is 12 years imprisonment. I direct that you serve 9 years before becoming eligible for parole.
69Further, as you have been found guilty of one class 1 offence (Charge 3) and nine class 2 offences (Charges 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10), pursuant to s 34 of the Sex Offenders Registration Act 2004 you will be required to comply with reporting obligations for the remainder of your life.
70I declare that 673 days be reckoned as the period of imprisonment already served under the sentence I have imposed. That does not include today.
71Pursuant to s 6AAA of the Sentencing Act 1991 if not for your plea of guilty I would have sentenced you to a period of 15 years and 9 months imprisonment with a non-parole period of 11 years and 9 months.
- - -
Annexure A – Sentence Chart
| Charge | Offence | Maximum | Sentence | Commencement/cumulation |
| 1 | Encourage an offence against s 272.9(2) of the Criminal Code (Cth) | 15 years | 5 years | 11 November 2021 |
| 2 | Use carriage service to cause child abuse material to be transmitted to self | 15 years | 5 years | 11 November 2021 |
| 3 | Cause child to engage in sexual intercourse outside Australia | 20 years | 8 years | 11 November 2021 |
| 4 | Use carriage service to solicit child abuse material | 15 years | 4 years | 11 November 2021 |
| 5 | Encourage an offence against s 272.9(2) of the Criminal Code (Cth) | 15 years | 5 years | 11 November 2021 |
| 6 | Encourage offence against s 272.8(2) of the Criminal Code (Cth) | 20 years | 7 years | Commence 2 years after the sentence on Charge 3 commences |
| 7 | Encourage an offence against s 272.9(2) of the Criminal Code (Cth) | 15 years | 6 years | Commence 2 years after the sentence on Charge 8 commences |
| 8 | Encourage offence against s 272.8(2) of the Criminal Code (Cth) | 20 years | 7 years | Commence 1 year after the sentence on Charge 6 commences |
| 9 | Encourage an offence against s 272.9(2) of the Criminal Code (Cth) | 15 years | 6 years | Commence 1 year after the sentence on Charge 7 commences |
| 10 | Use carriage service to cause child abuse material to be transmitted to self | 15 years | 5 years | 11 November 2021 |
| 11 | Possess or control child abuse material obtained or accessed using a carriage service | 15 years | 2 years | 11 November 2021 |
0
6
0