Director of Public Prosecutions v Guerrero

[2020] VCC 1790

IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA Revised
Not Restricted
Suitable for Publication

AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

v

RON GUERRERO (a pseudonym)

---

JUDGE:	HIS HONOUR JUDGE BERMAN
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	26 October 2020
DATE OF SENTENCE:	10 November 2020
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Guerrero
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2020] VCC 1790

REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---

Subject:  CRIMINAL LAW

Catchwords:  Sentence – Child Pornography and Child Abuse Material – Youthful Offender – Exceptional Circumstances – Imprisonment – Recognizance Release Order

Legislation Cited:  

Cases Cited:DPP (Cth) andDPP v Garside [2016] VSCA 74; DPP v D'Allesandro [2010] VSCA 60; DPP v Smith [2010] VSCA 215 at [23]; Kannis v R [2020] NSWCCA 79; R v De Leeuw [2015] NSWCCA 183; R v Gent [2005] NSWCCA 370

Sentence:2 Years’ imprisonment; released forthwith on a 5 year Recognizance Release Order

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Director of Public Prosecutions	Mr S Ginsbourg with Mr J Manning	Solicitors for the Commonwealth Director of Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr I Hill QC with Mr M Dempsey	Tony Hargreaves & Partners

HIS HONOUR: 

1Ron Guerrero,[1] you appear today for sentence on four charges involving child pornography and child abuse material.  These are serious offences indeed, each carrying a maximum sentence of 15 years' imprisonment.

[1] Ron Guerrero is a pseudonym.

2In R v De Leeuw [2015] NSWCCA 183 the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal stated the following proposition regarding sentencing for child pornography offences: ‘Unless exceptional circumstances exist, a sentence involving an immediate term of imprisonment is ordinarily warranted'.

3The Victorian Court of Appeal has endorsed that statement of law, see DPP (Cth) andDPP v Garside [2016] VSCA 74, following similar expressions of principle in DPP v D'Allesandro [2010] VSCA 60 at [21] and DPP v Smith [2010] VSCA 215 at [23].

4It is not hard to see why sentencing courts take this hard-line approach to offences involving child pornography.  Such offences exploit vulnerable children simply to satisfy the urges of those who obtain sexual gratification from seeing children sexually abused. Offenders who access and possess child pornography create a market which is satisfied by evil people who photograph and film children who are naked, forced to perform various forms of sexual acts upon each other and with adults, and who are subject to sadistic and depraved abuse.

5Some of your offending has a slightly different dimension.  As I will explain later, some of the child pornography with which you were involved was not generated to satisfy the demands of others – it was created as part of a consensual sexual relationship in which you were involved.  But you later used it in for your own selfish purposes, apparently thinking nothing of the harm that you would cause your former girlfriend.

6Offences involving child pornography have become increasingly prevalent since the creation of the internet, and as criminals and technology become more sophisticated, they have become harder to detect.

7This combination of factors, namely the harm that the offences cause and the difficulty in detecting such offences, has led to courts universally accepting the principle that when sentencing for offences of accessing and possessing child pornography, general deterrence is usually of prime importance.

8Your offending began in June last year, but to understand more about how these offences started we need to go back further in time, to the time that you were in a relationship with a then 17-year-old girl, Gretel Brown.[2] During that relationship, which lasted several months in 2016, you asked Ms Brown to send nude photographs of herself to you.  This she did.  When your relationship ended she asked you to delete any nude photographs you had of her.  This was an eminently reasonable request.  But you did not delete the images.  You falsely told her that you had done so and that you would not share them with anyone.

[2] Gretel Brown is a pseudonym.

9The following year, in November 2017, you created an account on a Russian image sharing website.  And then in June 2019 you shared a large number of images of child pornography, the vast bulk of which involved photographs of Ms Brown, with a number of people.

10On six occasions you made available 190 images of Ms Brown and three images of an unknown child to nine other people.  On a separate occasion you made available only the 190 images of Ms Brown.  In each of these cases, seven of the 190 images of Ms Brown were duplicates of each other.  So that means you made available three images of child pornography to nine people and 183 discrete images of Ms Brown to 10 people.  Those images were all in the least serious categories of child pornography and a significant majority were in the least serious category of all, showing no sexual activity.

11It is not known whether the people to whom you sent the images made them further available to others, but if they did then the mathematical law of exponential growth demonstrates the possibility that a large number of people have gained access to private images of Ms Brown, images that she was entitled to believe had been deleted because that is what she told her you had done.  You clearly breached the trust that Ms Brown had placed in you when she sent you photographs which she intended would remain private between you.  She has no idea of course of how many people have now viewed, stored and shared those private intimate images.

12What I have just described represents an offence of using a carriage service to make child pornography available. This offence concerns your criminal behaviour from 15 June 2019 to 29 July 2019.

13The next offence for which you are to be sentenced is of using a carriage service to access child abuse material which covers the period from 8 November 2019 to 16 February 2020.

·On 8 November 2019 you accessed a video which was a little over two minutes in length.

·On 10 January 2020 you accessed nine videos.

·On 12 January 2020 you accessed seven thumbnail images and 10 videos, four of which had been accessed before.

·On 20 January 2020 you accessed seven different images.  You actually accessed eight images but one was a duplicate.

·On 22 January 2021 you accessed one video which lasted 36 minutes.

·On 28 January 2020 you accessed 10 videos all of which you had accessed before.

·And on 16 February 2020 you accessed two videos, one of which went for 95 minutes and the other 5 minutes.

14Thus this charge covers 14 discrete images and 19 discrete videos some of which were reasonably lengthy, which you accessed on seven separate occasions.  Because of the commonality between the material which is the subject of this count and that which is the subject of count four, I will address the nature of this material later.

15The next offence is of using a carriage service to make child abuse material available which relates to your actions on 12 January and 20 January 2020.

16On 12 January 2020 you made available, fortunately to an undercover police officer, 49 videos of child abuse material.  On 20 January 2020, in response to receiving an email with eight images from another person you sent in return a link allowing that person to access those 49 videos and the same 190 photos of Ms Brown and three of an unknown child which I referred to earlier when dealing with the first count, making him the eleventh person to whom you sent
Ms Brown's private photos.

17The final count for which you are to be sentenced relates to the material you had in your possession when you were arrested on 19 February 2019.

18You had a large number of items of child pornography in your possession spread over a number of storage devices.  Some of the items were backups of other items and so they were stored in more than one device.  As part of the assessment of the objective gravity of an offence of possessing child pornography involves an assessment of the number of children harmed in its production, it is important to recognise that there is a difference between the same item being stored 10 times and 10 discrete items being stored once each. 

19In the present case, to their credit, lawyers for the parties assisted the court by working over a weekend I presume to identify the number of discrete items possessed by you.  Their efforts resulted in the tender of a document entitled 'Agreed Summary Outlining the Total Unique Pornography and Child Abuse Material Relevant to Each Charge'.  I have used this document already when describing the nature of your first three offences.  It is of particular importance in relation to the fourth charge to which you have pleaded guilty.

20I recognise that this exercise has not often been performed in cases of this kind.  In cases where the number of images is in the many thousands it may not be necessary.  But in the present case, where there were multiple backups of material and the numbers were comparatively low when compared with many other offenders dealt with by the courts, I considered it important to identify as precisely as possible how many discrete items you possessed.

21Across all your storage devices you possessed 267 discrete images and 200 discrete videos, a total of 467 discrete files.

22As is usual in such cases, there is an overlap in these charges.  Most offenders who possess child pornography have obtained it through the use of a carriage service.  And most offenders who make child abuse material available to others do so from items in their possession.  Such is the case here.  The parties agree that when all four charges are considered, as well as the 467 unique items you possessed there were 186 unique images which were the subject of count one.  All of the images and videos contained in Charges 2 and 3 are also included in the material in Charges 1 and 4.

23So your charges together relate to 653 items, 453 images and 200 videos.  These can be further categorised according to the nature of the child abuse portrayed in the following table, which is taken from the document to which I earlier referred.

Category	Total Images	Total Videos	Totals
1. CEM - no sexual activity	254	25	279
2. CEM - solo/sex acts between children	183	33	216
3. CEM - Adult non-penetrative	9	15	24
4. CEM - Child/adult penetrative	7	120	127
5. CEM - Sadism/Bestiality/Child Abuse	0	7	7
6. CEM - Animated or virtual	0	0	0
Unique Totals	453	200	653

24Of the 453 images, the vast bulk of them were of Ms Brown.  There were the 183 discrete images you had shared multiple times as well as 238 different images of Ms Brown you had not shared.  All of the images of Ms Brown were in CEM categories 1 and 2.

25None of the 200 videos portrayed Ms Brown.  Significantly, more than half of the videos contained material in the two most serious categories.  You thus possessed 120 videos showing penetrative sex involving a child and an adult, and seven videos showing sadism, bestiality, or child abuse.

26It is unfortunately necessary for me to describe some of the material you possessed in order that people may understand just how serious your offending was.  These descriptions are taken from an annexure to the Amended Prosecution Opening on Plea to which no challenge was made by your counsel.

27The Category 4 child abuse material predominantly depicted females, aged approximately three months to 13 years, orally, vaginally and anally penetrated by adult males.  An example of one of these files is a 44-second video, titled 'baby forced oral.mp4', depicting the penis of an adult male penetrating the mouth of a distressed boy, aged approximately three months.

28The Category 5 child abuse material included, but was not limited to, the sexual and physical assaults of young infants and children, and sexual acts between a dog and a girl, aged approximately 8 years.  An example of one of these files is a five-minute and 43-second video titled 'babyboyused.mp4', depicting an adult male removing the clothing of a distressed boy, aged approximately nine months, before tying him to a flat surface and defecating, urinating and ejaculating on him.

29It is hard to believe that there are people in the world who are capable of doing such things but of course there are, and the actions of people like you encourage them to perform their depraved acts.

30That you would retain possession of such items, when even the file names are bad enough, is matter of grave concern.  It is also of concern that although it appears that you primarily sought pornography involving pubescent females, approximately three quarters of the children depicted in the items you possessed were prepubescent.

31Your offending occurred over a period of about seven months, and there is no suggestion that you would have stopped were it not for the intervention of the police.  It could not be said that all of your offending was impulsive or that you had no time to reflect on the wrongfulness of what you were doing.

32So far I have been speaking about your offences.  I will now turn to you, and your background.

33Your early years were challenging.  It is important to consider them in order to determine your moral culpability for the offences I have just described.

34You were born prematurely and severely underweight in an Asian country in 1997.  You were abandoned by your mother and spent your first 20 months of life in hospital and then an orphanage.  You suffered from a number of illnesses during your time there.  You were adopted by your parents and came to Australia at the age of 20 months and have been raised in a loving and caring environment since then.

35Initially your behaviour was consistent with having been raised in an orphanage and not having a significant person to whom you could form an attachment.  You were observed to bang your head against your cot and did not cry in pain when you hurt yourself.

36Your school years were unremarkable and you developed a keen interest in various sports, performing at a high level.  Your decisions to perform in various sports, one after the other, appears unusual and may suggest a level of impulsiveness. 

37In your teenage years you seem to have exhibited typical teenager behaviour, with resulting conflict with your parents, although nothing of great seriousness. 

38You had difficulty settling down when you left school and engaged in tertiary education.  You started, but did not complete, three degrees.  It appears that the lack of structure which a secondary education previously provided to you was something which caused you troubles, a psychologist describing the loss of structures of sport and school at the end of year 12 as a 'major setback' for you.

39You began in viewing internet-based pornography during your mid-teens but your pornography use increased during 2019 when, as you told a psychologist later, you felt lost because you were unemployed and felt socially isolated.  Earlier that year you had moved universities and were training a lot leading up to an international sporting competition, so that it was harder to see your friends, and you were having no luck finding work.

40Your family noticed a change in your behaviour.  Your mother describes your move to your most recent educational institution as being unsuccessful and says that you became despondent, spending an increasing amount of time on your own without purpose.  Your sister said that you were spending a lot of time in your basement accommodation with the blinds closed and lacked motivation to do even the simplest things. 

41Your parents were sufficiently concerned with your behaviour that they consulted, with you, a psychologist in November 2019 and then later obtained an assessment from a neuropsychologist.  It is important to note that this was after your offending had begun but before you had been charged.  As well as what the consultations revealed is the importance of recognising that your family perceived a need for them in the first place. 

42In submissions the prosecution criticised you for not revealing to the psychologist that you had developed an interest in viewing child pornography.  It certainly would have been to your credit if you had, but I do not find it in any way remarkable that you did not, especially as you were clearly reluctant to engage with the psychologist in the first place.

43As well as a report from the psychologist who was treating you at the time of your offending, other reports have been obtained for these proceedings.  They include reports regarding the impact of your early life on your later development and your response to sex offender treatment.

44Dr Nicole Milburn is a clinical psychologist who specialises in infant mental health, particularly the impact of adversity on infants and throughout their lifespan.  She describes your infancy as 'very compromised' with the impact of your early adversity being seen in a number of ways, in particular in 'shallow peer relationships throughout infancy, childhood, adolescence and adulthood'.  She sees a connection between the lack of 'a secure attachment having developed during infancy' and a 'heightened vulnerability and risk in the years leading up and subsequent to leaving school'.

45You told a different psychologist how it was that your offending developed.  Your social isolation led to you viewing the images you had obtained during your relationship with Ms Brown and you began to increase your use of pornography involving girls in their late teens.  Your engagement with internet pornography changed from merely accessing it to making it available when you uploaded images of Ms Brown so that you could receive sexual material of underage females in return.  Although you may have started your offending with offences primarily involving a girl in her mid-teens, the material you accessed and then possessed was not limited to images of females of about Ms Brown's age. 

46After your arrest there were episodes of self-harm and your thoughts turned to suicide.  You have been anxious and depressed at times since then but I have little doubt that the prospect of being sentenced to imprisonment for your offences is a significant contributor to your present psychological state.  Since your arrest you have expressed your remorse to others as you came to understand the connection between what you did and the harm to the children involved.  I accept that your expressions of remorse are genuine.

47In assessing your moral culpability I take into account in a significant way that there is no evidence that you sought out child pornography fitting any description other than 'young teens 13 – 16', a description to be found in your profile in your image source account. 

48Also relevant to your moral culpability is what is universally said to be your immaturity at the time of your offending.  Dr Barth said this about you in his report, once again the final judgment in this matter will contain extracts from Dr Barth's report, paragraphs 49, 50 and subparagraph 6 of paragraph 58:

[49] 'His problematic interpersonal adjustment has significantly impacted his sexuality. His immature approach to intimacy has meant that his ability to maintain connections with female peers is very limited. His concept of sexual intimacy remains 'adolescent' in nature which reflects his ongoing sexual immaturity and confusion. His exposure to pornography has considerably exacerbated these issues.

[50] 'Within this context Mr [Guerrero] developed dysfunctional sexual cognitions about underage pubescent females which in turn formed the basis for deviant arousal patterns. This points to clear ongoing issues with Mr [Guerrero]'s sexual adjustment.

[58] (6) 'Mr [Guerrero]'s interpersonal problems have contributed to significant issues with his sexual adjustment. His comprehension of healthy adult sexual intimacy is lacking. In regards to the specific offending, Mr [Guerrero]'s conduct is likely to have emanated from his severe intimacy difficulties and sexual immaturity. Thus, he increasingly resorted to online pornography as a sexual outlet and over time, was drawn to more dysfunctional sexual material which culminated in him searching for sexually explicit images of adolescent female children. Moreover, he attributed a precocious sexuality to the female children in the material he viewed. In short, Mr Guerrero's sexual adjustment is unequivocally problematic'.

49The connection between your offending and your early life was explored in oral evidence given by Dr Barth.  He said that your psychosocial insecurities could have formed from your lack of attention in early life and that the abandonment and deprivation you experienced in your first 20 months has impacted you for the remainder of your life.

50Of recent times you have participated in a Sex-Offender Treatment Program.  A report from your treating counsellor, Mr Burrows, is instructive.  He notes that you initially demonstrated a limited understanding of the harm which your offences could cause, but that you have now readjusted your thinking and demonstrate a clear understanding of the destructive impact of your offending behaviour.  Whilst you were intelligent enough to be capable of understanding the link between your offending and harm to others, your immaturity and impulsiveness meant that you did not take the time to think about the consequences of your actions.

51Apart from these offences you are a man of otherwise good character.  You have undertaken voluntary charitable work after finishing school and references tendered on your behalf speak highly of you.  Consistent with your underlying good character you cooperated with investigators by providing access to all your electronic devices and later pleaded guilty at an early opportunity.  You have a good work ethic and are currently employed part time with a restaurant chain.  Whilst good character has to be given less weight in cases of this kind it is not something to be ignored.

52When I take into account your otherwise good character, and the progress you have made under treatment as a sex offender, I am satisfied that you have good prospects of rehabilitation.

53Imprisonment is a sentence of last resort.  I can only impose a sentence of imprisonment on you if I am satisfied that no sentence other than imprisonment is appropriate in all the circumstances of the case.  As I mentioned at the beginning of this judgment, the authorities tell me that such a sentence is, however, ordinarily to be imposed in cases of this kind.

54Mr Hill QC, who appeared with Mr Dempsey on your behalf at the plea hearing, submitted that the appropriate outcome was the imposition of a recognisance release order.  He submitted that such a sentence is a sentence of imprisonment which would be a real punishment.  That much I should accept, but it cannot be denied that such a sentence would do very little indeed to promote general deterrence when compared with the harshness of a sentence of actual imprisonment.

55It was also submitted that whilst in most cases of this kind the courts protect the community by giving full weight to the principle of general deterrence, society is also protected if an offender can be rehabilitated and that your rehabilitation is best achieved through the imposition of a lengthy recognisance release order with appropriate conditions.

56The prosecution accepted that a recognisance release order was appropriate but submitted that you should only be released after first serving a short period of imprisonment.

57The ultimate question thus becomes whether the need for general deterrence requires a sentence of immediate imprisonment, a sentence of last resort, be imposed upon you.  Is this one of those cases where exceptional circumstances exist which mean that a sentence of immediate imprisonment is not necessary?  In answering that question I must take into account not only what you did, but who you were then, and who you are now.

58In considering what you did I have examined the factors set out by Johnson J in R v Gent [2005] NSWCCA 370 at [99]. I will start with the nature of the material you accessed, distributed, and possessed. The majority of the material was of Ms Brown, who was not harmed in the production of the material, but who has certainly been harmed by your distribution of it. There was also a significant proportion of material which showed very young children being subjected to harmful and at times depraved abuse.

59The number of items is important too.  If we ignore duplicates, which is a better way of assessing your criminality, the number of items involved, 653, is neither particularly low nor particularly high.  But a distinguishing feature of your case is that more than two thirds of the items were low-level pornography involving a girl who was close to 18 years of age, the age at which intimate photographs of her would cease to be child pornography.  That has to be balanced of course against the breach of trust involved in your distribution of those images.  You have breached her privacy in a significant way.

60As the number of different children who are depicted and thereby victimised is clearly relevant, I observe that the prosecution estimated without challenge that there were more than 200 separate children the subject of your various offences.  That is a significant number indeed.

61Whilst most offenders who possess child pornography obtain it through the use of a carriage service, not all of them use a carriage service to make it available to others.  I must remember of course that you face specific charges relating to such actions.

62You did not profit from your offending in monetary terms but I accept the submission of the prosecution that you used photographs of Ms Brown as currency and as payment to obtain other child pornography.

63And finally, as I have already said, your offending occurred over a period of about seven months.

64You were an immature young man when you committed these offences.  Children do not become fully formed adults on their eighteenth birthday and you should not be treated as though you were.  Young offenders such as yourself may not fully appreciate the nature, seriousness and consequences of their criminal conduct.  A good example of that is your failure to recognise the harm that your offences could cause until this was explained to you during treatment. 

65As was said in Howard v R [2019] NSWCCA 109 at [13]:

'…the law recognises the potential for the cognitive, emotional and/or physiological immaturity of a young person to contribute to their breach of the law.  It is also well recognised that emotional maturity and impulse control develop progressively during adolescence and early adulthood and may not be developed until a person's mid-20s'.'

66Courts also recognise the increased potential for young offenders to be rehabilitated, something which is also of application here.  I must take into account that in some cases incarceration can impair rather than enhance a young offender's prospects of rehabilitation.  The protection of the community can be achieved through such rehabilitation.

67Your youth and immaturity are relevant also to the conditions under which you would serve your sentence of imprisonment.  You would serve your sentence harder than would otherwise be the case because of your vulnerability to older, hardened and violent prisoners.  There is also the risk that your psychological state will be adversely impacted, a matter of particular importance in your case because of the social deprivation you experienced in your early life, something to which Dr Milburn refers at paragraph 11.9 of her report.

68Despite their best endeavours, counsel were unable to assist me with other cases which were sufficiently like yours to be of much assistance.  That is because offenders who involve themselves with child pornography are almost always significantly older than you, and one case with an offender who started offending at 23 years of age was sentenced, as the prosecution pointed out to me, for a matter which carried a maximum penalty of 25 years' imprisonment.

69One recent case to which my attention was drawn, Kannis v R [2020] NSWCCA 79 did involve an offender of about your age but his offences were much more serious than yours and there had been incidents of a similar type which had occurred when he was 14 years old which had given rise to a police warning. In that case the Court of Criminal Appeal allowed his appeal because the sentencing judge had used as 'measuring sticks for determination of a sentencing range' a number of cases which were significantly different from the appellant's case. I have been careful not to do that in your case.

70Mr Hill relied on DPP v Smith, a case I mentioned earlier, not because a non-custodial sentence was upheld by the Court of Appeal, but because of the principles stated in that case. The court agreed with the sentencing judge's assessment that the moral culpability of the offender in that case was 'towards the lower end of the range' for the following reasons at [26].

'Offences of this kind frequently appear as manifestations of the depraved voyeurism of socially mature adults.  Such offenders have the insight to comprehend the effects of child pornography on its victims, but they offend nonetheless.  But in this case, as the judge found, the respondent's offending was the addictive consequence of curiosity on the part of a socially very immature human being living an extraordinarily lonely existence, and he lacked insight into effect of the victims until after he was arrested.

71You too were a socially very immature human being who lacked insight into the effect of the victims of your offending until after you were arrested and began receiving treatment from a psychologist.

72Were you a mature adult who well understood the harm that your offences like your cause I would have had no hesitation in sending you to jail.  But in your case I find that you are an inappropriate person upon whom to impose a sentence designed to deter others from similar offending.  Instead I propose to protect society by making orders which will promote your rehabilitation.  That is not to say that general deterrence has been ignored.  The consequences for you of your detection and sentencing are such that there will still be a deterrent effect. 

73This is one of those perhaps rare cases where an exception will be made to the usual rule that a sentence involving an immediate term of imprisonment is warranted for offences involving child pornography.  I have decided to suspend your sentence of imprisonment for the following reasons:

·Your offending can at least in part be explained by your unfortunate early life,

·You were an immature young man at the time of your offending,

·The fact that, at around the time you were offending, your parents noticed a change in you, sufficient to seek psychological help for you, suggests that you were acting out of character,

·You did not realise the harm that offences such as these caused until it was explained to you after your arrest,

·Although you kept it once you got it, there is no evidence that you sought out pornography involving pre-pubescent children,

·A large part of the child pornography covered by the four offences was images of Ms Brown, a person who was not harmed in the production of the material and who was close to the age when intimate images of her would not fit the legal description of 'child pornography',

·You are of otherwise good character, have expressed your genuine remorse and have good prospects of rehabilitation,

·Your physical and mental wellbeing would be at risk from incarceration, and

·A harm of a sentence of immediate imprisonment should only be imposed if I am satisfied that no other sentence is appropriate in all the circumstances of the case.

74I have accepted the invitation of your counsel to impose upon you a sentence of imprisonment which will be suspended for the maximum period permitted.  As he submitted, this will mean that you suffer a real punishment for your offending.  The conditions of the bond are primarily designed to ensure your rehabilitation.

75Mr Guerrero, would you please stand.

76For each of the four counts to which you have pleaded guilty you are convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for a period of two years.

77Pursuant to s 20(1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1914 you are to be released forthwith upon entering into a recognizance of $5000 to comply with the following conditions:

(a)you are to be of good behaviour for five years;

(b)you are to be under the supervision of the Deputy Commissioner, Community Correctional Services and Sex Offender Management or his or her nominee for that period;              

(c)you are to continue with the treatment you have been receiving from
Mr Geoffrey Burrows or Dr Mathew Barth or their nominee, such treatment to continue until the person treating you considers that such treatment is no longer necessary;

(d)you are to undertake and complete the Sex Offender's Program within a period of two years;

(e)you are to report to the neighbourhood justice centre at 241 Wellington Street, Collingwood Victoria 3066 by 4pm on 12 November 2020;

(f)you are to report to and receive visits from a community corrections officer or officers;

(g)you are not to leave Victoria except with the permission of an officer of Corrections Victoria; and

(h)you are to obey all lawful instructions and directions of community corrections officers.

78The commencement date for each of these sentences is fixed as today’s date.

79Counts 1, 2 and 3 are class 2 registrable offences for the purposes of the
Sex Offenders Registration Act 2004. You are now a registrable offender and you are required to comply with reporting obligations for the remainder of your life. My associate will now have you sign an acknowledgement of your reporting obligations. I will wait while that happens.

80MR DEMPSEY:  Does Your Honour mind if I go and just check on my client as he signs it?

81HIS HONOUR:  No, that is fine.

82MR DEMPSEY:  Thank you.  Thank you, Your Honour.

83HIS HONOUR: In order to demonstrate that I have taken into account the utilitarian benefit of your pleas of guilty, I indicate that if you had not pleaded guilty, all other things being equal, I would have imposed a suspended sentence of imprisonment of two years, eight months.

84Mr Guerrero, I am now required to explain the sentence I have just announced.

85I have imposed a suspended sentence of imprisonment upon you.  That means that if you enter into the recognizance and comply with the conditions of that recognizance you will not be required to serve any period in custody.  However, if you breach any of the conditions of the recognizance you may be required to go to gaol and serve a period of two years in custody.  If you have any further questions I am sure that Mr Hill will be happy to answer them for you.

86Are there any other matters that I should address before I adjourn?

87MR GINSBOURG:  Your Honour, there are no other matters.

88HIS HONOUR:  Thank you.  Mr Hill?

89MR DEMPSEY:  No other matters from our perspective either, Your Honour.

90HIS HONOUR:  All right, well thank you once again for the helpful submissions I received from everyone concerned and I do appreciate the work that you together have undertaken preparing that document that I asked for, which I presume was done on the weekend, so thank you once again for that.

91COUNSEL:  Yes, Your Honour.

92HIS HONOUR:  All right, thanks very much and I will now adjourn.

‑ ‑ ‑