Director of Public Prosecutions v Sandhu, Tegveer Singh
[2013] VCC 11
•29 January 2013
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA | Revised (Not) Restricted Suitable for Publication |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| TEGVEER SINGH SANDHU |
---
JUDGE: | HIS HONOUR JUDGE DEAN | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 23 January 2013; 25 January 2015 | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 29 January 2013 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Sandhu, Tegveer Singh | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2013] VCC 11 | |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Subject:
Catchwords:
Legislation Cited:
Cases Cited:
Sentence:
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the DPP | Ms L. Skoblar | CDPP |
| For the Accused | Mr D. Gibson | VLA |
HIS HONOUR:
1 Tegveer Singh Sandhu, you have pleaded guilty to one charge of using a carriage service to groom a person believed to be under 16 years of age contrary to s.474(27.1) of the Criminal Code (Cth). The maximum penalty for that offence is 12 years' imprisonment. You have also pleaded guilty to one charge of using a carriage service to transmit an indecent communication to a person believed to be under 16 years of age contrary to s.474.27A(1) of the Criminal Code (Cth). The maximum penalty for that offence is seven years' imprisonment.
2 You pleaded guilty at committal mention on 26 October 2012 and I have taken your early plea of guilty into account in your favour in mitigation of sentence.
3 A prosecution opening was read to the court and tendered to the court and tendered in evidence. Your offending may be summarised as follows–
4 Between 12 March 2012 and 18 March 2012 using the account name "[email protected]" and the pseudonym 'Dick Melb' you participated in online chat with a female you believed to be 13 years old. She was in fact an undercover police officer performing investigative duties in online chat rooms within Yahoo 7 Messenger, an online communication network, in the name of 'Sweet Ava 99.' The online conversations were sexually explicit in nature and on two occasions you transmitted video images of your erect penis and you masturbating to 'Sweet Ava 99'. You encouraged her to masturbate, asked her if she was a virgin and discussed meeting her in person. The purpose of your communications was to make it easier to procure 'Sweet Ava 99' who you believed was 13 years old to engage in sexual activity.
5 For the purposes of sub-s.474.27(1) of the Criminal Code, the term "engage in sexual activity" is defined as follows:
"Without limiting when a person engages in sexual activity, a person is taken to engage in sexual activity if the person is in the presence of another person (including by means of communication that allows the person to see or hear the other person) while the other person engages in sexual activity."
The evidence before me does not enable me to make a finding as to whether the sexual activity you were grooming 'Sweet Ava 99' for was to be online or in person or what the nature of the sexual activity would encompass. Nevertheless, in my opinion grooming a child to procure them to engage in any sexual activity either online or in person is an extremely serious offence. The sentence that I impose must be calculated to protect children from persons such as you who inhabit the Internet for this purpose. Plainly, general deterrence is a significant sentencing consideration in cases such as this.
6 On 2 August 2012 investigating police executed a search warrant at your premises and took possession of your laptop computer. Examination of it revealed that on 5 July 2012 you participated in online chat with a girl you believed to be 15 years old during which you discussed pornography and sex. You also transmitted to her an image of your penis. This conduct, the subject of Charge 2 on the Indictment, may also be properly described as extremely serious and the sentence I impose must also be calculated to protect children from conduct of this type and to deter others from behaving in the way that you did.
7 It is plain that children and young persons frequently communicate by means of online chat via platforms such as Yahoo 7 messenger and social media sites. Whilst these online environments do not involve face to face communication, in my opinion, the high risk of the exploitation of vulnerable children in these circumstances means that the courts have a clear responsibility to protect children from conduct of this type. As I have stated, 'Sweet Ava 99' was an undercover police officer and the victim of your offending in Charge 2 has not been identified. Accordingly, there is no evidence of harm to the recipients of your communications. But this does not in my view mitigate the seriousness of what you did.
8 I now turn to your personal circumstances. You were born on 24 April 1988 in the Punjab in India. You are now 24 years old and are therefore a youthful offender. You have no prior or subsequent convictions or court appearances and you are of good character. You are the youngest of five children and your family who all reside in India are educated and financially secure. You enjoyed a happy and supportive family life in India and did well at school. You travelled to Australia in 2009 on a student visa to study automotive engineering and you completed a diploma in that field in 2011. In 2012 you completed a business diploma and you are now employed as a fleet manager with Dashmesh Transport.
9 I have received in evidence a report of Ms Carla Lechner, a consulting and forensic psychologist, detailing your personal circumstances and psychological profile. I accept that you are remorseful for your offending and that it occurred following the break-up of your relationship with your fiancée and during a period when you were abusing alcohol. In Ms Lechner's opinion you do not present with symptoms of any psychological or psychosexual disorder and, in particular, you do not suffer from paedophilia. Whilst you stated to Ms Lechner and investigating police that you did not appreciate the seriousness of your offending, the reasons for it in my opinion remain unclear. In all probability, however, your offending was the product of the disinhibiting effects of the anonymity of the Internet and your alcohol use.
10 I accept that your imprisonment will involve a degree of isolation and as a youthful first offender imprisonment will also involve significant hardship for you.
11 Your prospects for rehabilitation may properly be described as very good.
12 In all probability, you will be deported to India on your release from custody and as I observed during the course of submissions, any period of recognizance release that I fix will not be served by you in Australia. Nevertheless, both the prosecution and defence accept that in the circumstances of your case it is appropriate for me to make such an order.
13 In the result the sentence of the court is as follows.
14 On Charge 1 you are convicted and sentenced to be imprisoned for 12 months. I direct that that sentence commence on this day, that is, 29 Jan 2013.
15 On Charge 2 you are convicted and sentenced to be imprisoned for six months. I direct that that sentence commence on 29 October 2013.
16 That makes for a total effective term of imprisonment of 15 months. I order your release on recognizance in the sum of $500 after serving a period of six months' imprisonment.
17 The period of the recognizance is two years.
18 I declare that you have served six days by way of pre-sentence detention not including today.
19 But for your plea of guilty I would have sentenced you to a total effective term of imprisonment of two years and I would have ordered that you be released on a recognizance after having served 12 months. I direct that you be placed on the Sex Offenders Register for a period of 8 years.
0
0
0