R v Dixon

[2023] NSWDC 109

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v DIXON [2023] NSWDC 109
Hearing dates:	12 April 2023
Decision date:	21 April 2023
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	NOMAN SC DCJ
Decision:	Indicative sentences nominated: Seq 1: possess child abuse material: 2 years and 3 months imprisonment; Seq 44: prepare to engage in sexual intercourse: 18 months imprisonment; Seq 71: produce child pornography: 9 months imprisonment; Seq 51, 53, 58, 63, 72: produce child pornography: 3 years imprisonment; Seq 19, 23, 26, 31, 35, 49, 52, and 57: produce child pornography: 3 years and 9 months imprisonment; Seq 67: produce child pornography: 4 years and 3 months imprisonment; Seq 56, attempt to engage in sexual intercourse: 4 years and 6 months imprisonment; Seq 50 and 61: engage in sexual intercourse: 4 years and 6 months imprisonment; Seq 17, 21, 24, 28, 32 and 47: engage in sexual intercourse: 6 years imprisonment; Seq 65: engage in sexual intercourse: 6 years and 9 months imprisonment. The sentence imposed is one of 16 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 11 years to date from 6 July 2021. The offender will be eligible for release to parole on 5 July 2032.
Catchwords:	SENTENCING — Penalties — Imprisonment – commonwealth offences – Possess control child abuse material – engage in sexual intercourse with child outside Australia – Produce child pornography material outside Australia – prepare to engage in sexual intercourse with child outside Australia – Attempt to engage in sexual intercourse with child outside Australia
Legislation Cited:	Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth)
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	R; Collen Teoxon Dixon
Representation:	Counsel: Crown: D Berents Defence: A Betts Solicitors: Crown: J Inan Defence: R Hill
File Number(s):	2021/193413
Publication restriction:	Statutory non-publication order re names of complainants and anything which may identity them

JUDGMENT

1. The offender, Collen Dixon, entered pleas of guilty in the Local Court to 27 Commonwealth offences.

2. These offences include:

• Sequence 1: Possess child abuse material obtained or accessed using a carriage service. This offence is contrary to s 474.22(1) of the Criminal Code and there is a maximum penalty of 15 years imprisonment;

• Sequences 17, 21, 24, 28, 32, 47, 50, 61 and 65: Engage in sexual intercourse with a child outside Australia. This offence is contrary to s 272.8(1) of the Criminal Code and there is a maximum penalty of 20 years imprisonment;

• Sequence 44: Prepare to engage in sexual intercourse outside Australia. This offence is contrary to s 272.20(1) of the Criminal Code and there is a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment;

• Sequence 56: Attempt to engage in sexual intercourse outside Australia. This offence is contrary to s 11.1(1) and s 272.8(1) of the Criminal Code and there is a maximum penalty of 20 years imprisonment;

• Sequences 19, 23, 26, 31, 35, 49, 51, 52, 53, 57, 58, 63, 67, 71 and 72: Produce child pornography material outside Australia. This offence is contrary to s 273.5(1) of the Criminal Code and there is a maximum penalty of 15 years imprisonment;

3. The maximum penalty for an offence provides relevant guidance. In determining the sentence to be passed, I must impose a sentence that is of a severity appropriate in all the circumstances of the offence.

4. There is a utilitarian benefit that flows from a plea of guilty. The plea is to be regarded as an early plea. I intend to reduce the sentence by 25% to recognise the plea. The plea also warrants amelioration of sentences as it demonstrates remorse, acceptance of responsibility, and a willingness to facilitate the course of justice.

5. Agreed facts were tendered. I have read the full facts and will sentence on that document. I recite only some facts in summary.

6. The police executed a search warrant on the offender’s home on 6 July 2021.

7. The offender provided access to encrypted files and passwords to facilitate investigators accessing his devices. There is no evidence as to whether access would have been possible without this cooperation. Importantly, there is no suggestion that the offender co-operated other than genuinely. This will be taken into account as part of his assistance to authorities.

8. I note the submissions advanced by both counsel on where each offence fell on the range of objective seriousness. There is not consistent consensus between the parties. Although I have had regard to the terminology I choose not to engage in describing a position on the range as against a mid-point.

9. During this search the child abuse material supporting the possess offence was located on three mobile phones, a hard drive and a MEGA account. The Mega cloud storage was subscribed in a false name. There were multiple files. This material included both images and videos and was classified as falling into categories 1 and 2 under the Interpol categorisation. Although the facts refer to a large number of images or videos and samples, it was clarified during the hearing that only 11 images and 4 videos were relied upon. Slightly more of the number are category 1. I have taken into account the nature of what is captured and the length of videos. This is a relatively small number to possess. There are varying dates images were last modified with some as recent as April 2021. The oldest was last accessed in 2010. The offence refers to the sole date of possession but the facts disclose that the offender possessed the images for differing periods of time. This cannot be ignored as it informs the circumstances of his possession. He accessed the material he possessed at different times over many years. There is also no suggestion that the offender committed the offence as an aberration. It is accepted he is a paedophile. There are evidently different victims. The ages range from babies to pubescent and the sexual acts from touching, to fellatio and anal intercourse. The most serious would be the anal penetration by an adult penis of the baby. Some involve more than one victim.

10. The relevant factors in assessing the seriousness of the offence include:

1. the images were accessed independently;

2. the offender possessed the material for personal use and not for further dissemination, or profit;

3. The nature and content of the images, to the extent it is described, including the age of the victims;

4. The number of images and that there are real victims;

5. The age differential between the offender and the victim and the knowledge of that age;

6. The limited degree of sophistication.

11. In contemplating the offence for sentence, I have considered these matters. The offence is to be viewed as occurring not in isolation.

12. This is a moderately serious example of the offence provision.

13. As part of the investigation of devices, it was ascertained the offender had two Facebook profiles with one being in his name and the other of a fictitious name and details. Five children could be ascertained by access to Facebook profiles. Profiles reflected the date of birth of those children. This information was used to investigate the offender for producing child abuse material. These children were identified on some of the child abuse material produced by the offender.

14. Arising out of this discovery, police discovered evidence to charge the offender with offences of producing child abuse material overseas and also engaging, attempting to engage in or preparing to engage in sexual intercourse with children overseas. The offences occurred in the Philippines.

15. The production was for his own use and filmed by himself without any particular sophistication. He acted alone.

16. The offences refer to a date range. The recordings were date stamped and it was accepted this reflects either the date of the sexual offending or when it was modified. The earliest date nominated was 2 July 2015. In a further submission, the Crown indicated it accepted that based on the admissions of the offender that the court could find that the offences for all sequences, except Sequence 65 (Lorenz) and Sequence 71 (relative) which occurred in 2017 and Sequence 72 (Ian) which occurred in 2019, occurred during the limited period of 2016.

17. The Crown does not allege a specific time and date of any individual offence, but rather that each of the offences against each individual victim occurred on a discrete occasion, being an unknown date between the dates particularised; being a date between a time when the offender was in the Philippines and a time no later than the time and date stamp identified for each sequence.

18. There are 10 separate male children involved in the sexual intercourse or attempt sexual intercourse offences and the related production offences. A further three male children are captured only under the production offences.

19. I am assisted by annexure A to the Crown submissions [MFI 1]. This sets out the cogent details for each offence. The accuracy was not challenged.

Sequences 17 and 19 - 3 April 2016 - Eddy

20. Eddy was over 14 and under 16. The offender filmed 2 videos of himself with Eddy. Each is classified in category 2. The offender filmed for 4 minutes and one second and captured himself anally penetrating the victim. The victim asked the offender to wait whilst holding his lower back and after the act could be heard crying. A second video of 9 minutes and 59 seconds captured this victim lying naked on the floor, holding his buttocks and in pain. The offender asked if he needed to go to the doctor. The offender told him to go to the bed. The victim returned to the bed in apparent pain. The offender engaged in a further act of anal penetration whilst the victim was in pain. The offender told him to relax. The offender then fellated the victim.

21. I note the type of sexual intercourse and the resultant pain. Significantly, despite the pain caused, the offender continued with a further penetrative act.

22. This is a relatively serious offence.

23. This conduct supports a sole offence each of sexual intercourse and production.

Sequences 21 and 23- 3 May 2016- James

24. James was over 14 and under 16. The offender filmed 2 videos of himself with James. Each is classified in category 2. A 9 minute and 59 second video captures the offender fellate and masturbate the victim. A 9 minute and 4 second video continues with the offender trying to insert his penis into the victim’s anus. The victim indicates he is in pain and the offender told him to change position and obtained lubricant. He then engaged in anal penetration.

25. I note the type of sexual intercourse and the resultant pain. This is a relatively serious offence.

26. This conduct supports a sole offence each of sexual intercourse and production.

Sequences 24 and 26- 10 May 2016- Paul

27. Paul was over 13 and under 15. The offender filmed 2 videos of himself with Paul. Each is classified in category 2. A 1 minute and 57 second video captures the offender anally penetrate the victim. He asked if the victim was alright. The victim was breathing heavily. A 9 minute and 59 second video captured the offender anally penetrate the victim who appeared to be grimacing. The offender suggested to try another way. The victim appeared to sit in pain and then curl into a foetal position. The offender pulled the victim’s buttocks apart and filmed his anus and told him to relax. He pulled the child back onto the bed and aggressively anally penetrated him which the victim breathed heavily and said ouch multiple times. He continued to penetrate him.

28. I note the type of sexual intercourse and the resultant pain. I note the repeated acts of anal penetration. This is a relatively serious offence.

29. This conduct supports a sole offence each of sexual intercourse and production.

Sequences 28 and 31- 22 August 2016- Macky

30. Macky was over 14 and under 16. The offender filmed 3 videos of himself with Macky. Each is classified in category 2. A 9 minute and 59 second video captured the offender fellate and masturbate the victim before the victim masturbated himself and then kissed the offender. The offender offered something to the victim to ‘fuck’ him and the victim indicated it would hurt too much. The offender continued to masturbate the victim. The second 9 minute and 59 second video captured the offender attempting to anally penetrate the victim who indicated it hurt too much and asked the offender to stop. The victim asked to leave given the pain. The offender rolled the victim over and anally penetrated the victim who continued to indicate he was in pain. A 3 minute and 36 second video records the victim return from the bathroom and start to dress as the offender asked him to stay as he hadn’t finished. The victim left.

31. I note the type of attempted sexual intercourse and the resultant pain. Despite the pain caused, the offender continued with a further penetrative act. This is a relatively serious offence.

32. This conduct supports a sole offence each of sexual intercourse and production.

Sequences 32 and 35- 25 August 2016- Jamil

33. Jamil was under 16. The offender filmed 3 videos of himself with Jamil. Each is classified in category 2. A 5 minute and 53 second video captured the offender fellate and masturbate the victim before he licked and kissed his anus. A 5 minute and 40 second video captured the offender fellate the victim before he anally penetrated him. A 9 minute and 13 second video captured the offender kiss the victim before he anally penetrated him. The offender then recorded the victim shower.

34. The offender also produced 6 compilation videos modified on three different dates in June 2019. These videos are of different duration and capture acts of masturbation, fellatio and anal penetration. During one the victim is observed to be in pain. On two videos he edited the words “Philippine flag. $20. 3 hours fun 17yo raw fuck”.

35. The prosecution indicated the editing with commentary and anonymising the offender’s face is suggestive of an intention to share the content. I am unable to infer this.

36. I note the types of sexual intercourse and the resultant pain from one act of anal penetration. This is a relatively serious offence.

37. This conduct supports a sole offence each of sexual intercourse and production.

Sequences 47 and 49- 29 September 2016- Paul

38. This is the second occasion the offender met with Paul. Paul was over 13 and under 15. The offender filmed 3 videos of himself with Paul. Each is classified in category 2. Two 9 minute and 59 second videos capture the offender kiss the victim, masturbate himself and anally penetrate the victim. The victim is observed to be in pain. A 58 second video shows a further act of anal penetration.

39. I note the type of sexual intercourse and the resultant pain. This is a relatively serious offence.

40. This conduct supports a sole offence each of sexual intercourse and production.

Sequence 44 – plan for offence

41. On 18 September 2016 the offender used a false email identity to contact a person he indicated he met on a site and he asked for photos of this person’s ‘boys’. There was email communication over 5 days. The offender inquired to ensure this person was legitimate and not police. He was advised there were many and photos would be sent of some. Photos were sent of boys aged between 10 and 14. The offender asked for more and was asked to make a payment. The offender asked for ‘12+’ which I take to be a specific age preference. This person advised the offender on how to arrange suitable accommodation in the Philippines to meet the boys to avoid suspicion. The offender confirmed for a price the “boys would do ‘everything in sex”. A price of 100 euros per hour was quoted.

42. I take into account the use of a false email account. Beyond that, the offender received advice from his contact as to how to avoid detection. He was evidently concerned about obtaining the boys without creating suspicion. There is no particular sophistication. The planning is over 5 days.

43. This is a moderately serious example of the offence.

44. The offender departed for the Philippines on 1 October 2016.

Sequences 50 and 51- 4 October 2016- Unknown

45. Sometime after his arrival he met with an unknown victim aged between 14 and 16. A 1 minute and 50 second video recorded him anally penetrating the victim.

46. I note the type of sexual intercourse. It is of short duration. There is no indicia of pain. This is less serious but still a serious offence.

47. This conduct supports a sole offence each of sexual intercourse and production.

48. The offender discussed this video with police and described paying the pimp 500 to 1000 pesos and 1000- 2000 pesos to the victim.

Sequence 52- 18 October 2016- Hambala

49. Hambala was aged between 15 and 17. The offender made three category 2 videos. A 5 minute and 23 second video recorded the victim ask for the lights to be turned off which was declined and the offender fellated him, put lubricant on his own penis and asked if he could do ‘bareback’. A 5 minute and 28 second video again recorded the victim requesting the lights be turned off. The offender had the victim go on all fours and filmed the victim’s genitals. He asked the victim to go on top and the victim then inserted the offender’s penis into his anus. The victim was heard to groan and say ouch. A 6 minute and 9 second video captured a further act of anal penetration. The victim again indicated he was in pain and the offender continued to penetrate him.

50. This conduct supports a sole offence of production. The recording captured a number of sexual acts and the causing of pain. It is relatively serious.

Sequence 53- 19 and 21 October 2016- Chino

51. Chino was aged between 15 and 17. The offender made four category 2 videos. A 9 minute and 59 second video recorded the offender anally penetrate the victim with the victim requesting the offender not ejaculate inside him. A 9 minute and 59 second video again recorded an act of anal penetration with the victim asking if the offender had HIV. A 9 minute and 59 second video captured the pair kiss, the victim masturbate the offender and then acts of mutual fellatio. A 9 minute and 59 second video recorded further masturbation and sexual intercourse.

52. This conduct supports a sole offence of production. There are multiple sexual acts and the recordings are not brief. It is relatively serious.

Sequence 56- 20 October 2016- Vhie

53. Vhie was aged between 13 and 15. The offender made two category 2 videos. A 9 minute and 59 second video recorded the offender apply lubricant and attempt a number of times to anally penetrate the victim. The victim rolled into the foetal position. Even when the victim displayed distress he continued to attempt penetration. The facts refer to there being actual anal penetration although the charge is only an attempt. I can only sentence on the attempt. The victim struggled and the offender told him to stop resisting. A 9 minute and 59 second video recorded the victim indicate it was hurting and the offender said he wanted to try again.

54. This conduct supports a sole offence each of attempt sexual intercourse and production. This is an attempt offence. The victim was struggling and resisting. In assessing seriousness I will take into account the circumstances of the attempt being as close to the commission of an offence as feasible, and that this elevates the seriousness. Each is a relatively serious offence.

Sequence 58- 22 October 2016- MJM

55. MJM was aged between 15 and 17. The offender made three category 2 videos. A 8 minute and 31 second video recorded the offender masturbate the victim. A 9 minute and 59 second video recorded acts of anal penetration with the victim. A 2 minute and 33 second video recorded a further act of anal penetration with the victim.

56. This conduct supports a sole offence of production. Given the nature of the acts recorded and the duration this is a relatively serious offence.

Sequences 61 and 63- 22 October 2016- JCG

57. JCG was aged between 15 and 17. The offender made two category 2 videos. A 7 minute and 15 second video recorded the victim fellate the offender. A 9 minute and 59 second video recorded the victim fellating the offender.

57. This conduct supports a sole offence each of sexual intercourse and production. This is a less serious offence.

Sequences 65 and 67- 14 April 2017- Lorenz

59. Lorenz was aged between 10 and 12 initially and then between 14-16. The offender made three category 1 videos. Only the videos recorded when the victim was aged 10-12 are described. A 38 second video recorded the offender fondle the victim’s genitals. A 1 minute and 41 second video recorded the offender anally penetrate the victim. A 1 minute and 15 second video captured the offender anally penetrate the victim.

60. This conduct supports a sole offence each of sexual intercourse and production. Given the age of the victim this is one of the more serious offences. The production entails category 1 offending based on this age. There are various sexual acts. This involves serious offending.

61. The offender told police he believed Lorenz to be 13. He later said he was between 12 and 13. He volunteered he met him at two different hotels and engaged in sexual acts. He said he paid the pimp $30 and Lorenz $30 or $60.

Sequence 71 -19 June 2018- Offender’s relative

62. The offender’s relative was aged about 15. I have chosen not to name the precise relationship to protect his identity. For 50 seconds the offender filmed him sleeping and filmed his genitals up his pyjama leg.

63. I take into account the victim was a close relative, was asleep and unaware of this conduct. This offence involves a breach of a familial position of trust in violating a relative whilst they were asleep.

64. This conduct supports a sole offence of production.

Sequence 72 -28 July 2019- Ian

65. There are 8 videos captured that show interaction between two boys aged between 13 and 17 with the offender captured on some recordings. There are acts of masturbation and fellatio and an attempt by the offender to anally penetrate one victim.

66. This conduct supports a sole offence of production. There are two victims involved. This is a less serious example of the offence provision.

67. The offender told police he regarded Ian as a boyfriend and that he was someone he met through Facebook. That may reflect the current understanding and is no longer illicit as Ian is now aged over 18. He is to be sentenced for offences committed when Ian was a child.

68. There are a number of factors that inform the seriousness of these offences. Each offence category involves a child victim. Issues of consent do not arise. Further, each victim, other than the offender’s relative, was likely vulnerable due to socio- economic circumstances and not just because of age. They were strangers to the offender and although involved for financial gain this is not a negotiation of equals. The offending evidences child exploitation. The victims were treated as sexual commodities. I am cognisant of the age of the victim as against the maximum for the offence provision. It is of some but limited difference whether a victim was 13 to 15 opposed to 14 to 16. I appreciate the age difference to the offender who was aged around 30.

69. In assessing the production offences, I have considered what is captured, including the type of sexual conduct and the duration of each recording. The recordings mostly fall in category 2 and this is largely due not to the nature of the acts but due to the victim not being under 13. A number of recordings are 9 minutes and 59 seconds from which I infer is the maximum capacity. The offender did not choose to stop the recording. The production was for his personal gratification. There is no sophistication to the recordings. He did not use professional lighting or staging. This is also informed by circumstance in that he was as traveller in a foreign country. He used his device to change the focus of the filming. He used his own device to record in hotel rooms. On occasion he edited or reviewed the material. The offence upon his relative, given the limited product captured and despite the familial relationship is at the lower end. The recording involving Lorenz is in category 1 and quite serious.

70. In considering the sexual offences, I have considered the nature of the act and its duration where it can be established. I have considered whether there are a multiplicity of acts. I have also taken into account whether there were visual signs or words expressing pain. Of significance I have taken into account those occasions when the offender persisted despite clear indications that the victim was in pain.

71. The offender was interviewed by police. As previously stated he voluntarily provided access to passcode protected devices or encrypted files. He also volunteered his connection with victims on Facebook. He told police that he had deleted a lot of his child abuse material earlier that year. He also volunteered he had more on google but it was shut down. The effect is that he volunteered his interest was far greater than reflected by what would be discovered. He is only to be sentenced on what was discovered.

72. The offender is now aged 36. The offender was aged around 30 to 33 at the relevant times and a person of prior good character in the sense of no prior convictions. The dates of child abuse material reflect this offending for sentence is informed by a long-term sexual interest in children. The offender told police he had accessed child abuse material from about the age of 14. This correlates with the diagnosis of paedophilia. This interest, and access to illicit material, undermines to some extent the benefit of an absence of convictions. I do not lose sight though that there is no evidence he previously directly acted on his paedophilic interests. He is still entitled to some leniency. This absence of convictions informs the significance of personal deterrence and the prospects of rehabilitation. To some extent however this is diminished by the long-term access to illicit child abuse material.

73. The offender has provided direct and hearsay expressions of his remorse. He has written to the court directly. He has spoken to experts of his remorse. Importantly, his involvement with police and his pleas of guilty support remorse. I accept that the expressions of remorse are genuine. There is some insight into the harm. I am uncertain there is a full appreciation of the harm his conduct had on those used by others to produce child abuse material and his action in abusing each of his victims to obtain child abuse material and on many occasions to directly sexually offend. With focussed treatment he is likely to comprehend his role in the harm occasioned and the true extent of the harm.

74. The offender's subjective case is supported by his letter and reports addressing psychological and psychiatric opinion. These reports provide material informing the offender's background.

75. The offender grew up in New Zealand to New Zealand and Filipina parents. As a child he lived a solitary existence on a farm with his parents and brother. He is not an Australian citizen and is likely to be deported. This is not a matter I have regard to.

76. The offender wrote to the Court expressing his sorrow and regret. He specifically referred to being appalled by his conduct and a sense of disbelief over how he hurt the victims. He presents as feeling comforted by his autism and paedophilia diagnoses as providing an explanation for his conduct. He told the psychologist he had only cloudy memories of his offending as he had tried to forget it due to the shame, anger and confusion.

77. Lisa Zipparo, neuropsychologist, documented the description of an isolated upbringing deprived of nurturing parents. He was sexually abused at 7 or 8 by a stranger and then on a further occasion by school peers. He self-harmed at that time and thereafter experienced depression and anxiety. This disadvantage is relevant to sentence. It is also relevant to his mental health.

78. He realised his attraction to males as a young child. He has no real school friends and no ongoing friendships. His is tertiary educated although his employment in his profession was unsuccessful. He obtained unskilled employment.

79. Ms Zipparo referred to self-reporting endorsing extremely severe symptoms of depression, anxiety and stress and symptoms consistent with a diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder and PTSD. ASD may be correlated with paedophilia. This would support poor decision making and poor ability to inhibit undesirable responses and impulses. She recommended treatment options. She noted the significant adjustment difficulties and increased stress and anxiety from being in custody.

80. Dr Furst, forensic psychiatrist, documented the offender’s adult relationship from 2012- 2015 with a man in the Philippines. There were other shorter relationships with males. There was social use of drugs at university and then use of cocaine from mid-2019. This recommencement is after this offending. He was a regular gambler from 2013 until his arrest.

81. The offender told Dr Furst of his use of adult pornography and child abuse material commencing at 14, with the attraction mainly to boys aged 10-12. As an adult his main attraction was to boys around the age of 14. I note this does not align with his communication supporting the planning offence that his interest was in children aged from 12. His offending supports he certainly had an attraction to boys younger than 14 and on occasion acted on it. His arousal and preoccupation were related to prepubescent or young teenage boys.

82. The diagnosis of current issues is paedophilic disorder, autism disorder and borderline personality traits. His PTSD is in remission although it informed the development of borderline personality traits. Dr Furst opined there were emotional deficits and immaturity. His attraction to children is opined to be a direct result of his paedophilic disorder. The offender is assessed in the above average risk of reoffending. Dr Furst recommended a treatment plan including offence specific programs and anti-libidinal medication. Supervision is recommended. There is an opinion he is capable of being successfully managed in the community.

83. I accept that there is a causal connection between the offender’s mental health conditions and the offending. He well knew what he was doing and planned his offending. His offending is explicable based on his co-related autism and paedophilia. His borderline personality traits, acquired from the childhood offending perpetrated upon him, directly informs the commission of the offences. He succumbed and acted on his ‘undesirable responses and impulses’. This serves to not insignificantly reduce moral culpability and to ameliorate sentence.

84. The offender has experienced a disadvantaged childhood and has been accessing child abuse material for almost 20 years. He will require considerable treatment to address his criminogenic factors. I am assisted by Dr Furst’s report. I determine that he has guarded prospects of rehabilitation and an above average risk of reoffending or of relapse. He has long standing paedophilic tendencies with a diagnosis of paedophilic interests.

85. Personal deterrence has a continuing role to play. This applies even though these are his first offences, there was co-operation with police and an acceptance of responsibility. Although indicating a preparedness to undertake treatment his actual engagement in treatment options including medication is uncertain.

86. I am mindful of the need to ensure adequate punishment. General deterrence and denunciation are paramount sentencing considerations in these types of offences. These offences are committed in private and are difficult to detect. There are real victims being exploited. I accept his paedophilic tendencies and childhood experiences inform his offending. This does not lessen the importance of general deterrence. These offences are often committed by paedophiles and to a lesser extent those with other mental health issues such as autism and they are the sub-set of offenders who should be deferred by appropriate sentences.

87. The experts opined that the offender, because of his mental health difficulties, would find custody challenging. I accept that his conditions in custody may be more onerous because of his mental health issues.

88. The Crown submitted that a full-time term of imprisonment was required. It is accepted, on behalf of the offender, that the only appropriate penalty is one of full-time imprisonment. Suggested comparable cases were provided. Whilst the limitations are acknowledged, they provide some guidance.

89. Having considered all other available options, I am satisfied that no sentence other than full-time imprisonment is appropriate. Sentence will commence on the date the offender entered custody, being 6 July 2021.

90. There will need to be appropriate accumulation to reflect the separate victims and the separate offending. I accept the associated offences of production and sexual offending suggest more concurrency. The sentence will need to address proportionality and totality and of necessity require some compression to avoid imposing a crushing sentence.

91. I have not overlooked the level of initial cooperation with investigators and have accounted for it to ameliorate sentence.

92. The offender is convicted of all offences.

93. I propose to impose an aggregate sentence. Each indicative sentence is reduced by 25% to acknowledge the plea.

94. Informed by the specific percentage discount and other sentencing factors, I nominate the following indicative sentences:

• Sequence 1: possess child abuse material: 2 years and 3 months imprisonment;

• Sequence 44: prepare to engage in sexual intercourse: 18 months imprisonment;

• Sequence 71: produce child pornography: 9 months imprisonment;

• Sequences 51, 53, 58, 63, 72: produce child pornography: 3 years imprisonment;

• Sequences 19, 23, 26, 31, 35, 49, 52, and 57: produce child pornography: 3 years and 9 months imprisonment;

• Sequence 67: produce child pornography: 4 years and 3 months imprisonment;

• Sequence 56: attempt to engage in sexual intercourse: 4 years and 6 months imprisonment;

• Sequences 50 and 61: engage in sexual intercourse: 4 years and 6 months imprisonment;

• Sequences 17, 21, 24, 28, 32 and 47: engage in sexual intercourse: 6 years imprisonment;

• Sequence 65: engage in sexual intercourse: 6 years and 9 months imprisonment.

95. The sentence imposed is one of 16 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 11 years to date from 6 July 2021. The offender will be eligible for release to parole on 5 July 2032.

96. I direct that a copy of the reports of Dr Pulman and Dr Furst be provided to Corrective Services and Justice Health.

**********

Decision last updated: 24 April 2023