R v Horner

In the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, the offender, Mr David Horner, pleaded guilty to two counts of possessing and accessing child abuse material. The offences were committed on 10 November 2021 when the Australian Federal Police executed a search warrant at the offender's residence and found three videos of child abuse material on his computer. The offender also possessed a document that contained 64 reference numbers relating to child abuse material complaints made to the eSafety Commissioner. The offender's subjective case included a history of childhood trauma and abuse, which resulted in Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, Major Depressive Disorder, and Generalised Anxiety Disorder. The offender's moral culpability was reduced due to his disadvantaged background and mental illnesses. The court considered the objective seriousness of the offences, the offender's plea of guilty, his remorse, and prospects of rehabilitation. The court determined that there were exceptional circumstances that warranted a Recognisance Release Order instead of immediate imprisonment.

The court found that the exceptional circumstances in this case included the limited quantity of material possessed, the offender's background of childhood abuse, his mental illnesses, genuine remorse, strong prospects of rehabilitation, and the need for continued engagement in rehabilitation. The court accepted the Crown's submission that the objective seriousness of the offences was towards the lower end of the range but not at the lowest end. The court also considered the offender's background of childhood abuse and mental illnesses, which had an impact on his moral culpability. The offender pleaded guilty at the first reasonable opportunity, resulting in a 25% discount on his sentence for each charge. The court took into account the offender's remorse, cooperation with authorities, and testimonials provided on his behalf.

Considering the objective seriousness, moral culpability, plea of guilty, remorse, rehabilitation, and comparative sentences, the court determined that a sentence of imprisonment was appropriate. However, due to the exceptional circumstances, the court decided to release the offender on a Recognisance Release Order without requiring him to serve an actual period of imprisonment. The sentence for Count 1 (possession of child exploitation material) was 20 months imprisonment, discounted to 15 months due to the early guilty plea. The sentence for Count 2 (accessing child exploitation material) was 16 months imprisonment, discounted to 12 months due to the early guilty plea. The sentences were to be largely concurrent. The offender was required to comply with various conditions, including good behaviour, supervision by the Commissioner of ACT Corrective Services, participation in treatment or rehabilitation programs, and reporting obligations under the Crimes (Child Sex Offenders) Act 2005 (ACT). The court also ordered the forfeiture of the Dell computer used in the commission of the offences.