R v Huynh

[2025] NSWDC 283

District Court

New South Wales

• Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation:

R v Huynh [2025] NSWDC 283

Hearing dates:

18 July 2025

Date of orders:

01 August 2025

Decision date:

01 August 2025

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Before:

Newlinds SC DCJ

Decision:

(1)   After deduction of 25% for the early guilty pleas, I sentence the Offender to an aggregate term for Sequences 2, and 3 of three (3) years imprisonment to commence on 24 July 2025 and expire 23 July 2028.

(2) After serving twelve (12) months in custody, on 23 July 2026, pursuant to s 20(1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), the Offender is to be released on a Recognizance Release Order, himself in the sum of $100, for a period of sixteen (16) months, to expire on 22 November 2027, on conditions.

(3) For Sequence 9, pursuant to s 10A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), convict the Offender without imposing any other penalty.

Catchwords:

CRIME — Sentence – Child sex offences — Child abuse material — Using carriage service to solicit, access, and transmit child abuse material

CRIME – Sentence – Bestiality material – Possession or dissemination of bestiality material an offence under s 547E of Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)

Legislation Cited:

Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) s 547E(2)

Criminal Code (Cth) s 474.22(1), s 474.22A(1)

Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) s 16A, s 20(1)(b)

Crimes (Sentencing and Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) s 3A, s 5, s 21A

Cases Cited:

CDPP v CCQ [2021] QCA

Chesworth v R [2023] NSWCCA 115

Curle v R [2024] NSWCCA 117

Doig v R [2023] NSWCCA 76

Huggett v R [2021] NSWCCA 62

Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610

Phibbs v R [2023] VSCA 123

R v De Leeuw [2015] NSWCCA 183

R v Ellis (1986) 6 NSWLR 603

R v GLB [2003] NSWCCA 210

R v Meza Isla [2024] NSWDC 526

R v Rebbeck [2025] NSWDC 268

Ryan v The Queen (2001) 206 CLR 267

Category:

Sentence

Parties:

Rex (Crown)
Cam Vinh Huynh (Offender)

Representation:

Counsel:
Mr Bargwanna (Crown)
Mr Morrisey (Offender)

Solicitors:
CDPP (Crown)
Guirguis Legal (Offender)

File Number(s):

2024/518

Publication restriction:

Nil

JUDGMENT

Introduction

The facts

1. Between 10 March 2023 and 1 January 2024, Cam Vinh Huynh (“the Offender”) intentionally transmitted and accessed child abuse material in chats with nine other users on two social media messaging applications, "Zalo" and "Facebook messenger".

2. On 1 January 2024, the Offender arrived at Sydney International Airport from Vietnam. He self-declared that he had child abuse material on his phone and was subjected to a search by Australian Border Force, where such material was identified.

3. The Offender's mobile device also contained 33 images and videos constituting bestiality material.

The charges

4. As a consequence, the Offender has pleaded guilty to and stands to be sentenced for the following offences.

Offence	Description	Maximum Penalty
Section 474.22(1) Criminal Code (Cth) (Sequence 3)	Between about 10 March 2023 and about 1 January 2024 at Moorebank in the State of New South Wales or elsewhere, Cam Vinh Huynh transmitted and accessed material, using a carriage service, the material being child abuse material.	15 years imprisonment
Section 474.22A(1) Criminal Code (Cth) (Sequence 2)	On or about 1 January 2024 at Mascot in the State of New South Wales or elsewhere, Cam Vinh Huynh possessed or controlled material, being child abuse, in the form of data held in a computer or contained in a data storage device, and Cam Vinh Huynh had used a carriage service to obtain or access the material.	15 years imprisonment
Section 547E(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) (Sequence 9)	On or about 1 January 2024, in Mascot in the State of New South Wales or elsewhere, Cam Vinh Huynh possessed material on mobile devices and that material was bestiality material.	3 years imprisonment

5. The Offender has spent one day in custody referable only to these offences. Any sentence I impose will be backdated by one day to take into account that time.

6. The child abuse offences (sequences 3 and 2) are offences under Commonwealth law, whilst the bestiality charge (sequence 9) is an offence under New South Wales law.

General principles of sentencing

Sentences for Commonwealth offences

7. In addition to any other relevant factors, the Court must specifically take into account the matters listed in section 16A(2) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) (“Crimes Act (Cth)”) that are relevant and known to the Court.

8. The overarching requirement imposed by Part lB is that the Court must impose a sentence "that is of a severity appropriate in all the circumstances of the offence", having considered the non-exhaustive list of matters in section 16A(2) that are relevant and known to the Court.

9. Section 17A provides that a Court shall not pass a sentence of imprisonment unless satisfied that no other sentence is appropriate in all the circumstances of the case. Importantly, this principle is modified here. As the offences are Commonwealth child abuse material offences, there is a presumption of full-time imprisonment unless “exceptional circumstances” are found.

Sentencing for State offences

10. The Court must have regard to the purposes of sentencing as set out in s 3A of the Crimes (Sentencing and Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) (“Sentencing and Procedure Act”) as well as the applicable aggravating and mitigating factors provided in ss 21A(2) and (3).

11. Like s 17A of the Crimes Act (Cth), s 5 of the Sentencing and Procedure Act provides that the Court must not sentence an Offender to imprisonment unless satisfied that no penalty other than imprisonment is appropriate.

Maximum penalty

12. The maximum penalties provide a yardstick for the appropriate sentence but must be balanced against all other factors.

Sentencing principles relevant to child abuse material offences

13. The applicable principles and factors in sentencing for offending involving child abuse material are uncontroversial, well-established, and do not need to be repeated. They were summarised by Johnson J in R v De Leeuw [2015] NSWCCA 183 and repeated by Morrison JA in CDPP v CCQ [2021] QCA at [7]-[9].

14. General deterrence is a significant consideration for offending involving child abuse material and the online sexual exploitation of children, given the prevalence and ready availability of pornography involving children on the internet, and the need to protect children from sexual abuse.

15. Specific deterrence, denunciation, punishment, and protection of the community are also very important considerations. The question of likelihood of re-offending is clearly central to consideration of protection of the community from ongoing offending by a particular Offender.

16. Conduct such as the possession, transmission, or accessing of child abuse material creates a market for the continued corruption, exploitation, and abuse of children.

17. There is a paramount and fundamental public interest in the protection of children. Possession of child exploitation material is not some sort of victimless crime. Real children are involved. Children continue to be sexually abused and degraded to supply the market of people interested, for whatever reason, in viewing such material.

18. Such offending is not mitigated by the fact that an Offender did not profit from the offending, did not pay for material, or was not involved in the distribution or sale of the child abuse material.

19. The nature of the internet and the evolution of remote storage devices using internet networks, means that images may be published and stored around the world for many years, only adding to the abuse of the children involved.

Sentencing principles relevant to bestiality offences

20. In Chesworth v R [2023] NSWCCA 115 at [22] (“Chesworth”), the Court of Appeal considered, among other charges, a charge of bestiality contrary to s 79 of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) (“Crimes Act (NSW)”). Rothman J in discussing the offence remarked of the criteria for assessing the objective seriousness that "offences against animals, as distinct from humans, involve slightly different criteria”. Bestiality is difficult to compare, in terms of seriousness and the factors associated with its objective seriousness, with offences against human beings. His Honour further said that “general deterrence looms large as does condemnation of the conduct". It was further observed in Chesworth that given the rarity of the offence, there is no "range" evident for bestiality cases.

The nature and circumstances of the offending (s 16A(2)(a))

The facts

21. There is an Agreed Statement of Facts relevant to both the State and Commonwealth offences. The facts were changed by agreement during the course of the hearing before me so as to substantially lessen the quantity of material involved.

22. The material, the subject of these charges involving children, is unequivocally appalling and abhorrent. It involves very young boys and girls engaged in disgusting acts which self-evidently caused them, not only humiliation, but in many cases considerable pain. I hesitate to describe it in these reasons at all but consider it necessary to understand my reasoning.

23. I will do no more than set out but a selection of the descriptions of some of the videos:

1. Video of a pre-pubescent baby approx. 3-9 months old laying naked wearing a nappy on a pillow and an adult male with his erect penis in his hands. The adult then forces his erect penis into the mouth of the baby. Video cuts to another baby approx. 3-9 months old naked with an erect adult penis between their legs on the babies stomach. The adult male is seen stroking his erect penis on the stomach of the baby until he ejaculates a white substance from his erect penis onto the baby. The video then cuts to another baby approx. 3-9 months old seen laying on their back naked and crying with the adult male holding his erect penis and forcing it into the mouth of the baby. The video then cuts to another video of a naked baby laying on their stomach approx. 2-6 months old. A hand appears and begins to digitally penetrate the baby’s anus. The adult male then places his erect adult penis into the anus of the baby and begins to have anal sexual intercourse with the baby.

2. Video of a pre-pubescent boy approx. 6-8 years old, naked from the waist down, laying on his back with his legs pushed up and an erect male penis penetrating his anus.

3. Video of a pre-pubescent boy approx. 4-6 years old, naked from the waist down laying on top of an adult male who is anally penetrating the minor from behind. The adult is lifting the minor's legs into the air by holding his legs up.

24. I consider the objective seriousness of the conduct depicted to be extremely high. The material is beyond degrading. A lot of it must have been extremely painful and humiliating to real children. That humiliation is compounded by the material being disseminated across the internet.

25. As to quantity, the amount of material is relatively small. The Revised Agreed Facts can be summarised as follows:

1. There were 54 videos categorised as child abuse material on the Galaxy Note 9 device. Of the 54 videos, there were 15 files that were duplicates of other files on the same device. In total, this phone contained 39 unique videos.

2. The Galaxy 23 Ultra device contained a total of 108 files categorised as child abuse material, being 99 videos and 9 pictures. Of the 99 videos, at least 14 were identical to videos found on the Note 9. The Galaxy 23 therefore contained 85 videos that were not on the Note 9.

3. The number of bestiality files on the Galaxy Note 9 was 9 videos and 2 images.

4. In total, there were 39 videos on the Note 9 and 108 files on the 23 Ultra, being a total 147 files for the possession charge. Of this 147 total, 133 files were unique.

5. In total, there were 33 bestiality files across both devices.

26. As to the bestiality offence, again, the material is confronting. Two examples are:

1. A video which shows an adult male, sexually penetrating with an erect penis, what appears to be the anal area of a white canine.

2. A video which shows an adult male, sexually penetrating, with an erect penis, a horse.

27. The offending did not involve any kind of sophistication or concealment, particularly given the Offender sent a picture of himself to another ‘Zalo’ user. The Offender did not store the files in an organised or encrypted manner, and he self-declared the material that he was in possession of upon arrival at the airport.

28. The Offender's actions were not proximate to those responsible for bringing the material into existence. Nor was the offending undertaken for financial advantage or commercial distribution.

The Commonwealth offences

Adequate punishment (s 16A(2)(k))

29. Section 16A(2)(k) of the Crimes Act (Cth) emphasises the obligation of the Court to "ensure the person is adequately punished for the offence". The Court must have regard to the maximum penalties applicable and determine the extent to which the Offender's conduct offends against the legislative object of suppressing the online transmission and possession of child abuse material.

30. As I have said, general deterrence is of particular significance when sentencing for offences involving child abuse material, given the difficulty of their detection and the substantial public interest in promoting the protection of children in the online environment.

31. The sentence to be imposed on the Offender must make clear to other like-minded people within the community that offences of this type are considered abhorrent, reprehensible, and totally unacceptable by right thinking members of the community and that offenders will be met with punishment reflective of the broader community's attitude, as expressed by Parliament in the maximum penalties, towards activities involving the online sexual exploitation of children.

32. There is also a need for specific deterrence. Regardless of whether the Offender's conduct discloses that he has a sexual interest in infant children, the fact is, whatever his reasons, he viewed and disseminated the material over a period of time involving the use of more than one device.

Objective seriousness of child abuse offences

33. As to objective seriousness of the child abuse offences, the nature of the material is appalling and very much towards the high-end of this sort of material. On the other hand, the quantity is low relative to these types of offences. There is a lack of sophistication, bordering on naivety, involved. On balance, taking into account the various matters identified in the cases I have referred to at [10], I consider the objective seriousness to be below the mid-level for these type of offences. This finding is not intended to minimise the disgusting content I have described. My assessment is relative to other offending of this kind.

Objective seriousness of bestiality offences

34. As to the bestiality offences, I consider the material to be around the middle of some sort of notional range of objective seriousness. However, the quantity is low. Overall, I regard the offending as less serious than most of this type, mainly because of the small quantity.

Character, antecedents, age, means, and physical and mental condition (s 16A(2)(m))

35. The Offender is 58 years old and was 56 years old at the time of the offending. He has no prior convictions and is someone of prior good character.

36. The report of psychologist Amanda Georges records, and I accept that:

1. The Offender migrated to Australia in 2007 at the age of 40 and was granted permanent residency in 2009.

2. He met his wife in 2018, when her two children were aged 11 and 15, and the couple married in 2021.

3. He has maintained consistent employment since coming to Australia and has worked for over 10 years at an LED production factory in Mascot.

4. He is a diligent and hard-working employee who “places high value on being seen as reliable” and “is committed to his long-term employment”. Ms Georges opines that, “His self-perception as a hard-working, independent individual appears to be an important aspect of his identity”.

5. He suffers ongoing physical health issues including osteoarthritis and high cholesterol. Ms Georges reports that, “despite these chronic medical issues, Mr Huynh remains committed to continuing work” and he “emphasised his desire to avoid being a burden on the government.”

Guilty plea (s 16A(2)(g))

37. The Offender entered guilty pleas at the Downing Centre Local Court on 3 December 2024.

38. As the Crown accepts in its written submissions, the Offender is entitled to a 25% discount for his guilty plea on the State offence. I can see no reason not to apply that same discount for the Commonwealth offences and will do so.

Contrition (s 16A(2)(f))

39. The Offender’s plea is some indication of his genuine contrition, acceptance of responsibility, and willingness to facilitate the course of justice. So is his self-reporting of the material at the airport.

40. Ms Georges reports that:

“Mr Huynh repeatedly emphasised remorse and regret, stating, “because of what happened and realising it was something wrong to do, I will never do it again.…”

He repeatedly expressed remorse. Concluding with the phrase, “I swear I won’t do it again.”

41. Ms Georges also said in summary:

“During the assessment, Mr Huynh disclosed his involvement in viewing child abuse pornography, which occurred over time through an online group. He acknowledged some curiosity about the material, including an episode where he explored same-sex activity with a friend in the past, noting that he tried it out of intrigue…”

42. However, Ms Georges does also say that the Offender:

“provided a vague and minimised account of the incidents that led to his current charges.”

43. The Offender’s description of the material as “something he didn’t pay that much attention to” and “only encountered every now and then” is consistent with Ms Georges opinion that it is not clear “whether Mr Huynh’s behaviour is driven by curiosity, a more persistent pattern of sexual interest, or other psychological factors…”

44. Ms Georges concludes that there is insufficient evidence to support a diagnosis of a paraphilic disorder. There is some indication that the offending may have been motivated by “impulse control issues” and general unresolved “sexual curiosity”. Whatever his motivation, he clearly had an interest in looking at and transmitting this material.

45. Returning to the question of remorse and contrition, Ms Georges, in what is a very balanced report, concludes:

“he repeatedly expressed remorse, concluding with the phrase “I swear I won't do it again". However, his limited insight, minimisation of responsibility, and inconsistent explanations suggest he would benefit from therapeutic support focused on developing insight, accountability, and healthier coping strategies.”

46. This conclusion is hardly the basis for any finding that the Offender, albeit being remorseful at having been apprehended and brought before the Court, is remorseful in the relevant sense. He appears not to have any real understanding as to why his misconduct is considered by society to be serious criminal conduct and thus, absent that insight and also absent any real insight as to why he did what he did, I do not regard the Offender’s expressions of remorse to reflect any real understanding as to why what he did was wrong.

47. I have taken into account his self-reporting at the airport , which ordinarily would be objective support for remorse. However, I think all it demonstrates is that he knew what he was doing was wrong. On balance, I am not satisfied the Offender has, to date, demonstrated any significant relevant remorse and insight.

Prospects of rehabilitation (s 16A(2)(n))

48. Ms Georges has suggested that the Offender would benefit from therapy, focused on developing insight, accountability, and healthier coping strategies.

49. I think, with such therapy, there is some reasonable prospect of him being rehabilitated. This is important for the critical question as to his prospects of reoffending.

Prospects of reoffending

50. I have no doubt, regardless of his current inability to understand why what he did is considered a serious crime, the very fact of being apprehended, charged, and brought before the Court has had a salutary effect on the Offender and that his promises to “not do it again" are honest and likely to be proven accurate. In other words, I think the role of specific deterrence in the criminal justice process has run its course with this Offender and that his prospects of reoffending are low.

The probable effect on family (s 16 A(2)(p))

51. Section 16A(2)(p) requires the Court to take into account the probable effect of a sentence on an Offender’s family or dependants. The hardship contemplated by the provision need not be exceptional.

52. The Offender is married and has been employed at a factory in Mascot for over 10 years. Any sentence of full-time custody will cause hardship to his family by virtue of his absence from the family home and the loss of his steady income. I have taken that into account.

The State offences of bestiality

53. In a sense, when considering bestiality crimes, it might be thought that the animal is the “victim”. However, I think this is artificial. Animals have an inability to consent to such activities and, as is explained in the cases, it is therefore difficult, and again artificial, to compare such offences with child pornography type offences.

54. As is clear from the maximum penalty prescribed by Parliament, this offending is considered serious. Such conduct is an affront to a civilised society and must be condemned. As such, general deterrence looms large in the exercise.

55. As I have said, whilst there are not many images, they are images of abhorrent, disgusting, and wholly unacceptable acts and I have already determined that the level of seriousness, in my judgement, falls somewhere at least in the mid-range.

Resolution

56. There is no doubt in my mind that for the Commonwealth offences, looked at individually or together, the threshold created by s 17A of the Crimes Act (Cth) has been satisfied. For the State offence, I consider a non-custodial penalty to be appropriate in light of the small amount of images.

Commonwealth offences

57. On behalf of the Offender, Mr Morrissey of counsel, in carefully considered and extremely well-presented submissions, accepts that the s 17A threshold has been satisfied, and there is a presumption of a term of full-time imprisonment being imposed. His submission is that I should find the circumstances of this offending and this Offender to be "exceptional" and order that the entirety of any prison term that I impose be served in the community pursuant to a Recognizance Release Order.

58. The circumstances relied upon are:

1. The offending was detected in an unusual way, namely, the Offender self-declared that he was in possession of prohibited goods.

2. The Offender’s otherwise good character.

3. The Offender’s excellent work history, the capacity to support himself in the community, and strong family connections.

4. The objective seriousness of the offending is relatively lower, being unsophisticated conduct which involved a relatively small number of files (of which some files are likely duplicates).

5. Psychologist Amanda Georges’ opinion that there is insufficient evidence to support a diagnosis of a paraphilic disorder. There is some indication that the offending may have been motivated by a lack of impulse control and general sexual curiosity.

6. The Offender entered an early plea of guilty, indicating acceptance of responsibility and remorse.

7. The Offender has spent a day in custody before being released on bail and has been subject to strict bail conditions for a period of 18-months.

59. Mr Morrissey accepts that none of the above factors on their own could be described as exceptional. However, he submits, taken together, they amount collectively to an exceptional case. In short, he relies on the total amount of files being below 200, the offending being “self-declared," the Offender’s identity being strongly tied to his work and ability to work, and that, in the community, it is more likely that he would obtain whatever treatment he requires.

60. I have carefully considered Mr Morrissey’s submissions but, unfortunately, by reference to a number of cases that were put before me by both the Crown and the Offender as comparable (see: Curle v R [2024] NSWCCA 117; Phibbs v R [2023] VSCA 123; Huggett v R [2021] NSWCCA 62; Doig v R [2023] NSWCCA 76), together with two recent cases where I sentenced the Offenders (R v Meza Isla [2024] NSWDC 526; R v Rebbeck [2025] NSWDC 268), I am sorry to say that the various matters relied upon are far from exceptional and, leaving aside the “self-reporting," are almost commonplace in this type of offending.

61. As to the “self-reporting”, the Offender honestly filled in the declaration form upon arrival at Sydney Airport which is something he was required to do by law. True it is that many, perhaps most, people bringing into the country such material would falsely declare, I do not think that fact on its own brings the case into anything like exceptional circumstances. In any event, balanced against that is my finding as to a lack of real remorse and insight. In many similar cases, the offender does demonstrate real remorse.

62. Self-reporting is usually regarded as “a matter of significance entitling a degree of leniency” – R v Ellis (1986) 6 NSWLR 603 at 604. How significant that discount ought be depends on all the facts and circumstances of any particular case – Ryan v The Queen (2001) 206 CLR 267 per McHugh J at [15] and R v GLB [2003] NSWCCA 210 at [33].

63. Whilst the circumstances of the disclosure cannot strictly be described as voluntary because the Offender was under a separate compulsion of law to disclose, I do think he is entitled to some leniency because of this self-disclosure, and I have factored that into my overall assessment. However, I do not think it, on its own or in combination with the other matters relied on, amounts to exceptional circumstances for the purpose of rebutting the presumption in favour of a period of full-time imprisonment.

64. I do not consider that the various circumstances identified by Mr Morrissey amount to exceptional circumstances. Accordingly, the Offender must serve a period of his sentence in full-time custody.

65. That being said, I accept that a longer period than usual of his sentence ought be served under supervision, pursuant to a Recognizance Release Order.

Totality and presumption of accumulation

66. While s 19(5) of the Crimes Act (Cth) creates a presumption against cumulative or concurrent sentences in respect of the two Commonwealth offences, s 19(6) provides that the presumption does not apply if the court is satisfied that imposing the sentence in a different manner would still result in sentences that are of the severity appropriate in the circumstances, provided it gives reasons for doing so. I am so satisfied.

67. There is here a significant overlap between Sequences 2 and 3 because the transmission offending involved the sharing of child abuse material that was necessarily in his possession. Further, the Offender only shared a fraction of the material he possessed. There is also some overlap between the material, the subject of the two offences.

68. For these reasons, I consider that there should be a significant, although not total, amount of accumulation between the sentences for the Commonwealth offences. I have decided to impose an aggregate sentence, for the Commonwealth offences, after applying the 25% discount, of three years.

69. My indicative sentences for each Count, after applying a 25% discount for the early guilty pleas, are:

1. Sequence 3 – 2.5 years’ imprisonment.

2. Sequence 2 – 2.5 years’ imprisonment.

70. After serving a period of 12 months in full-time custody, I propose that the Offender be released on a Recognizance Release Order on conditions I will shortly identify.

71. The sentence of imprisonment will be backdated so as to take into account the one day already spent in custody.

The State offence

72. On its own, I consider the State offence, whilst serious, does not warrant a period of full-time custody and propose to deal with it by recording a conviction, but otherwise imposing no penalty, pursuant to s 10A of the Sentencing and Procedure Act.

Orders

73. For these reasons, my orders are:

1. After deduction of 25% for the early guilty pleas, I sentence the Offender to an aggregate term for Sequences 2, and 3 of three (3) years imprisonment to commence on 31 July 2025 and expire 30 July 2028.

2. After serving twelve (12) months in custody, on 30 July 2026, pursuant to s 20(1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), the Offender is to be released on a Recognizance Release Order, himself in the sum of $100, for a period of sixteen (16) months, to expire on 29 November 2027, on the following conditions:

1. To be of good behaviour.

2. To report to the nearest City Community Corrections office within 7 days of 1 August 2026.

3. To be subject to the supervision of a probation officer.

4. To obey all reasonable directions of the probation officer.

5. To submit to any treatment plan as directed by his probation officer.

6. To not travel interstate or overseas without the written permission of the probation officer.

3. For Sequence 9, pursuant to s 10A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), convict the Offender without imposing any other penalty.

4. Pursuant to section 23ZD of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) and upon the application of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Commonwealth) the following items are forfeited to the Commonwealth:

1. 1 x Samsung Galaxy Note 9 (IMEl: 35024793008100835148)

2. 1 x Samsung Galaxy 23 Ultra (IMEl: 359441098587515)

**********

Amendments

01 August 2025 - Amended date of orders and decision.

Decision last updated: 01 August 2025