R v Jeffrey Ian Sereno

CITATION:	R v Jeffrey Ian SERENO [2006] NSWDC 101
HEARING DATE(S):	27/10/2006
JUDGMENT DATE:	27 October 2006
EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE:	10/27/2006
JUDGMENT OF:	Berman SC DCJ
DECISION:	Bail refused
CATCHWORDS:	Bail Application
LEGISLATION CITED:	Crimes Act 1900
CASES CITED:	R v MM [2004] NSWCCA 364
PARTIES:	DPP Jeffrey Ian Sereno
FILE NUMBER(S):	06/11/0588
COUNSEL:	Giles Tabuteau - Crown Robert Sutherland SC - Offender
SOLICITORS:	DPP Mark Stenberg & Associates

JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: Last Friday there was an application before the court to vacate a trial date, that application being made by the Crown. The circumstances of that application were that although Mr Sereno’s trial for having sexually assaulted a number of young girls was due to start the following Monday, only very recently had police come into possession of information which suggested that he, that is the accused, was in possession of child pornography.

2 I vacated the trial date, and the matter was eventually listed today, in order for two things to happen, firstly, to set a new trial date, and secondly, to deal with a bail application, which Mr Sutherland who appears for Mr Sereno indicated would be made. The bail application was made this morning. I heard evidence from the officer in charge of police, and received an affidavit from her as to the state of investigation into the child pornography images.

3 The evidence establishes that although it is at a very early stage of those investigations, there was found on a laptop computer belonging to the accused a large number of images of child pornography. Also found on the computer were indications that certain files had been deleted. The file names could be viewed but the contents of the files at this stage cannot be. One of the file names refers to the Christian names of the three complainants, together with their ages.

4 Also in the trash file, and with the same file extension are file names which clearly indicate child pornography. For example, in some of the file names the word “childlover” appears, and the word “underage” appears in one file. And other suggestions in those file names of child pornography are clearly to be seen.

5 The information about the possible possession by the accused of child pornography was given to police by his former girlfriend. At one stage she confronted him about what she had seen, and the accused admitted that he had viewed the images. He said:

“I was curious with the female form, I would never hurt anyone, no one in the photos is being forced they are doing it themselves”.

6 I refer to those matters because one of the most important issues in determining whether the accused will appear for his trial when it is eventually held is the strength of the Crown case against him and the likely penalty. He has been charged with an offence which carries with it a maximum penalty of 25 years imprisonment, and perhaps more relevantly to this application,…