R v Ohmer

The appeal concerned a sentence imposed on the appellant, who had pleaded guilty to aggravated production and aggravated possession of child pornography. The offences involved filming male children in change rooms at a swimming centre and the possession of approximately 200,000 images of child pornography on seven CDs. The appellant also resisted police. He was sentenced to four years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 18 months, and the sentencing judge declined to suspend the sentence. The appeal was heard by Kelly J, Doyle CJ, and White J.

The central legal issues before the appellate court were whether the sentencing judge had given proper weight to the medical and psychiatric reports concerning the appellant, whether the judge erred in declining to suspend the sentence, and whether the non-parole period was manifestly excessive. The appellant also raised the fact that he was the carer for his father, who suffered from ill health, as a factor that should have been given greater consideration.

The appellate court dismissed the appeal, finding that the offences of possession and production of child pornography are particularly serious. While acknowledging the appellant had no prior convictions, the court noted his longstanding interest in child pornography. The judges were satisfied that the sentencing judge had taken into account the circumstances of the appellant's father and had not erred in concluding that these circumstances should not be the dominant sentencing factor, as they were not exceptional. The court found that the sentencing judge had given full weight to the relevant reports and had not erred in failing to suspend the term of imprisonment. Consequently, the non-parole period was deemed not to be manifestly excessive.