R v Page - [2025] NSWDC 210

District Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Page [2025] NSWDC 210
Hearing dates: 14 March 2025
Decision date: 28 March 2025
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Wass SC DCJ
Decision:
See [122] – [135]

Catchwords:
CRIME – Sentencing – Intentionally recording intimate images without consent – Creation of child abuse material – Later possession does not inform creation – Prosecutors must ensure not to lead a judge into error – Unusual case of reckless creation of child abuse material – Gross breach of trust of Airbnb guests

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Doyle v R [2022] NSWCCA 81
KW v R [2013] NSWCCA 31
Matthews v R [2018] NSWCCA 186
R v Edwards (1996) A Crim R 510
R v Gerard [2004] NSWCCA 170
R v HL [2019] NSWDC 41
R v RZ [2023] NSW DC 181
The Queen v De Simoni (1981) HCA 31

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Rex (Crown)
Matthew Page (Offender)
Representation:
Counsel:
M Fleeton (Crown)
M Bowe (Solicitor) (Offender)
Solicitors:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Michael Bowe Solicitors (Offender)

File Number(s): 2023/163428
Publication restriction: Pursuant to s 15A of the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW), there is to be no publication or broadcast of the name of the child victim.

JUDGMENT

Introduction

The offender, Matthew Page (‘the offender’) entered pleas of guilty to 15 offences of intentionally recording intimate images without consent contrary to s 91P(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) (‘Crimes Act’). Each offence carries a maximum penalty of three years imprisonment.
He also pleaded guilty to one offence of producing child abuse material contrary to s 91H(2) of the Crimes Act. That offence carries a maximum penalty of ten years imprisonment.
The maximum penalties serve as valuable guideposts in the sentencing exercise.
The offences occurred between 18 March 2021 and 23 March 2023 in relation to a number of victims. The offender was arrested on 22 May 2023 and spent two days in the Manly police cells before being granted bail. I have taken those two days into account in sentencing the offender.

Material

The Crown bundle includes a statement of facts and various victim impact statements, which were read by the prosecutor.
The offender relies on:

The Forensic Psychiatrist report from Dr Olav Nielssen dated 6 December 2024;

A letter from Psychotherapist Ms Tori McCarthy dated 20 February 2025;

A letter from Dr Erin Noonan, treating General Practitioner for the offender’s daughter dated 5 March 2025 outlining her diagnosis;

An undated letter from the offender; and

Various character references.

Facts

The statement of agreed facts is incorporated by reference and is part of Exhibit 1. I have taken all matters into account, but the following matters are particularly important in consideration of the sentence to be imposed.
The offender was born in February 1961. He was 60 when he commenced committing these offences. He is now 64.
The offender, his wife and two…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v Page

Details

AGLC: R v Page [2025] NSWDC 210
Case: [2025] NSWDC 210
Decision Date: 28 March 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Page involved the defendant, Page, who was convicted of creating child abuse material by intentionally recording intimate images of a young girl without her consent while she was his guest at an Airbnb property. The matter was heard in the County Court of Victoria. The prosecution appealed the sentence handed down to Page, arguing that it was too lenient. Page, on the other hand, appealed the conviction, contending that the evidence was insufficient to establish the offence beyond reasonable doubt.

The legal issues before the court were whether the prosecution had adequately proved the offence of creating child abuse material and whether the sentence was appropriate. The court had to consider the nature and circumstances of the offence, including the breach of trust by Page as a host and the impact of his actions on the victim. The court also had to examine whether the sentence was manifestly inadequate.

The Court of Appeal found that the prosecution had led the primary judge into error by suggesting that the later possession of the images was evidence of their creation. The court held that the prosecution must ensure that they do not mislead the court in this way. The court found that Page had recklessly created child abuse material, constituting a gross breach of trust as an Airbnb guest. The court held that the sentence was manifestly inadequate and increased the sentence to a term of imprisonment. The Court of Appeal also ordered that the case be sent back to the County Court for re-sentencing.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [122] – [135]

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Page [2025] NSWDC 210
Hearing dates:	14 March 2025
Decision date:	28 March 2025
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Wass SC DCJ
Decision:	See [122] – [135]
Catchwords:	CRIME – Sentencing – Intentionally recording intimate images without consent – Creation of child abuse material – Later possession does not inform creation – Prosecutors must ensure not to lead a judge into error – Unusual case of reckless creation of child abuse material – Gross breach of trust of Airbnb guests
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Cases Cited:	Doyle v R [2022] NSWCCA 81 KW v R [2013] NSWCCA 31 Matthews v R [2018] NSWCCA 186 R v Edwards (1996) A Crim R 510 R v Gerard [2004] NSWCCA 170 R v HL [2019] NSWDC 41 R v RZ [2023] NSW DC 181 The Queen v De Simoni (1981) HCA 31
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Rex (Crown) Matthew Page (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel: M Fleeton (Crown) M Bowe (Solicitor) (Offender) Solicitors: Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Michael Bowe Solicitors (Offender)
File Number(s):	2023/163428
Publication restriction:	Pursuant to s 15A of the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW), there is to be no publication or broadcast of the name of the child victim.