R v Rousell

[2025] NSWDC 420

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

R v Rousell [2025] NSWDC 420

Hearing dates:

15 August 2025 and 12 September 2025; further written submissions received in writing on 19 September 2025 (from prosecution) and 24 September 2025 (from defence)

Date of orders:

17 October 2025

Decision date:

17 October 2025

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Before:

Montgomery DCJ

Decision:

For Sequence 3 - a maximum term of 2 years and 6 months' imprisonment.

For Sequence 2 - a sentence of 1 year and 2 months’ imprisonment, to be released on recognizance in the sum of $1,000 after a period of 8 months.

Catchwords:

CRIME – sentencing – child abuse material – possession in contravention of s 474.22A(1) of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) – production in contravention of s 91H(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) – where sentencing under both Federal and State legislation – where Offender was initially dishonest about motivation for offending

Legislation Cited:

Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Act 2000 (NSW)

Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)

Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)

Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth)

Cases Cited:

Paterson v R [2021] NSWCCA 273

R v Bredal [2024] NSWCCA 75

R v Hutchinson [2018] NSWCCA 152

Small v R [2020] NSWCCA 216

Tepania v R [2018] NSWCCA 247

Texts Cited:

N/A

Category:

Sentence

Parties:

Rex (Crown)
Ronald William Rousell (Offender)

Representation:

Prosecution: Ms R. McMahon (counsel)
Defence: Ms L. Jardim (counsel)

File Number(s):

2024/33400

Publication restriction:

N/A

JUDGMENT

1. The Offender was born on 11 May 1958. He is now 67 years of age. He has no antecedent criminal record. The offences he is to be sentenced for are:

• SEQUENCE 2 - that he, between about 23 June 2020 and about 27 January 2024, at Mascot in the State of New South Wales and elsewhere, possessed or controlled child abuse material, in the form of data held in a computer or contained in a data storage device, in circumstances where he used a carriage service to obtain or access the material, an offence against s 474.22A(1) of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) (“the Criminal Code”) – maximum penalty of 15 years’ imprisonment and/or a fine of $189,000; and

• SEQUENCE 3 – that he, between about 16 March 2018 and about 26 May 2018, at Baulkham Hills in the State of New South Wales, produced Child Abuse Material (“CAM”), an offence against s 91H(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) – maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment.

2. There are no offences on a schedule to a form for the purposes of s 16BA of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) (“Cth CA”).

3. There are no Form 1 offences for the purposes of s 33 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) (”CSP Act”) to be taken into account.

4. The Offender was arrested on 27 January 2024 when the CAM was detected by authorities at Sydney International Airport on his Apple iPhone. He was returning from the Republic of the Philippines. He has remained in custody, and the parties properly agree that his time in custody is to be taken into account by backdating his sentence to commence 27 January 2024.

5. When requested to do so, the Offender provided the PIN to his devices and, after caution, participated in a Police interview. The parties agree he is entitled to some discount on account of that assistance. In my assessment, the CAM was detectable by inspection and analysis of his devices and, as such, I agree with the Crown submission that his assistance was relatively minor. A discount of 2.5% will be applied to each Count on account of his assistance: s 16A(2)(h) of the Cth CA; s 23 of the CSP Act.

6. The Offender entered pleas of guilty at the earliest available opportunity. The parties mutually submit that he is entitled to a 25% discount on sentence in relation to the Sequence 3 offending pursuant to s 25D of the CSP Act. In relation to the Sequence 2 offending, while the Cth CA does not prescribe a discount for early pleas of guilty, the parties mutually submit that the Offender’s early plea entitles him to a discount on sentence for the Sequence 2 offending of 25% on account of his early contrition and the utilitarian value of his plea: s 16A(2)(g)(iii) of the Cth CA. I agree with that position, while accepting as correct the Crown submission that the early plea of guilty occurred in the face of a strong Crown case.

7. The Offender’s devices have been seized, and an order has been made for their destruction.

AGREED FACTS

8. On 27 January 2024, the Offender, an Australian citizen, arrived at Sydney International Airport after spending one month in the Republic of the Philippines. Australian Border Force officers, exercising their powers to examine the Offender’s baggage and personal belongings, found on the Offender’s mobile phone quantities of CAM which the Offender had obtained or accessed using a carriage service.

9. While it is not easily understood from the Agreed Facts in Exhibit A, the CAM which is the subject of Sequence 2 is that listed in the Schedule to paragraph [13] of the Agreed facts: MFI 1; Exhibit A (addendum) – Agreed Facts dated 19 September 2025; Further Written Submissions of the Crown dated 19 September 2025; Further Written Submissions of the Offender dated 24 September 2025.

10. One of the Sequence 2 CAM images is a screenshot from one of the videos that make up the offending in Sequence 3. On 27 December 2023, the Offender uploaded that image produced by himself during the Sequence 3 offending over 2 years earlier. That screenshot depicted the Offender’s stepdaughter when she was about 14 to 15 years of age.

11. The Offender’s stepdaughter is now aged in her early 20s (precise age not given in order to protect anonymity of the victim). She is not known by the last name Rousell.

12. Sequence 2 relates to CAM placed or stored on the Offender’s device between about 23 June 2020 and about 27 January 2024. The different nature of the event - producing CAM - in Sequence 3, and the different period of offending in Sequence 3, being 16 March 2018 to 26 May 2018, explains why there is a separate Schedule of the CAM for each offence in the Agreed Facts.

SEQUENCE 2 – POSSESS CHILD ABUSE MATERIAL – COMMONWEALTH OFFENCE

13. The below table provided by the parties in their amended Agreed Facts sets out the material that is the subject of the Sequence 2 offending. The fourth item is the only image in Sequence 2 depicting the Offender’s stepdaughter.

FILE PATH	FILE NAME	FILE TYPE	DESCRIPTION	CREATION DATE
Vault	23447	Video	A 44 second video of a pre-pubescent female child, between about 6 and 12 years old, being orally penetrated by an adult’s erect penis.	No metadata
Photo Library > Video	1000031612	Video	A 41 second video of a pre-pubescent female child, between about 10 to 12 years old, lying naked next to a naked adult female. The child is exposing her chest and rubbing her vagina with her fingers. The adult female is touching and rubbing the child’s breasts and vagina.	12 March 2020
Photo Library > Video	1000031901	Video	A 2 minute and 20 second video of a pre-pubescent female child, between about 14 to 16 years old, showing her vagina and engaging in digital penetration on herself.	12 March 2020
Google Drive > Photos	IMG_7523.GIF	Gif	A still image of a naked 14 to 15-year-old female child standing in the entry to the shower. The child’s genital region is visible. The child is the Offender’s stepdaughter.	27 December 2023
fsfull. zip/private/var/ mobile/Contain ers/Data/Application/ 4572B343-2CA0-4196 -AA59-895D890185EB /Library/PPV_Pics/62C 16DDC-ACD2-4219-BD 1B-440B93050132.mov/ 62C16DDCACD2-4219-B D1B-440B93050132.mov. decrypted	62C16DDC-A CD2-4219-B D1B-440B930 50132.mov.dec rypted [Duplicate of 23447]	Video	A 44 second video of a pre-pubescent female child, aged between 6 and 12 years old, being orally penetrated by an adult male’s erect penis.	No metadata
fsfull. zip/private/var/mobile/ Library/MigrationKit/video/ 1/1000030516.mp4	100030516.mp4 [Duplicate of 1000031612]	Video	A 41 second video of a pre-pubescent female child, between about 10 to 12 years old, lying naked next to a naked adult female. The child is exposing her chest and rubbing her vagina with her fingers. The adult female is touching and rubbing the child’s breasts and vagina.	25 November 2023

14. Of the 6 files in the above Schedule, 2 are duplicates.

SEQUENCE 3 – PRODUCE CHILD ABUSE MATERIAL – STATE OFFENCE

15. During his interview with Police, the Offender admitted having installed and utilised a spy camera in the bathroom of his home in which his 14 to 15 year old stepdaughter was living.

16. The Offender admitted having captured video and image files of his stepdaughter naked in the bathroom when she showered or bathed. Cellebrite data indicated these videos were created over a period of about 2 ½ months from March to May 2018.

17. The below Schedule extracted from the Agreed Facts sets out the CAM that is the subject of the Sequence 3 offending.

FILE PATH	FILE NAME	FILE TYPE	DESCRIPTION	CREATION DATE
fsfull. zip/private/var/mobile/ Library/Photos/Libraries/ Syndication.photoslibrary /scopes/syndication/origi nals/2/2EF0E682-A4D0-4 6E1-A199-955DE3C8E501 .avi	2EF0E682-A4D0 -46EI-A199-955 DE3C8E501.avi	Video	A 2 minute and 26 second video of the victim entering the bathroom, removing her clothes, and entering the shower. The victim can be seen bathing behind the clear glass shower screen. The victim’s breasts and genital areas are visible.	16 March 2018
fsfull. zip/private/var/mobile/ Library/Photos/Libraries/ Syndication.photoslibrary /scopes/syndication/origin als/3/3CD469C0-BF71-4A A4-8F17-30B15A311039. avi	3CD469C0-BF7 1-4AA4-8F17-3 0B15A311039. aiv	Video	A 9 minute and 58 second video of the Offender entering the bathroom and setting up the camera. The victim then later enters the bathroom, gets undressed and enters the shower. The victim’s breasts and genitals are visible, but the victim is unable to be viewed once she begins bathing.	16 May 2018
fsfull. zip/private/var/mobile/ Library/Photos/Libraries/ Syndication.photoslibrary /scopes/syndication/origin als/3/3941D516-1843-4ED EA1DA-5D01F79AC907.avi	3941D516-1843 -4EDE-A1DA-5 D01F79AC907.a vi	Video	A 2 minute and 1 second video of the victim drying herself in the shower. The victim can be seen naked, with her breasts and genitals visible, behind the clear glass shower screen.	26 May 2018
fsfull. zip/private/var/mobile/ Library/Photos/Libraries/ Syndication.photoslibrary /scopes/syndication/origin als/4/47055A68-D2A3-453 B-901D1-DC25FEFF826E.av i	47055A68-D2A 3-453B-90D1-D C25FEFF826.avi	Video	A 5 minute and 58 second video of the victim entering the bathroom, brushes her teeth, removes her clothing and enters the shower. The victim’s breasts and genital areas are visible.	16 March 2018
fsfull. zip/private/var/mobile/ Library/Photos/Libraries/ Syndication.photoslibrary /scopes/syndication/origin als/9/923280B3-B857-483 6-ACF9-FFEEFDEA9206.avi	923280B3-B857 -4836-ACF9-FF EEFDEA9206.avi	Video	A 1 minute and 33 second video of the victim entering the bathroom, getting undressed and entering the shower. The victim’s breasts and genital area are visible.	16 March 2018
fsfull. zip/private/var/mobile/ Library/Photos/Libraries/ Syndication.photoslibrary /scopes/syndication/origin als/2/25461928-CC6B-440 AB7E5-41A4E80830AE.avi	25461928-CC6B -440A-B7E5-41 A4E80830AE.avi	Video	A 2 minute and 7 second video of the victim naked in the shower. The victim uses a towel to dry herself. The victim’s breasts and genital areas are visible.	26 May 2018
fsfull. zip/private/var/mobile/ Library/Photos/Libraries/ Syndication.photoslibrary /scopes/syndication/origin als/B/B10076F6-1158-4ED 2-ACC6-B3B9905BBC64.avi	B10076F6-1158 -4ED2-ACC6-B3 B9905BBC64.avi [Duplicate of the above file]	Video	A 2 minute and 7 second video of the victim naked in the shower. The victim uses a towel to dry herself. The victim’s breasts and genital areas are visible.	16 March 2018
fsfull. zip/private/var/mobile/ Library/Photos/Libraries/ Syndication.photoslibrary /scopes/syndication/origin als/C/CC696F25-8115-41A EA8E5-0AEEC1226A5E.avi	CC696F25-8115 -41AE-A8E5-0A EEC1226A5E.avi	Video	A 3 minute and 4 second video of the victim naked in the shower. The victim dries herself inside the shower. The victim’s breasts and genital areas are visible.	17 March 2018
fsfull.zip/private/var/mobil e/Library/MigrationKit/vid eo/1/1000031535.mp4	1000031525.mp 4	Video	A compilation video that contains various pornographic videos including a series of videos being identified as being filmed using a hidden camera. The compilation includes videos of the victim in the bathroom as well as unrelated adult pornography and unidentified adult women filmed in the same bathroom as the victim. Some of these videos are duplicates that are repeated numerous times throughout the compilation.	Various dates

18. Of the 9 video files in the above Schedule, 2 are duplicates.

19. During his Police interview, the Offender made the following statements and admissions:

• he had intimate images of his underage stepdaughter;

• he regretted what he had done;

• he believed he had deleted all the files of his stepdaughter;

• he used spy cameras set up by him in the bathroom that captured his stepdaughter when bathing and showering;

• “there was no sexual motivation to recording his stepdaughter in the bathroom. He just wanted to see what she, and friends of the Offender’s wife who use the bathroom, looked like naked" (see below my observation of the inconsistent information provided by the Offender to Dr Sidhu, forensic psychologist, in her 22 July 2025 report);

• his stepdaughter and her mother were not aware that the videos existed;

• he no longer has the spy camera and has not used it to record anyone else in any other location;

• he never distributed the videos to anyone; and

• "[h]e does not watch the videos for enjoyment” (see below my observation of the inconsistent information provided by the Offender to Dr Sidhu, forensic psychologist, in her 22 July 2025 report).

OBJECTIVE SERIOUSNESS

MORAL CULPABILITY - MOTIVATION

20. The distinction between objective seriousness and moral culpability is a feature of this sentencing exercise. The Offender’s motivation is material to assessment of objective seriousness. In Paterson v R [2021] NSWCCA 273 (“Paterson”), Beech-Jones CJ at CL (as his Honour then was) explained that objective seriousness of an offence and “moral culpability of the offender” are separate but related concepts. The former involves an objective assessment of the seriousness of the offending, which includes things causally related to it. The latter is concerned with the offender’s moral blameworthiness for the offence, which assessment can involve a wider consideration of a set of subjective factors, including the offender’s mental state. At [30] in Paterson, his Honour quoted with approval what was stated by Johnson J in Tepania v R [2018] NSWCCA 247 at [112]:

“In sentencing for an offence (whether or not a standard non-parole period offence), a court should make an assessment of the objective gravity of the offence applying general law principles, so that all factors which bear upon the seriousness of the offence should be taken into account (unless excluded by statute). Factors such as motive, provocation or non-exculpatory duress may be taken into account in this way. Regard may be had to factors personal to the offender that are causally connected with or materially contributed to the commission of the offences, including (if it be the case) a mental disorder or mental impairment. It was recognised at common law that motive or emotional stress which accounts for criminal conduct is always material to the consideration of an appropriate sentence: Neal v R (1982) 149 CLR 305; [1982] HCA 55 at 324 –325 (Brennan J). Motive for the commission of an offence is an important factor on sentence: Cheung v R (2001) 209 CLR 1; [2001] HCA 67 at 55 –56 [171]–[172] (Callinan J).” (underlining added for emphasis)

21. The Offender has inconsistently described his motivation for the offending across his interview with Police and his statements to Dr Sidhu. The Agreed Facts are of what the Offender told authorities. It is not agreed that what he told authorities of his motivation was truthful. I raised this topic with the parties during oral submissions. The Offender did not give evidence on oath.

22. Whereas an Agreed Fact in respect of Sequence 3 is that the Offender denied that his motive was sexual gratification to be gained from recording by spy camera a 14 to 15 year old female naked (his stepdaughter), and denied that he watched the Sequence 2 and Sequence 3 videos for enjoyment, he later told Dr Sidhu the following:

• he stored the CAM on his phone, secured in a "vault";

• the CAM was only 1 image that was sent to him inadvertently (Dr Sidhu was aware that the Agreed Facts showed multiple images were on his device);

• he used chat forums for sexual activity, and this included CAM; and

• he was sexually aroused by the material and masturbated to it.

23. Dr Sidhu concluded (at 41), "[T]he nature of both offences would indicate that [the Offender] does exhibit sexual interest in children and it is the context (sic) of this sexual deviance that his current offending occurred."

24. In relation to the Sequence 2 and Sequence 3 offending, I assess objective seriousness by taking into account the Offender’s motivation to have been his personal sexual gratification. This is because logic and human experience suggest that the Offender’s actions establish beyond reasonable doubt that his motivation for the Sequence 2 and Sequence 3 offending was to achieve personal sexual gratification, despite his statements to the contrary. Indeed, counsel for the parties orally submitted that this disclosure of his sexual gratification motivation to Dr Sidhu was evidence of his improved insight into his behaviour. In advancing such a submission, counsel for the Offender inherently conceded that there was personal sexual gratification motivation for the offending.

SEQUENCE 2

25. R v Hutchinson [2018] NSWCCA 152 provides helpful criteria at [44]-[45] for the assessment of objective seriousness for this type of offending. I observe that:

1. The victims were female children between the ages of 6 and 16 years. The victims were not of the very youngest ages for this type of offending.

2. The volume of the CAM is relatively low for offences of this type. For illustration, and comparison, the offender in Meers v R [2025] NSWCCA 27 possessed 6,328 video files and 66,236 picture files, and the Court of Criminal Appeal in that case referred to comparative cases in which the offending involved possession of thousands and even hundreds of thousands of files of CAM.

3. The depravity of the physical sexual abuse of the female children in the CAM, including oral penetration by adult male penises, sexual touching and encouraged self-digital penetration, is serious for this type of offending.

4. The depravity of the CAM is heightened by the child victims’ interactions with adult participants exposing the children to sexual interplay;

5. The Offender retained the CAM in the "vault" of his device where it stayed for a period of up to approximately 3.5 years.

6. The CAM does not display physical cruelty beyond that which is inherent in offending of this type.

7. The CAM was not disseminated or transmitted by the Offender.

8. The Offender did not make or receive payment for the CAM.

9. The Offender acted alone, save for the fact that he received images from time-to-time over WhatsApp, but he blocked anyone he received images from once they asked him for money.

10. There was no risk of the material being seen by vulnerable persons, particularly children, nor any risk that it might be acquired by persons who were susceptible to act in the manner depicted in the CAM.

26. The Offender concedes (MFI 2 at [9]) that the Sequence 2 offending is a "serious example of offending." I find that to be a submission properly made. The Crown did not make a “range” submission. The Offender's motive of a desire for sexual gratification is the usual motivation for this type of offending and does not, in my assessment, heighten the objective seriousness above that which is common for such offences.

27. The guiding principle, provided by s 16A(1) of the Cth CA, is that, when determining the sentence to be passed, the Court must impose a sentence and make orders that are of a severity appropriate in all the circumstances of the offence.

28. Section 16A(2) provides a non-exhaustive list of matters to be considered. Section 16A(3) adds that regard is to be had to the nature and severity of the conditions that may be imposed on, or may apply to, the Offender under the sentence or order in determining whether the sentence or order under ss 19B(1), 20(1) or 20AB(1) is appropriate. Common law considerations remain relevant: R v Bredal [2024] NSWCCA 75 at [36].

29. Section 474.22A(1) of the Criminal Code falls within Division 474, Subdivision D – Offences Relating to Use of Carriage Service for CAM. Courts have recognised that, for offences of this type, primacy is to be given to general deterrence and denunciation: Small v R [2020] NSWCCA 216 at [58]-[59].

30. Unlike s 44 of the CSP Act (applicable to the Sequence 3 offending), the Cth CA does not provide for the fixing of a non-parole period ratio unless special circumstances be found. There is no mandatory minimum sentence for offending against s 474.22A of the Criminal Code: s 16AAA of the Cth CA.

SEQUENCE 3

31. As was my observation in relation to the Sequence 2 possession offence, the Offender’s statement to investigative authorities in the ERISP that he was not motivated to offend for his sexual enjoyment was plainly implausible. Dr Sidhu did not accept this.

32. On the topic of motivation for the Sequence 3 offence, Dr Sidhu’s report records that the Offender told him that at the time:

“… he was feeling increasingly stressed as his stepdaughter had moved into the family home and Mr Rousell was feeling frustrated by the change in dynamic. However, he “bottled it up” and became angry. He recognised that the frustration was not an excuse for his offending, but provided context that his mental state was not positive at the time resulting in poor decision making without regard for the consequences of his behaviour.”

33. The Offender’s frustration and anger were not, in my opinion, understandably to be appeased by recording degrading sexual content of his stepdaughter and storing it on his mobile phone. That he considered those states of mind “context” for the purposes of explaining his behaviour causes me to have concern as to the extent of his proper insight into the Sequence 3 offending. It did not involve spontaneous action arising out of frustration and anger that might have placed him in a position of less-than-best personal judgment. His production of the CAM was premeditated, planned, deliberate and protracted. Indeed, his planning and action was so deliberate that he saved in the vault on his phone a video of 9 minutes and 58 seconds showing him entering the bathroom and setting up the camera before his stepdaughter entered the bathroom, undressed and entered the shower. The Offender collected and stored in the vault on his phone 9 files (2 of which were duplicates) over the protracted period of more than 2 months. The videos were of substantial length, being minutes, not just seconds. These factors indicate substantially depraved voyeurism and his awareness, at the time, of the wrongfulness of his actions.

34. Other relevant factors in the assessment of objective seriousness of the Sequence 3 offending include:

1. The Offender was motivated by his seeking of sexual gratification.

2. The victim was an adolescent female. Therefore, the offending was of less gravity than had the victim been much younger.

3. The content was of nakedness only. There was no physical sexual exploitation, cruelty or harm occasioned to the victim.

4. The material was not disseminated or transmitted and was not likely to be viewed by another person or a child or acquired by persons susceptible to act as the Offender did.

5. The production of the material was an invasion of the victim's right to security, privacy and safety in her own home.

6. The victim was a vulnerable child in her own bathroom.

7. The offending was aggravated by the Offender's abuse of his position of trust as the victim's stepfather.

8. The volume of the CAM is relatively low for offences of this type.

35. Again, I find the Offender’s sexual gratification motivation to be normal for this type of offending.

36. The Offender conceded that the Sequence 3 offending is a serious example of this type of offending. The Crown did not make a “range” submission. I consider the Offender’s concession to be properly made, particularly in view of the aggravating circumstances of his premeditation, planning and maintained conduct over a substantial period, while acting in breach of his position of trust to the victim in her own home.

PROSPECTS OF REHABILITATION

37. In oral submissions, including after I drew to the attention of counsel for the parties my above-described observation of the Offender’s inconsistent statements regarding his motivation in the ERISP and to Dr Sidhu, Crown conceded that the Offender has shown his remorse and insight for the offending to a degree, and that his admissions to Dr Sidhu show, as counsel for the Offender put it, progression of his remorse and insight, the Offender having experienced, both for the first time, imprisonment and psychological consultation. The Crown agrees that, with the opportunity of family support, recognised by the presence of the Offender’s daughter and daughter-in-law in Court during the sentencing hearing, and with ongoing psychological treatment, the Offender has reasonable prospects of rehabilitation. I accept this submission put jointly, although made separately, by counsel for the parties.

CONSIDERATION

38. A special circumstance which the Crown concedes should be considered is that the Offender has suffered significant hardship while incarcerated due to the substantial time he has been confined in his cell due to lockdowns, making his incarceration more onerous, as the Courts have recognised was the case during the period of the pandemic. The Affidavit of Ms Kim, solicitor, made 13 August 2025, annexes Justice Health Records and Ms Kim’s analysis of records of Goulburn Correctional Centre, and notes of the Offender, showing the extent of those lockdowns and also extensive lack of access to a shower. The Offender has suffered significant pain and mobility issues while incarcerated due to severe left-ankle osteoarthritis. I accept that his limited mobility also adds to his special circumstance of hardship while incarcerated.

39. The offences for which the Offender is to be sentenced are to be appreciated as not some kind of videogame-like subject matter. They involved real children. Somewhere in this world are those children. Not only did those young children suffer the experience of degrading physical exploitation during the recording of those videos, but they will also live with the humiliation and horror of the memory for the rest of their lives. Unlike in the days of paper photographs and newspapers, digital media does not turn yellow in the sun, break up and end up in the earth. The images and videos will remain forever. It is a life sentence of degradation.

40. Our community, through its Courts, recognises the long-term mental harm commonly suffered by victims of offending of this type. While CAM offending can be easy for authorities to prove due to the material being located on offenders’ personal devices, it is not readily detected due to the anonymity of persons using the internet and the privacy with which personal devices are kept. The Offender was detected only because of the conscientious efforts of Australian Border Force officers on his return from the Republic of the Philippines, at Sydney’s International airport.

41. General deterrence is a significant consideration for both the Sequence 2 and the Sequence 3 offending.

42. Specific deterrence, denunciation and that the Offender be adequately punished are significant considerations for both the Sequence 2 and Sequence 3 offending.

43. The overarching requirement is that the Court impose a sentence which is of a severity appropriate in all the circumstances of the offence while bearing in mind the paramount public interest objective of promoting the protection of children.

44. Sentence for Sequence 3 by way of Intensive Correction Order is not available: s 67(1)(b) of the CSP Act.

45. For offending of these types, the Offender’s good character, including his good standing in the community, and the warm regard in which he is held by his family, do not warrant leniency. This is particularly because the offending of possession of CAM on private devices and the discrete production of CAM on private devices are unlikely to be detected and, in the experience of the Courts, is unfortunately found to be carried out by persons otherwise known in the community and to their families as persons of good standing and character. In relation to the Sequence 3 offending, but for the Offender’s good standing within the minds of his then-wife and stepdaughter, it would be unlikely that he would have had the opportunity to film his stepdaughter in the bathroom of the home he shared with his then-wife and stepdaughter without them trusting him.

46. Counsel for the Offender put in oral submissions (T 12.25-13.10) that "the most significant aspect”, apart from the primary considerations of general deterrence, specific deterrence and recognising the harm done to victims, is to ensure that the Offender has the appropriate treatment he requires for the psychological drivers of his offending.

47. Counsel directed particular attention to Dr Sidhu’s dynamic assessment of the Offender’s risk of reoffending and that such risk is best contained, which is in the interests of the Offender’s rehabilitation and the benefit of the public, by him having the opportunity of treatment. Dr Sidhu observed that the Offender is unlikely to receive the required treatment while incarcerated because of his low Static 99R score.

48. Counsel for the Offender pressed for a lengthy recognisance in relation to the Sequence 2 offending to give him the best opportunity to reintegrate into the community. Counsel pointed to the prosocial factors in the Offender’s life which weigh in favour of his prospects of rehabilitation, including:

• the support of his family, and their willingness to assist him when he is released into the community;

• that he has taken first steps toward his recovery by accepting his guilt; and

• his admissions to Dr Sidhu showing increased insight into and remorse for his offending than was otherwise expressed to Police at the time of his interview following arrest.

49. The Offender’s counsel pointed to the fact that he is now 67 years of age, and his work-life history includes constant employment and good standing, which are considerations favouring his prospects of rehabilitation.

50. The Offender enjoyed a loving and stable family life during his youth. He has two brothers and one sister. Through the provision of both parents, the family was financially stable. He did not experience domestic violence. The family relationships were affectionate and loving. He denied being subjected to childhood sexual abuse. He was an active child who engaged in school, sports and had good connections. He achieved above-average grades compared to his peers at school, leaving in year 10 with his School Certificate. He maintained full-time work after school, the longest period of unemployment being approximately two months between jobs. He achieved supervisor level in the woodworking industry.

51. But for the significant ankle pain experienced by the Offender while he awaits ankle-replacement surgery, Dr Sidhu noted in her report on 22 July 2025 that the Offender enjoys good health. There is no history of excessive consumption of alcohol, use of illicit substances or problem gambling. Dr Sidhu concluded that the Offender did not present with symptoms of psychosis, bipolar disorder, mania or schizophrenia. He did not present as suffering depression, anxiety or panic attacks. To the extent that the Offender complained to Dr Sidhu of health issues, Dr Sidhu attributed the complaints to the "inevitable depressive impact of custody."

52. The Offender has married twice. His stepdaughter, the victim depicted in the single still image among the Sequence 2 CAM and in the videos of the Sequence 3 CAM, is the daughter of his second wife, who came to Australia from Thailand to live with him. The marriage to his second wife ended after 11 years in November 2023, in the context of these offences coming to light.

53. Dr Sidhu observed that the Offender is open to treatment and recognises the importance of addressing and changing his behaviour. Dr Sidhu observed that the Offender experiences significant shame in relation to the offences and struggles to fully explore his offending behaviours in relation to the CAM. The Offender acknowledged to Dr Sidhu that "his ex-wife and step-daughter… were harmed by his actions and distressed in the short-term, and in the long-term may struggle to trust others and experience anxiety." In relation to the Sequence 2 victims, the Offender stated to Dr Sidhu that the “… victims would likely have indescribable difficulties when they are older.”

54. In his apology letter to the Court, the Offender only specifically mentioned an apology to and concern for his ex-wife and stepdaughter. He did not mention concern for or apology to other victims of the Sequence 2 CAM other than the general statement, "With insight I now realise the impact my actions have had on everyone involved." He states that he plans to better himself following release from prison.

55. Dr Sidhu opined that the Offender’s sexual functioning requires:

“… further exploration and he would benefit from intervention with an experienced clinical or forensic psychologist.”

56. Dr Sidhu recommended the Moderate Intensity Sex Offender Program (MISOP) for his treatment needs and thought it most likely that the Offender will require offence-specific treatment programs or individualised treatment in the community with a psychologist specialising in the area. Dr Sidhu reported the Offender’s stated motivation to pursue appropriate treatment. Ultimately, Dr Sidhu reported that the Offender:

"… does not present with an offending history or broader anti-sociality, and this is his first sexual offence. There is an opportunity currently to provide effective intervention to reduce further escalation in his offending behaviour by providing offence-specific treatment, namely sex offender treatment."

57. The Offender has the continuing support of his children and daughter-in-law. A letter of support from the Offender’s past long-term employer confirms a good 25-year work history but also states that future employment cannot be offered because children work at the premises. Those factors weigh in favour of his prospects of rehabilitation, however I exercise caution in this regard because Dr Sidhu observed at [34] that:

"He maybe (sic) concealing more deviant sexual attitudes and cognitions and this distinction and better understanding of the drivers of his sexual offending will be ascertained as his shame reduces, his insight improves, and he begins to engage in offence-focused treatment."

58. A letter to the Court, signed by the Offender’s daughter and son, confirms that he will reside with his son until more permanent living arrangements can be made. This provides a degree of support for his prospects of rehabilitation.

59. This is the Offender’s first experience with incarceration, and I accept the submission of the parties that his incarceration has caused him to reflect on his offending, appreciate shame and improve his insight into his offending and the harm which it has caused the victims. That concern for the other victims is less expressed in the evidence before me than is his insight into the harm caused to his ex-wife and stepdaughter. It being his first incarceration is a special circumstance justifying some degree of discount of time to be served in full-time imprisonment, and those effects of his incarceration, including his taking first steps toward his own rehabilitation, weigh in his favour in assessment of prospects of rehabilitation.

SYNTHESIS

60. The Sequence 2 and Sequence 3 offences, considered separately, are of a seriousness requiring a sentence of severity appropriate for their objective gravity and, after consideration of the subjective considerations, which will meet the paramount public interest objective of promoting the protection of children.

61. Separate consideration of sentence in relation to each offence requires consideration of punishment, denunciation and general and specific deterrence meeting the seriousness of the offending while balancing the Offender’s reasonable prospects of rehabilitation. The expert opinion of Dr Sidhu is that the Offender’s rehabilitation and reintegration into the community will require psychological treatment not available to him in prison.

62. In my opinion, there is no appropriate alternative to full-time imprisonment for the Sequence 2 offending: s 17A of the Cth CA. Considered separately, it is my opinion that no sentence other than full-time imprisonment is appropriate for the Sequence 3 offending: s 5 of the CSP Act.

63. Essentially, the Offender presents no case of deprivation or hardship in life preceding the offending, but the respect of his family and standing in the community at his age of 67 years is valued by him and the source of his presently experienced immense shame in relation to his offending. The assessment of his below average risk of reoffending falls in favour of a sentence permitting opportunity for rehabilitation while in the community in order that he might progress in his sense of remorse and his insight while receiving family support and psychological treatment.

64. The sentence must reflect some degree of discounting of the period of full-time imprisonment to achieve that balance and this will improve the opportunity for him to live without reoffending following a course of medically directed mental health rehabilitation, which is in the interests of the community. Indeed, as I have observed, the Offender is entitled to some discount of full-time imprisonment on account of the special circumstances of his hardship in prison already experienced through lockdowns and due to his ankle pain and mobility restrictions.

65. For the purposes of s 19AC of the Cth CA, as the appropriate federal sentence does not exceed 3 years, and the Offender is not already serving or subject to a federal sentence, I must make a single recognizance release order in respect of the sentence for Sequence 2. For the purposes of s 20 of the Cth CA, I am not satisfied that there are exceptional circumstances justifying that the Offender be immediately released on recognizance. Counsel for the Offender did not submit otherwise.

66. After discount of 27.5% in total for his pleas of guilty and for assistance and information provided, and bearing in mind the statutory yardsticks indicating the seriousness of these types of offences, the following sentences are appropriate:

• Sequence 2 – 1 year and 2 months’ imprisonment, the Offender to be released after 6 months on a recognizance release order in the sum of $1,000 for 8 months on the conditions set out in the Orders below.

• Sequence 3 – a term of 2 years and 6 months’ imprisonment including a non-parole period of 1 year and 6 months.

TOTALITY

67. The criminality of the Sequence 2 federal offence of possession is different to the criminality involved in the Sequence 3 state offence of production of CAM. The offences involved obviously different activity.

68. That said, both offences involved a sexual interest in children and a common causal nexus of a motivation of sexual gratification.

69. Specifically, the single image depicting the Offender’s stepdaughter among the Sequence 2 CAM does overlap with his Sequence 3 offending because it is a still image of the CAM he produced in the Sequence 3 offending, which in turn was uploaded to his device on 27 December 2023 more than two years after it was made.

70. For these reasons, it would be inappropriate for there to be no concurrence of sentence, and a straightforward arithmetical addition of the sentences would achieve a disproportionately harsh totality of result because, to some degree, the sentence for each offence encompasses criminality of the other.

71. It is also to be borne in mind that the severity of sentence increases at a rate greater than the increase in its length.

72. However, the distinct nature of the offending means that the sentence for Sequence 2 can only in small margin comprehend the criminality of the Sequence 3 offending (and vice versa); substantial accumulation is warranted.

ORDERS

73. Offender is convicted of the Sequence 2 offence.

74. Offender is convicted of the Sequence 3 offence.

75. For the Sequence 3 offence, I impose a maximum term of 2 years and 6 months' imprisonment, backdated to have commenced on 27 January 2024 and expiring on 26 July 2026 with a non-parole period of 1 year and 6 months, expiring on 26 July 2025.

76. For the Sequence 3 Offence, I recommend the following conditions of parole:

1. the Offender be of good behaviour;

2. the Offender be subject to the supervision of Community Corrections and obey all reasonable directions of that service;

3. the Offender obey any reasonable requirement of Community Corrections, including permitting inspection of any device within his possession for the purposes of investigation and detection of CAM and also to provide access to any data on any personal device including his mobile phone;

4. the Offender accept any direction of Community Corrections that he attend any sex offender’s treatment program and/or that he be evaluated for acceptance or accept treatment for any mental health disorder;

5. the Offender accept any direction of Community Corrections to offence-specific treatment administered by a registered clinical or forensic psychologist and comply with all treatment requirements and modalities to which he is directed on any mental health plan by a treating local medical officer or psychologist; and

6. the Offender not travel interstate or overseas without written permission of Community Corrections.

77. For the Sequence 2 offence, I impose a sentence of 1 year and 2 months’ imprisonment, commencing on 1 July 2025, and order that the Offender be released on recognizance in the sum of $1,000 for a period of 8 months commencing 1 February 2026 and expiring on 30 September 2026 with conditions that:

1. the Offender be of good behaviour;

2. the Offender be subject to the supervision of Community Corrections and obey all reasonable directions of that service;

3. the Offender obey any reasonable requirement of Community Corrections, including permitting inspection of any device within his possession for the purposes of investigation and detection of CAM and also to provide access to any data on any personal device including his mobile phone;

4. the Offender accept any direction of Community Corrections that he attend any sex offender’s treatment program and/or that he be evaluated for acceptance or accept treatment for any mental health disorder;

5. the Offender accept any direction of Community Corrections to offence-specific treatment administered by a registered clinical or forensic psychologist and comply with all treatment requirements and modalities to which he is directed on any mental health plan by a treating local medical officer or psychologist; and

6. the Offender not travel interstate or overseas without written permission of Community Corrections.

78. Pursuant to s 3C of the Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Act2000 (NSW), I make a Registerable Person Order for the Offender for a reporting period of 8 years, pursuant to s 3I of that Act.

79. I direct that a copy of order 6 and Form 3 is to be supplied to the NSW Commissioner of Police and the Secretary of the NSW Department of Communities and Justice.

**********

Decision last updated: 21 October 2025