R v Sheedy (Porter)

[2025] NSWDC 162

District Court

New South Wales

• Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Sheedy (Porter) [2025] NSWDC 162
Hearing dates:	5 May 2025
Decision date:	05 May 2025
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Noman SC DCJ
Decision:	See orders at [30]
Catchwords:	SENTENCING – Commonwealth offence – use carriage service to transmit communications to a child under 16 with intention of making it easier to procure the child to engage in sexual activity – imprisonment
Legislation Cited:	s 474.27(1) Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth)
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Rex; Christopher Sheedy (Porter)
Representation:	Counsel: Defence: L Dive Solicitors: Crown: B Scard Defence: Kingston Fox Lawyers
File Number(s):	2022/239029
Publication restriction:	Statutory non-publication order in relation to the victim and anything which may identify them.

JUDGMENT

1. The offender, Christopher Sheedy aka Porter, entered pleas of not guilty on arraignment before a jury on 30 January 2025. The indictment contained two Commonwealth offences, with count 2 pleaded in the alternative. On 6 February 2025 the jury returned a verdict of guilty on the principal count. The offender is now to be sentenced for an offence of using a carriage service to transmit communications to a child under 16 with the intention of making it easier to procure the child to engage in sexual activity. This offence is contrary to s 474.27(1) of the Criminal Code which has a maximum penalty of 15 years imprisonment. The elements of the offence were identified during the trial. I accept that I am sentencing on an offence entailing an intention of making it easier to procure some non-specified sexual activity.

2. I must sentence in accordance with Commonwealth sentencing principles.

3. The maximum penalty for an offence provides relevant guidance. In determining the sentence to be passed, I must impose a sentence that is of a severity appropriate in all the circumstances of the offence.

4. As this is a sentence after trial I am required to determine the facts for sentence, guided by the requirement that any determination not be inconsistent with the verdict and any adverse matters are to be determined beyond reasonable doubt.

5. In this case, the parties have reached agreement on the facts as recorded in the ‘statement of facts’. This is of considerable assistance. I observe that the pertinent evidence directly informing the offending was contained in messages. These messages are replicated in the agreed facts. There were voice communications, but this was more of relevance to assist to establish it was the offender communicating with the victim.

6. In addressing the factual findings, I propose to refer to matters that inform the seriousness of the offending. Some matters are taken from the evidence at trial.

7. The facts are informed by the evidence of the child victim who was communicating with the offender. Her relationship with him was limited. In the year of offending, 2022, the offender was in a relationship with the victim’s biological mother. They resided together. The offender was aged 35. The victim had been adopted into what presented as a loving and supportive family when she was a baby. She retained some contact with her biological mother. Despite the support of her adoptive family, and the provision of access to a private school education, the victim presented as possessing a vulnerability informed by her circumstances including her relationship with her biological mother. She had commenced to run away not long before the offending. In 2022 the victim was aged 12 and in year 7 at school. Her age is relevant when considering it against the upper limit of the offence provision which applies to a child under 16. I take into account where she fell as against the upper limit. I also take into account the marked difference in her age to that of the offender. She had met the offender on limited occasions although she called him ‘dad’. The offender used terms of affection towards her and fostered a connection. The fact that “little boss” was used elsewhere does not mean it was not used as a term of affection to her. The terms of the offender’s communication denotes an attempt to normalise it. The terms of the communication were not explicit or degrading. There were no threats included which is consonant with the normalising of the terms of the communication. The nature of their relationship is of relevance in evaluating the breach of trust in the offender seeking to exploit her trust of him based on his domestic affiliation. He knew the victim as opposed to approaching a stranger. The targeted messages were interspersed with anodyne messages. The interaction of the two types is as contemplated for the offence. The communications were not isolated and transpired over 5 days within a 9-day period and were not ceased by the offender’s withdrawal of interest.

8. I do not use the reference to Luna Park as part of the grooming.

9. Counsel for the offender submitted the verdict merely establishes the jury were satisfied that at some point the offender had the requisite intention and that he operated with not an intent to engage in any particular sexual activity but with an intention of the real possibility of sexual activity: DWS at [17]. I proceed on the basis that at the time of communicating, the offender intended, as a real possibility, engaging in some form sexual activity with the victim.

10. I am satisfied the offender was engaged for his personal sexual gratification.

11. That the terms of the communication were unwelcome and upsetting to the victim is supported by signs of distress observed by two 13-year-old male friends. I do not consider it of significance in informing the seriousness of the offending, or the impact upon the victim, that she contacted the offender more than he contacted her.

12. I consider the offence to be a relatively serious example of the offence provision.

13. The offender has a number of previous offences on his criminal histories in South Australia, Queensland and NSW. I have disregarded any juvenile offending other than to note he was exposed to the impact of detention at a young age. He has received various outcomes but ultimately received custodial penalties in all three states. His first adult detention was in 2005. More recently his terms of imprisonment have been served in NSW. His offences include dishonesty, drug, domestic violence and firearms offending. The most similar offence is the 2019 offence of threatening to distribute intimate images, but the surrounding offences reflect this was in the context of the victim being a domestic partner. There is no offending involving children. This record disentitles him to leniency. The offender was on two forms of conditional liberty at the time of offending. He was subject to both bail and community corrections orders. A breach of conditional liberty is a matter of aggravation.

14. There is offending that occurred after the index offending and for which he was sentenced to imprisonment. He was on parole at the time of trial. He re-entered custody upon the return of the verdict.

15. The offender by his plea of not guilty denied the offending at trial. There has been no expression of remorse or acceptance of responsibility. There is no evidence of any insight of the harm occasioned by his offending.

16. The offender's subjective case is supported by psychological opinion and the recorded background.

17. The offender tendered a report of Anthony Diment, psychologist. This report was prepared not long after the offender had entered into custody. This report contains background information as well as details of the offender’s status in custody including his employment as a sweeper. Psychometric tests were administered. The offender indicated he was experiencing anxiety and depression amongst other emotions. The testing outcomes indicated that as at the time of testing the offender scored in the moderate range for anxiety, demonstrating a severe inability to relax and experienced ‘very unpleasant’ or ‘mild’ physical symptoms. He fell in the moderate range for depression. Various results were obtained from the testing for emotional and behavioural problems. He was at moderate risk of impulsive or self-destructive behaviour and had social detachment and discomfort in close relationships. The above average anxiety and depression is accepted to be informed by his pre-sentence custodial situation but compounded by his difficult childhood. The ultimate diagnosis was one of persistent depressive disorder with anxiety. The psychologist opined the disorder to inform the offending as thought processes and normal decision making was compromised.

18. The offender grew up without the benefit of a father although he did have a drug addicted step-father. He was principally raised by his mother who suffered bi-polar and neglected him. His family life presents as deficient and unstable. He was the victim of physical chastisement. He received schooling until year 8. The offender no longer maintains a relationship with his mother.

19. This background, and the resultant mental health issues, lessens moral culpability to a moderate degree.

20. Despite his limited education and troubled home life, the offender has obtained employment over the years including being self-employed. He has been in a number of personal relationships. The offender denied an interest in child abuse material and advanced his sexual interest was in adult females.

21. The psychologist assessed the offender to fall in the low risk of reoffending based on psychometric testing. It is difficult to determine the offender’s prospects of both reoffending and of rehabilitation. This offence is uncharacteristic and difficult to comprehend the brazenness with which it occurred. Sexual communications with a child, particularly one known in a domestic setting, speaks of atypical interests. Guilt has not been accepted. There is no insight into what caused the offending and no remorse.

22. The victim has authored a Victim Impact Statement. Therein she has endeavoured to document the harm occasioned to her from the inappropriate communication directed at her by the offender. It is real and palpable harm that is enduring. She is to be commended for her courage in exposing the harm caused to her by the conduct of the offender. It is hoped that exposure to her emotional harm assists the offender to comprehend the consequences of his conduct. The Court, and hopefully the offender, are assisted by the terms of the statement.

23. I am mindful of the need to ensure adequate punishment. General deterrence and denunciation are important sentencing considerations in these types of offences. These offences are committed in private and are difficult to detect. A sentence should send a message to other like-minded persons that such offending will result in condign punishment. I do not regard the offender’s mental health issue to lessen the significance.

24. The conduct differs to other criminal conduct undertaken by the offender. It is unclear why he chose to commit a sexually related offence with a child, and one he knew. The offender was not observed to express sexual interest other than in messages. The causative factors are unknown. Depression and anxiety, evident over many years, although possibly impairing judgement, do not explain the conduct. Given this lack of understanding of what motivated the offending it is difficult to assess the risk of reoffending or the prospects of rehabilitation. I observe the psychologist considers counselling to address depression and anxiety would enhance his prospects. It may be that this is singular conduct, but that assessment cannot be made with certainty. Prospects are therefore guarded. Personal deterrence is of continuing significance.

25. I note the psychologist has a proposed treatment plan to improve his prospects of rehabilitation. This includes medication and psychological treatment.

26. The offender was on remand for one day plus the period since 6 February 2025. This period will be taken into account when determining sentence.

27. Both parties referred to cases said to guide an appropriate sentence and Counsel for the offender also provided statistics. I note the relatively limited number of cases reflected in the statistics. This material provides some guidance as to the appropriate resolution. Each case turns on the assessment of objective seriousness informed by the subjective circumstances. No case is suggested to be truly comparable. Counsel for the offender nominated why particular cases were suggested to entail more serious offending. I have reviewed the cases and the range of penalties imposed for the disparate offending.

28. Having considered all other available options, I am satisfied that no sentence other than full-time imprisonment is appropriate. I am not satisfied that exceptional circumstances exist to suspend sentence. Sentence will commence on 5 February 2025.

29. The offender is convicted.

30. The sentence imposed is one of 3 years imprisonment to date from 5 February 2025 to reflect the period on remand. I order that the offender be released on 4 February 2026 after having served 12 months imprisonment on entering into a recognizance in the sum of $200 to be of good behaviour for a period of four years. The recognizance is further conditioned upon:

1. supervision and a requirement to obey all reasonable directions of the probation officer;

2. not travelling interstate or overseas without the probation officer’s written permission; and

3. undertaking treatment or rehabilitation programs as directed by the probation officer. I observe the suggested treatment plan may provide some guidance as to medication and psychological intervention.      

If the offender fails to comply with the conditions of the order, further action may be taken against him. This may require him to return to court.

**********

Amendments

05 May 2025 - Solicitor's spelling of name corrected.

05 May 2025 - Defence solicitor firm added.

Decision last updated: 05 May 2025