R v Wake

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Wake
Citation:	[2025] ACTSC 416
Hearing Date:	11 August 2025
Decision Date:	12 September 2025
Before:	Taylor J
Decision:	See [211].
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – failure to report as required as a registerable offender – use carriage service to possess child abuse material – use carriage service to access child abuse material – use carriage service to transmit child abuse material – use carriage service to solicit child abuse material – use carriage service to make available child abuse material – Verdins principles – Bugmy principles – limited prospects of rehabilitation – application of s 16AAAB and 16AAC (2) and (3) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) ss 3, 16A, 16AAB, 16AAC, 19AJ, 23ZA, 23ZD Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) s 91H Criminal CodeAct 1995 (Cth) ss 273A.1, 474.22(1), 474.22A(1), Crimes (Child Sex Offenders) Act2005 (ACT) s 58A Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 ss35(4), 36
Cases Cited:	Abreu v The Queen [2020] NSWCCA 286 Bahar v The Queen [2011] WASCA 249 Bisiker v R [2002] NSWCCA 110 Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37 Glasheen v R [2022] NSWCCA 191 Hulsman v R [2025] VSCA 63 Hurt v The King; Delzotto v The King [2024] HCA 8 Hurt v the Queen [2022] ACTCA 49 Mertell v The Queen [ 2022] ACTCA 69 Minehan v R [2010] NSWCA 140 NK v R [2025] NSWCCA 73 R v Clarkson [2011] VSCA 157 R v Delzotto [2022] NSWCCA 117 Rex vTaylor [2022] NSWCCA 256 R v Stiller [2023] QCA 51 R v Verdins [2007] VSCA 102
Parties:	Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions ( Crown) Tyler James Wake ( Offender)
Representation:	Counsel D. Morrison ( Crown) G. Le-Couteur ( Offender)
Solicitors Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions ( Crown) ACT Legal Aid ( Offender)
File Number:	SCC 65 of 2024 SCC 243 of 2024

TAYLOR J:

Introduction

The offender, Tyler James Wake, is to be sentenced for the following offences:
(a)CC2024/4008: failure to report as required as a registerable offender contrary to s 58A of the Crimes (Child Sex Offenders) Act2005 (ACT) (the Territory offence). The offence carries a maximum penalty of imprisonment of 5 years and/or 500 penalty units.
(b)CC2024/42197: use carriage service to possess child abuse material contrary to s 474.22A(1) of the Criminal CodeAct 1995 (Cth). The offence carries a maximum penalty of imprisonment of 15 years and/or 900 penalty units.
(c)CC2024/4007: use carriage service to possess child abuse material contrary to s 474.22A(1) of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) (the Criminal Code). The offence carries a maximum penalty of imprisonment of 15 years and/or 900 penalty units.
(d)CC2024/42180: use carriage service to access child abuse material contrary to s 474.22(1) of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth). The offence carries a maximum penalty of imprisonment of 15 years and/or 900 penalty units.
(e)CC2024/42182: use carriage service to transmit child abuse material contrary to s 474.22(1) of the Criminal CodeAct 1995 (Cth). The offence carries a maximum penalty of imprisonment of 15 years and/or 900 penalty units.
(f)CC2024/4009: use carriage service to transmit child abuse material contrary to s 474.22(1) of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth). The offence carries a maximum penalty of imprisonment of 15 years and/or 900 penalty units.
(g)CC2024/42181: use carriage service to solicit child abuse material contrary to s 474.22(1) of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth). The offence carries a maximum penalty of imprisonment of 15 years and/or 900 penalty units.
(h)CC2024/42188: use carriage service to make available child abuse material contrary to s 474.22(1) of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth). The offence carries a maximum penalty of imprisonment of 15 years and/or 900 penalty units.
(i)CC2024/42190: use carriage service to cause child abuse material to be transmitted to self contrary to s 474.22(1) of the Criminal CodeAct 1995 (Cth). The offence carries a maximum penalty of imprisonment of 15 years and/or 900 penalty units.
The offender pleaded guilty to charges CC2024/4007, CC2024/4008, CC2024/4009 in the ACT Magistrates Court on 25 July 2024 and in the same court on 24 March 2025 entered pleas of guilty to charges CC2024/42180, CC2024/42181, CC2024/42182, CC2024/42188, CC2024/42190, CC2024/42197.
The federal offences (set out above at (b)-(f)) carry a mandatory minimum term of 4 years of imprisonment pursuant to s 16AAB of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth). As will become clear, this section applies to the offender because of prior relevant convictions.

Agreed facts

Summary

On 3 April 2024, ACT Police were granted a search warrant pursuant to section 3E of the Crimes Act 1914.
On 4 April 2024, police executed a search warrant at the home of Tyler James Wake located in Downer in the Australian Capital Territory (ACT).
At the warrant, police seized two mobile phones belonging to the offender:
(a)One Samsung Galaxy A57 mobile phone (“Samsung phone”); and
(b)One “G-Mee Connect 2” mobile phone (“G-Mee phone”).
Subsequent review of these two phones showed the offender had used a carriage service to:
(a)Access Child Abuse Material (CC2024/42180);
(b)Transmit Child Abuse Material (CC2024/4009 and CC2024/42182);
(c)Make available Child Abuse Material (CC2024/42188);
(d)Cause Child Abuse Material to be transmitted to himself (CC2024/42190);
(e)Solicit Child Abuse Material (CC2024/42181); and
(f)Possess Child Abuse Material (CC2024/4007 and CC2024/42197).
From the data that police subsequently retrieved from these two phones, police tagged a total of 385 files deemed to be Child Abuse Material.
Police estimated that the material depicts no less than 250 real children.
The offender was also found to have used a number of internet accounts and usernames not previously disclosed to police, contrary to his reporting obligations as a “registerable Offender” pursuant to the Crimes (Child Sex Offenders) Act (CC2024/4008).

Background

Detection of offending

In February 2024, police received an information report from the Australian Centre to Counter Child Exploitation. This report disclosed that Child Abuse Material had been shared by the Snapchat account “switchkitty-cd” on 16 October 2023.
Police subsequently investigated and found that the particulars of the Snapchat account, including the date of birth, email address, mobile phone number and IP address, matched those of the offender.
As a result of the investigation, police obtained a search warrant for the Offender’s residence.

Search Warrant and Record of Interview

The Offender was present at the execution of the warrant on 4 April 2024 and agreed to participate in a Record of Search Warrant (“ROSW”).
The Offender was duly cautioned and provided with his full rights in accordance with Part 1C of the Crimes Act.
The Offender expressed his desire to communicate with a legal practitioner, and the ROSW was temporarily suspended.
After speaking with a legal practitioner, the ROSW recommenced.
While under caution, the Offender made the following admissions:
(a)All of the electronic items located in his bedroom belonged to him and were not used by anyone else.
(b)He had purchased the seized Samsung mobile phone from JB Hi Fi in Civic approximately one year prior.
(c)He had been provided with the G-Mee mobile phone by his mother following his last period of incarceration, as it had been “recommended” by the NSW Child Sex Offender Registry team and complied with his previous orders.
(d)His passwords are auto-filled, and he has two factor authentication enabled.
(e)He uses applications such as Google Cloud, Instagram, Messenger, Skype, Discord, WhatsApp, Telegram, YouTube, “X” and Facebook.
(f)When asked to explain his understanding of what constituted Child Abuse Material, the Offender responded: “It can range from many things including mental and physical trauma, taking photos and unwanted sexual touching of people ranging from toddlers to adults”.
(g)When police asked why he was in possession of the material, the Offender replied:
Essentially, I relapsed – have either of you two read the report?...I was incarcerated for something similar…and basically, this isn’t an excuse I’m being as genuine as I can and I relapsed when I thought I was doing better, and pardon my French but I fucked up and I ….I don’t care anymore.
(h)When asked why he had relapsed, the Offender replied: “It’s a bit of a mental issue as well…I’m breaking at the seams is how I would describe it”.
At the conclusion of the warrant, police arrested the Offender was and took him to the ACT Regional Watch House.

CC2024/4007: USE CARRIAGE SERVICE TO POSSESS CHILD ABUSE MATERIAL

At the execution of the search warrant on 4 April 2024, police seized the Samsung mobile phone belonging to the Offender.
Upon reviewing the contents of the device, police observed the encrypted cloud storage application “Mega” had been installed and was in active use by the Offender. The user account for this application was in the name of “Tyler Wake” and used the email address “[email protected]” as its username.
In a folder titled “Incest”, police identified a number of files constituting Child Abuse Material.
During the warrant, a cursory review of four video files was conducted by police who described the following:

File Name	Description
“Charlene NU Age Fun Daddy Helps Toddler Beauty03 3yo Find The G- Spot.avi”	“A video file, 2 minutes and 35 seconds in duration, depicting a female child, between 4 - 6 years old, naked on an adult's male's lap. The adult male then attempts to penetrate the female child's vagina with his erect penis and then masturbates her”.
“Noire 10.mp4”	“A video file, 31 seconds in duration, depicting a female child, between 10 - 12 years old, performing fellatio on an adult male”.
“VID-20170702-WA0011.mp4”	“A video file, 4 minutes and 50 seconds in duration, depicting a large adult male engaging in the penetrative rape of a female child, between 10 - 12 years old. The female child also performs fellatio on the adult male”.
“TB_TB_TB_8 TV_--_- TZ_1.mp4”	“A video file, 12 minutes and 20 seconds in duration, with an introduction stating 'Tara 8 years old "Ass to Mouth" … her daddy really treats her like a total fucking whore!", then depicting a female child aged between 8-12 years old wearing a mask performing fellatio on a large adult male. The adult male then engages in the penetrative rape of the female child with his erect penis and then an unidentified object.”

During the investigation, police reviewed a further five files and described them as follows:

File Name	Description	Size and Duration
“The Club 2nd NLF FullHD 1080p.mkv”	“The video file depicts an Asian pre-pubescent female child aged between 8 – 10 years old, performing cunnilingus on an adult Asian female in different positions. A Caucasian adult male then masturbates the child and inserts a sex toy in her vagina as she engages in fellatio on the adult male. The adult male then has penetrative vaginal sex with the female child, eventually ejaculating into her vagina. The video concludes with the female child again performing fellatio on the adult male.”.	1.0GB 17 mins 3 sec
“VID_20190503_145 028_113.mp4”	“This video file depicts three pre-pubescent female children aged between 8 – 10 years old and a male child aged between 8 – 10 years old engaging in various sex acts on each other, including fellatio, penetrative vaginal sex and cunnilingus”.	962MB 1 hr 3 min 6 sec
“Cambodian –complete (2h40m) (covert-video- online.com).mp4”	“This video file is a compilation of multiple videos depicting a number of pre-pubescent Asian female children aged between 8 – 10 years old and pubescent Asian females aged 12 – 14 years old. The first of the videos depicts an adult male wearing a hooded top and concealing his face, engaging in penetrative vaginal sex with a female child. The second video depicts three naked female children. At the beginning, one is being anally penetrated with a sex toy. She is also wearing underwear with a fake penis attached to it, which is unbuttoned to allow the penetration. The video continues with the same three female children posing naked. A camera flash is seen in the background. The female children continue to pose naked. Shortly after, an older Caucasian male enters the video, and the three female children take it in turns to be lifted by him and engage in fellatio with him. The video then continues with the adult male anally penetrating one of the female children with an unknown object which is covered in Vaseline. He then transitions to penetrating her anus with his finger and then his erect penis. The compilation continues to depict multiple scenarios where young Asian female children are posing naked. It appears to be the same room as depicted in the previous video. The female children are engaging in fellatio with various adult men who are also engaging in penetrative vaginal and anal sex with the female children for the remaining 1 hour and 40 minutes of the video. In one of the final video clips, one female child has her hands and legs bound together with duct tape prior to an adult male engaging in penetrative penile vaginal sex with her. Shortly after, this same bound female child is subjected to having unknown objects inserted in her vagina and anus. A camera can be seen taking pictures while this occurring. In the background there are multiple naked female children lying on the bed.”.	505MB 2 hrs 40 mins and 25 sec
“10yo Lili get fucked.avi”	“This video file depicts a pre-pubescent female child aged between 8 – 10 years old, posing with a large pink, penis shaped sex toy. She is making sexual gestures with the sex toy and then undresses. The female child then sucks on the sex toy and rubs it on her vagina. Following this, an adult male enters the room, lays down on a couch and the female child masturbates and engages in fellatio on the adult male for over 15 minutes. The adult male then proceeds to have penetrative vaginal intercourse with the female child, performs cunnilingus on her, then re-engages in the penetrative intercourse. The video concludes with the adult male masturbating himself and ejaculating in her mouth”.	443MB 37 mins 38 sec
“(Pthc) 2011 8yo girl with two men (covert- video-online.com).mp4”	This video file depicts a pre-pubescent female child aged between 8 – 10 years old, naked and bent over on her hands and knees while an adult male applies cream to her anus and vagina. He then masturbates the child by rubbing her genitals and inserting his fingers into her anus and vagina. The child then lays on her back and this continues. A short time later, the child is again bent over on her hands and knees and an adult male engages in anal sex with her. This continues as the child changes positions to lay down on her back. A second naked adult male is then seen nearby the child’s upper body, stroking her face and upper body.	255MB 16 mins 24 secs

A further three images were also reviewed and described as follows:

File Name	Description
2011 Pthc Falko Awesome 7Yo And 8Yo Child Porn (35).jpg	This image file depicts a naked female child aged between 6 – 8 years old, wearing a leather collar attached to a metal lead. There is a naked adult female laying down, holding the lead while the child has her hand inside the adult female’s vagina.
154982356310.jpg	This image file depicts a naked adult female, standing over a female toddler aged between 6 months – 24 months. The female child is performing cunnilingus on the adult female while another female child aged between 1 – 2 years old sits nearby, naked. In the background, on a television screen, another child, between 6 – 18 months can be seen performing cunnilingus on a half-naked adult female.
2011 Pthc Falko Awesome 7Yo And 8Yo Child Porn (112).jpg	This image file depicts a female child aged between 6 – 8 years old, naked and laying on her back while an adult male engages in anal sex with her.

CC2024/4008: FAILURE TO REPORT AS REQUIRED AS A REGISTERABLE OFFENDER

On 31 March 2022, the Offender was convicted by the Coffs Harbour District Court of one count of possess Child Abuse Material contrary to section 91H of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) and one count of possess child-like sex doll contrary to 273A.1 of the Code.
As a result of the NSW State conviction, pursuant to section 10 of the Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Act 2000 (NSW), the Offender became a “Registerable Person” for the purposes of that Act. He was required to report annually to the NSW Commissioner of Police for a period of 8 years.
Upon relocating from NSW to the ACT, the Offender became subject to the reporting obligations outlined in subsections 37(1) and 54(1) of the Crimes (Child Sex Offenders) Act 2005 (ACT).[1]
[1] See definitions of “prescribed corresponding offender” and “registerable offender” outlined in sections 11(1) and 8(1) Crimes (Child Sex Offenders) Act 2005 (ACT) respectively.
These obligations included, inter alia, that the Offender report to the Chief Police Officer annually in the month of January and report any change to his personal details within 7 days. For the purposes of the Act, “personal details” includes any change to the details of any email addresses, internet usernames, instant messaging usernames, chat room usernames or any other username or identity used by the Offender through the internet or another electronic communication service.
On 30 August 2023, the Offender attended Belconnen Police Station and participated in his Initial Interview with the ACT Child Sex Offender Registry Team (CSORT). During this interview, the Offender verbally confirmed he understood his obligations and was served with a Notice of Reporting Obligations outlining his reporting obligations.
The Offender then signed the document, acknowledging he had read and fully understood his obligations.
At the execution of the warrant on 4 April 2024, the offender made full admissions under caution to using the following internet accounts and usernames:
(a)Google
(i)Name: Co'da Of Thane
(ii)Email: [email protected]
(b)Facebook
(i)Name: Tyler Wake
(c)Grindr
(i)Name: fuck-toy
(ii)Email: [email protected]
(d)X (Twitter)
(i)Name: Coda_Of_Thane_
(e)Instagram (2 accounts)
(i)Name: Co'da
(ii)Name: coda_the_traveler
(f)Dropbox
(i)Name: Coda's Files
(ii)Email: [email protected]
(g)WhatsApp
(i)Name: Sissy-toy
The Offender had not at any time reported the above account details to police.

CC2024/4009: USE CARRIAGE SERVICE TO TRANSMIT CHILD ABUSE MATERIAL

In reviewing the Offender’s Samsung mobile phone, police identified the encrypted messaging application “Telegram” (“Telegram”). Telegram was installed and logged into with the username “'Slutty-Kitty Boy-toy” and was associated with the Offender’s mobile number.
Police identified that the Offender had engaged in two conversations with other users.
On 12 February 2024, the Offender participated in a text-based conversation with another user named “Rosie Lynn” with the username “@Rosielynnx”:

Rosie Lynn “Cuteee”

Offender

“Thanks hun”

Offender

“Wish I had someone to make me there bitch^^”

Rosie Lynn

“Any pizza aha?”

Offender

“Ooooo u mean cheese pizza?”

Rosie Lynn

“Hehe yep”

“I’m very fond of cheese pizza”

Offender

“I’ll see what I can do for u daddy^^”

Rosie Lynn

“Mommy* aha”

Offender

“Oh your a she?”

“All good”

Rosie Lynn

“Trans”

Offender

“Ooo nice, would love u breed u then^^”

Offender

[Offender sends four image files and two video files constituting Child Abuse Material]

Police suspect that “Cheese Pizza”, or a cheese and pizza emoji is a code used to refer to “Child Pornography.
The four images depicted images of female children between the ages of 4 - 6 years old exposing their vagina. Of the two video files, one depicted a male performing cunnilingus on a female child and the other depicted a female child masturbating. Both children were between 6 - 10 years old.
On 17 February 2024, the Offender participated in a text-based conversation with another used named “A” with the username “@Thcl515”:

Offender “Hey how u doing?”

A

“Good”

“Mostly horny lol”

“You?”

Offender

“Same tbh”

“Wish I had a cute little thing to brake in rn”

A

“Same here...”

“To fill and overflow with my love”

Offender

“Mm hell yeah, to head her sob and moan would be so good.”

A

“With some cute little whimpers in between”

Offender

“Mmm yeah, got some (cheese and pizza emojis) if you wanna trade?”

A

“Sure”

Offender

[Offender sends four video and three image files constituting Child Abuse Material]

Police suspect that “Cheese Pizza”, or a cheese and pizza emoji is a code used to refer to “Child Pornography”.
In this conversation, the Offender sent four video and three image files to the other user. Of the four videos, two constituted Child Abuse Material, with one depicting a male performing cunnilingus on a female child and the other depicting a female child masturbating. The children featured in the videos were aged between 6 – 10 years old. The three image files depicted naked female children aged between 6 - 10 years old.

CC2024/42180: USE CARRIAGE SERVICE TO ACCESS CHILD ABUSE MATERIAL

At the execution of the search warrant on 4 April 2024, police conducted a cursory review of the Mega account used by Offender (see above at [18-19]).
Upon reviewing the contents of the device, police observed that the account contained 2,446 files (71.17 GB). This review showed that an extensive quantity of CAM was present among the 2,446 files saved to the account.
Police reviewed an indicative sample of the video and image files constituting Child Abuse Material and produced descriptions (see above [20-22]).
The Offender used a carriage service to transfer the Child Abuse Material from another location between about 18 July 2022 and 4 April 2024.

CC2024/42181: USE CARRIAGE SERVICE TO SOLICT CHILD ABUSE MATERIAL

Within the Telegram conversations located on the Samsung mobile phone, the Offender was found to have solicited Child Abuse Material from other users on two occasions:
(a)In a conversation with an unknown user dated 25 December 2023; and
(b)In a conversation with a user known as “Tanuki” dated 11 February 2024,

Conversation with unknown user dated 25 December 2024

Analysis of the Offender’s Samsung mobile phone identified a Telegram conversation between the Offender and an unknown user dated 25 December 2023.
In this conversation, the Offender asked “wah about cp”, and said he had “some preteen”. The unknown user asked him to send it, and said “I have some too”. The Offender asked “would u send/trad cp… how young u got?” The unknown user replied that he had “some teen and some preteen” and the Offender replied “Nice… love preteen”.
Police consider “cp” to be a shortened version of “child pornography”.

Conversation with Tanuki dated 11 February 2024

On 11 February 2024, the Offender had a Telegram conversation with an individual referred to as “Tanuki” with the username “@tanuki23”.
The Offender requested text-based Child Abuse Material by asking “if u chould grab a young cutie rn and have no consequences would u?” When Tanuki asked “do you mind if I message you”, the Offender responded “Sure I’m happy to talk hun… anything to keep daddy happy^^”.

CC2024/42182: USE CARRIAGE SERVICE TO TRANSMIT CHILD ABUSE MATERIAL

Between about 25 December 2023 and 1 April 2024, the Accused participated in the following Telegram conversations:
(a)Conversation between Offender and unknown user dated 25 December 2023;
(b)Conversation between Offender and “Tanuki” dated 11 February 2024;
(c)Conversation between Offender and “Tanuki” dated 12 February 2024;
(d)Conversation between Offender and “Victor” dated 12 February 2024;
(e)Conversation between Offender and “Ginjo” dated 13 February 2024;
(f)Conversation between Offender and “A” dated 1 April 2024;
(g)Conversation between Offender and “WNMep” dated 17 February 2024; and
(h)Conversation between the Offender and others in forum titled “CP Archivce” dated 12 February 2024.
In each of these conversations, the Offender was observed to have transmitted Child Abuse Material to other users.

Conversation between Offender and unknown user dated 25 December 2023

On 25 December 2023, following the above exchange between the Offender and an unknown user (see [44]-[46]), the Offender sends the unknown user a video file constituting Child Abuse Material.
Police describe the video file as “…a video file depicting a female child between the ages 8 - 12 years old, engaging in penetrative sex”.

Conversation between Offender and “Tanuki” dated 11 February 2024

During the above conversation with Tanuki on 11 February 2024 (see [47]-[48], the Offender said “I do have some young pics il willing to shear if your keen?” He sent a file unable to be viewed by police, and Tanuki responded “that’s a beautiful hole… okay fuck I can’t get harder in public, I’ll have to come back”. The Offender then sent two videos constituting Child Abuse Material.
Police describe the two videos sent by the Offender on 11 February 2024 as “female children between the ages 8 - 12 years old, either exposing their genitals or engaging in penetrative sex.”
Immediately after the Offender transmitted the two video files constituting CAM, the conversation continued as follows, with the Offender sending text-based Child Abuse Material:

Tanuki (emoji of an animal with its tongue out saying "MLEM")

Offender

"Wish I had a kid rn to brake in and train"

Tanuki

"oh fuck me"

Offender

"To far?"

"Or did they just show ?"

Tanuki

"I'm actually fucking leaking"

Offender

"Mmm wish I was there to help ^^"

Tanuki

"goddamn I wish i was there"

"the second video loaded"

"what a fucking cock"

Offender

"I know right?"

Tanuki

"and that girl!!!"

"mmff"

Offender

"I love watching that one when I use my flashlight"

Tanuki

"i bet you cum nice and hard to that ;3"

"that first video not loading is such a tease"

"And you distracted me with tiny holes stuffed with big poles!"

"i missed that sexy video of you shaking your tail like a good boy >:)"

Offender

"Mmm I'll resend it"

[Offender sends image and video of himself]

Tanuki

[Responding to one of the videos constituting Child Abuse Material]: "how old is she in this one?"

[Responding to the video of the Offender]: "fuck you are such a sexy kitty!"

"I bet you love cocks filling that slutty hole of yours don't you?"

Offender

"Mmm, I do, Daddy. I think she's like 9 or something, and I never really got an answer that one"

Tanuki

"that's so hot"

"i love nice fat cocks spreading young holes"

Offender

"Mmm yeah, love hearing them moan and sob"

Tanuki

"what ages are you in to??"

Offender

"Would love to be that young again, I knew a few of my teachers who wanted me badly^&" "6 to 18 and in-between"

Tanuki

"i'm new to all this but i love them as young as I can see 'em"

":3"

Offender

"Nice"

Conversation between Offender and “Tanuki” dated 12 February 2024

On 12 February 2024, the Offender had another conversation with the individual referred to as “Tanuki” with the username “@tanuki23”. In this conversation, the Offender sent the following text- based Child Abuse Material:

Offender "Would love a nice tight little thing to brake in"

[Offender sends two files unable to be viewed by police]

Tanuki

"just imagining my little niece getting bent over and spread nice and wide"

"I fucking love chubby girls"

Offender

"Oooo u got a little one?"

Tanuki

"so much to grab on to"

Offender

"So true"

Tanuki

"Just 2 nieces"

Offender

"Mmm nice, how old?"

Tanuki

"8 and 12?"

"i rarely see them"

"but I imagine the 12 year old when she was a few years younger"

"a little chubby, tits are already starting to come in"

"just me and her dad railing her ;))"

"Mmm fuck yeah, would love to force my cock deep into that and breed her"

Tanuki

"you could take her pussy while i fuck her asshole"

"want to leave it swollen and leaking by the time i'm done"

Offender

"Mmm I'd love to hear her screaming/moaning/sobbing"

[Tanuki sends a lawful pornographic image]

Offender

"Mmm fuck yeah"

[Offender sends two files that are unable to be viewed]

Offender

"Mmmm"

[Offender sends two images constituting Child Abuse Material]

Tanuki

"goddamn"

"are you trying to get me to blow my load???"

"Maybe^^"

[Offender sends nude images of himself]

Tanuki

"oh you definitely are"

Throughout the above Telegram conversation, the Offender transmitted multiple images and video files constituting Child Abuse Material.
These files are collectively described by police as follows: “multiple image and video files depicting female children between the ages 6 - 12 years old, either exposing their genitals or engaging in oral or penetrative sex”.

Conversation between Offender and “Victor” dated 12 February 2024

The Offender had a Telegram conversation with an individual referred to as “Victor” with the username “@Victorestar” on 12 February 2024. After noting they are both in the same chat grou, Victor says “also for some reason the vid of the girl won’t play :/ stupid telegram lol”. The Offender then sent a video file constituting Child Abuse Material.
Police describe the video sent by the Offender as follows “a video of a female child aged between 10 - 12 years old exposing her genitals”.

Conversation between the Offender and “Victor” dated 17 February 2024

On 17 February 2024 the Offender participated in a further conversation with the user known as “Victor”. In this conversation, the Offender sent messages constituting text-based Child Abuse Material. While discussing the idea of raping children, the Offender said “love the idea tbh lol… would force a little girl if I chould get away with it”. Victor said “U Should… lol… they force us to do it.”
The Offender said “I forced my younger coz back in the day to take my cock… she cried and sobed bit I made her take it… I even got her to put in a slutty little skirt for me…”. Victor asked “u came inside right” and the Offender replied “yeah even made her put her panties back on and walk around the rest of the day”. The conversation continued with Victor saying “I wanna fuck a kid soo bad” and the Offender responding “same… would love to have a daughter”. Victor said “best way to have sex with kids… have your own supply… have a pedomom…”. The Offender said “if I had a kid I’d brake her in when she got home from school”. The Offender asked if Victor had any “cuties around u” and Victor said no, only his sister who is “16 already”. The Offender said “if she was younger you chould be trying her".
The conversation then continued as follows:

Offender

"Mmm yeah I know the feeling"

"I've some teen cp if u wanna trade?"

Victor

"Sure ^^"

[Offender and Victor exchange multiple files unable to be viewed by police].

Victor

"Great stuff ^^"

Offender

"Thanks"

Victor

"That is heaven lol"

Offender

"Glad u like it hun"

Victor

" Of course lol"

"But fr"

"Pedos should be accepted"

"It's not our fault that we can see that kids are hot lol"

Offender

"Lol ture"

"True"

"Tho rn I need a good breeding lol"

Victor

(in response to the defendant needing a good breeding) "Wouldn't pass on a diking myself"

"*dicking"

Offender

"Mmm yeah"

Victor

"Hehehe"

"I love dicks man"

Offender

[Offender sends multiple files unable to be viewed by police]

Offender

"Would u like to have me?"

Victor

"Of course i would ^^"

Offender

"Would u like to have a bit of fun?"

Victor

"Right after It we could rape a kid togheter"

Conversation between Offender and “Ginjo” dated 13 February 2024

The Offender had a Telegram conversation with an individual referred to as “Ginjo” with the username “@ItaUwU” on 13 February 2024.
The Offender commenced the conversation by sending multiples images and videos constituting Child Abuse Material. He asked “Like what u see?”. Ginjo responded “yup”.
These files are collectively described by police as “multiple image and video files depicting female children between the ages 6 - 12 years old, either exposing their genitals or engaging in oral or penetrative sex”.

Conversation between Offender and “A” dated 1 April 2024

The Offender had a Telegram conversation with an individual referred to as “A” with the username “@Thc1515” on 1 April 2024.
Within this conversation, the Offender transmitted the following text-based Child Abuse Material:
(a)“mmm would like a nice young tight little thing rn to brake in^^”.

Conversation between Offender and “WNMep” dated 17 February 2024

The Offender had a Telegram conversation with an individual referred to as “WNMep” with the username “@slava_vsemu” on 17 February 2024.
WNMep asked “I'm just wondering if you're planning a daughter, do you have a wife or something?)”. The Offender sent the following text-based Child Abuse Material: “got someone inmind… I’ll be breeding/raping a kid into her… I’ve know her for 4 years and she’s a huge slut that loves the ideas of having rape kids”. WNMep asked “will you rape a girl and she will have children”. The Offender responded “Yeah… Ice got some stuff if u wanna trade… I’m happy to shear my loot”.
At the conclusion of the above chat on 17 February 2024, the Offender said “have a look” and sent multiple images and videos. Police described these files collectively by police “multiple image and video files depicting female children between the ages 6 - 12 years old, either exposing their genitals or engaging in oral or penetrative sex”.

CP Archive” Conversation dated 12 February 2024

On review of the Telegram application, police observed the Offender was a member of a Telegram groupchat consisting of the Offender, “Victor”, “Rosie Lynn” and four other unknown users.
On 12 February 2024, the Offender transmitted a video file constituting Child Abuse Material.
Police described this video as “depicting a female child aged between 8 – 12 years old, exposing her genitals”.

CC2024/42188: USE CARRIAGE SERVICE TO MAKE AVAILABLE CHILD ABUSE MATERIAL

Within the Telegram conversations located on the Samsung mobile phone, the Offender was found to have made Child Abuse Material available to other users on two occasions:
(a)In a conversation with another user known as “Rosie Lynn” dated 21 March 2024; and
(b)In a conversation with another user known as “A” on 1 April 2024.

Conversation with Roise Lynne dated 21 March 2024

The url “ mega.nz” resolved to the Offender’s Mega Account containing images and videos constituting Child Abuse Material, including those described above at [20]-[22].
The Offender and the individual referred to as “Rosie Lynn” with the username “@Rosielynnx” had a conversation on Telegram on 21 March 2024. Rosie Lynn asked, “What u got for show and tell then”. The Offender replied, “ah right sorry been bus af lol, got some stuff on my mega drive”. The Offender then sent “ mega.nz 75.02 GB folder on MEGA 2818 files and 45 subfolders”.

Conversation with ‘A” dated 1 April 2024

Within the Telegram conversation with “A” dated 1 April 2024, the Offender said, “I’ve got more [cheese and pizza emoji]” and said, “hold on I’ll shear a link”. He then sent a link: mega.nz r75.02 GB folder on MEGA 2818 files and 45 subfolders.
The url “ mega.nz” resolved to the Offender’s Mega Account containing images and videos constituting Child Abuse Material, including those described above at [20]-[22].

CC2024/42190: USE CARRIAGE SERVICE TO CAUSE CHILD ABUSE MATERIAL TO BE TRANSMITTED TO SELF.

Within the Telegram conversations located on the Samsung mobile phone, the Offender was found to have caused Child Abuse Material to be transmitted to himself on two occasions:
(a)A conversation with another user known as “Victor” dated 17 February 2024; and
(b)A conversation with another user known as “A” dated 1 April 2024.

Conversation with Victor dated 17 February 2024

The Offender had a Telegram conversation with the individual referred to as “Victor” with the username “@Victorestar” on 17 February 2024. In the course of this conversation, the Offender said “would love a nice tight pussy to use rn lol” and asked “got anyth cp to trade?” Victor then sent multiple images constituting Child Abuse Material.
Police describe the images that Victor sent as “multiple image files depicting a female child performing fellatio on a dog”.

Conversation with “A” dated 1 April 2024

The conversation with “A” on 1 April 2024 continued with the Offender asking “cheers, got any to trade… I paid good money for all of it”. He explained he had paid for the material with bitcoin. “A” sent multiple image and video files constituting Child Abuse Material.
The video and image files sent by A were collectively described by police as “multiple image and video files depicting female children between the ages 6 - 12 years old, either exposing their genitals or engaging in oral or penetrative sex”.

CC2024/42197: USE CARRIAGE SERVICE TO POSSESS CHILD ABUSE MATERIAL

At the execution of the search warrant on 4 April 2024, police seized a Samsung mobile phone and “G-Mee” mobile phone belonging to the Offender.
The Offender was found to have possessed Child Abuse Material on both of these devices.

Samsung mobile phone

Subsequent examination of the Samsung mobile phone showed the Offender had saved screenshots of the following on the device:
(a)His ACT Proof of Identification card number 1379678487;
(b)His National Australia Bank (NAB) account; and
(c)His Snapchat account displaying the username “switchkitty-cd”.
In addition to material stored within the applications installed on the Samsung mobile phone, police observed the local storage of the device contained a large volume of video and images files constituting Child Abuse Material.
Police reviewed an indicative sample of four videos and three images. The video files were described by police as follows:

File Name	Description	Size and Duration
1_509380820921116 3610.mp4	This video file depicts a pre-pubescent female child aged between 6 – 10 years old, naked and bent over on her hands and knees, with two other naked adult men at either end of her. One male is engaging in penetrative sex with the female child from the rear, while she performs fellatio on the second male.	0.89MB 9 sec
VID_20240131_1232 18_669.mp4	This video depicts a female child aged between 2 – 5 years old, lying down wearing only a t- shirt and her genitals are exposed. An adult male engages in anal penetration of the child, until he ejaculates into the child’s anus.	4MB 43 sec
4_603081291605003 8782.MP4	This video depicts an adult female performing cunnilingus on a female child aged between 4 – 6 years old. The female child is lying down wearing only a t-shirt and her genitals are exposed.	8.19MB 1 min 29 sec
VID_20240131_0153 30_137.mp4	This video depicts a half-naked female child aged between 5 – 8 years old and an adult male engaging in penetrative intercourse with her in multiple positions.	15MB 3 min

The image files saved to the local storage of the Samsung mobile phone were described as follows:

File Name	Description
0i8FwaTY.JPG	This image file depicts a naked male child, aged between 4 – 6 years old, kneeling next to a bed with a naked pubescent age- indeterminate female laying down on it. The male child is placing an unknown object in the female’s vagina.
tj0zhlgT (1).jpg	This image file depicts a prepubescent male child and a prepubescent female child, aged between 10 – 12 years old naked on a bed. The female child is on her hands and knees and the male child is behind her, engaging in penetrative sex.
su0jRKjY (1).jpg	This image file depicts two female children, aged between 5 – 8 years old performing cunnilingus on each other on top of a bed. Another female can be seen in the background with a metal leash.

G-Mee mobile phone

While conducting a review of the Offender’s G-Mee mobile phone, police observed Child Abuse Material saved to the local storage of the device.
Police subsequently reviewed an indicative sample of three images saved to the phone. The images were described by police as follows:

File Name	Description
EXTRACTION_FFS.zip/data/media/0/Pi ctures/Twitter/20230913_200708.jpg	“(Cartoon Image) A female child aged between 10 – 12 years old, lying on her back naked with her legs spread apart and genitals exposed with an adult penis penetrating the child’s anus”.
EXTRACTION_FFS.zip/data/media/0/Pi ctures/Twitter/20230913_200654.jpg	“(Cartoon Image) A female child aged between 10 – 12 years old, in a very small bikini, sitting on a naked adult male’s lap with his penis exposed underneath her”.
EXTRACTION_FFS.zip/data/media/0/Pi ctures/Reddit/RDT_20230917_123508 2830566870437872770.jpg	“(Cartoon Image) A female child aged between 10 – 12 years old, positioned on her hands and knees. A large adult male is behind the child, pulling on the lanyard around her neck, having sex with her”.

Telegram Application

When reviewing the contents of the Samsung mobile phone, police observed the encrypted instant messaging application “Telegram” had been installed on the device and was in active use by the Offender.
As noted above, the Offender was observed to have participated in the following Telegram conversations in which Child Abuse Material was transmitted, solicited, or made available by the Offender, or caused to be transmitted to the Offender:
(a)Conversation between Offender and unknown user dated 25 December 2023;
(b)Conversation between Offender and “Tanuki” dated 11 February 2024;
(c)Conversation between Offender and “Tanuki” dated 12 February 2024;
(d)Conversation between Offender and “Rosie Lynn” dated 12 February 2024;
(e)Conversation between Offender and “Rosie Lynn” dated 31 March 2024
(f)Conversation between Offender and “Victor” dated 12 February 2024;
(g)Conversation between Offender and “Victor” dated 17 February 2024;
(h)Conversation between Offender and “A” dated 17 February 2024;
(i)Conversation between Offender and “A” dated 1 April 2024;
(j)Conversation between Offender and “Ginjo” dated 13 February 2024; and
(k)Conversation between Offender and “WNMep” dated 17 February 2024.
(l)Conversation between the Offender and others in forum titled “CP Archivce” dated 12 February 2024.
The Offender possessed the Child Abuse Material contained in the above conversations within the Telegram application installed on his Samsung mobile phone.

ANTECEDENTS

The offender is 27 years of age and was aged 26 at the time of the offending.
On the day of warrant, he was residing with another individual who had no involvement with the offending.
The Offender was receiving periodic visits from a NDIS sponsored support worker.
The Offender has a relevant criminal history, including prior convictions for like offending.
On 31 March 2022, the Offender was convicted by the Coffs Harbour District Court of one count of possess Child Abuse Material and one count of possess child-like sex doll or other object, contrary to sections 91H of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) and 273A.1 of the Criminal Code (Cth) (“the Code”) respectively.
With respect to the NSW possession offence, the Offender was sentenced to an aggregate sentence of 2 years and 6 months imprisonment with a non-parole period of 18 months. For the possession of a child-like sex doll or other object, the Offender was sentenced to a Community Corrections Order for a period of two years commencing 31 March 2022 and concluding 30 March 2024.
Pursuant to this order, the Offender was required to not commit any offence during this period.

Nature and circumstances of the offending

The maximum penalty is a “yardstick” against which to assess the objective seriousness of the offending. So too the mandatory minimum term which applies to the federal offences, a matter to which I shall return.
The significant maximum penalties which apply to the offences reflect the gravity of the conduct and the community’s abhorrence of this kind of offending.
The offences involved the offender soliciting, possessing, accessing, transmitting and making available child abuse material.
I have had regard to the factors identified by Hulme J in Minehan v R (2010) 201 A Crim R 243 at [94] as relevant to the assessment of the objective seriousness of offences involving the possession or transmission of child abuse material and make the following observations.
Charge CC2024/42197 (possession) is a “rolled up” charge which encompassed two mobile phones and eight conversations on an encrypted application which involved text-based child abuse material. The “rolled up” nature of the charge makes it a more serious example of the offence. Across the two mobile phones police identified no less than 385 files containing child abuse material.
Charge CC2024/4007 (possession) captured the offender’s possession of child abuse material within his account on the encrypted cloud storage site “Mega”. The “Mega” account contained 2,466 files which included an “extensive” quantity of child abuse material.
The child abuse material possessed depicted no less than 250 real child victims.
The child abuse material was of a highly depraved nature and depicted children being subjected to degrading and humiliating acts including children as young as 6-24 months old being subjected to physically abusive, profoundly harmful conduct.
The nature of the child abuse material was confronting. The imagery involved was an affront to morality and decency. It is deeply unsettling to contemplate that any human being would have an appetite to consume it.
The content of the child abuse material possessed by the offender included:
(a)Text-based conversations between the offender and unknown others in which the offender described sexual acts he would like to engage in with children as young as 4-6 years of age.
(b)Adult men engaging in penetrative anal and vaginal intercourse with children as young as 4-6 years of age.
(c)Children aged 8-10 years performing oral and penetrative sexual acts on each other.
(d)A female infant between 6-24 months of age being encouraged to perform cunnilingus on an adult woman in the presence of toddler aged between 1-2 years whilst child abuse material was displayed in the background.
(e)Multiple files depicting adult men ejaculating onto the faces/mouths of children and penetrating the anus and vagina of children including the penetration of a child’s anus with a foreign object.
(f)Children being bound, walking on leashes and wearing underwear with a prosthetic penis attached.
The offender possessed the child abuse material for his own personal use as well as to further distribute it. The significant number of real child victims and the highly depraved nature of the child abuse material involved, see the possession offences properly characterised as in the mid-range of objective seriousness, with the rolled-up count being the more serious example of the offence.
The transmission offence (CC2024/4009) relied on two conversations on 12 and 17 February 2024 where the offender transmitted child abuse material. On 12 February 2024 the offender transmitted four images and two video files to another user of the ‘Telegram’ encrypted messaging application which depicted children aged between 4-10 years exposing their genitals (images) and engaged in sexual acts (videos). On 17 February 2024 the offender transmitted to a different consumer, child abuse material consisting of two videos and three images which featured children between the ages of 6-10 years engaged in graphic sex acts, after he suggested a “trade” with the user. This was an offence toward the lower end of objective seriousness.
Another transmission offence (CC2024/42182) relied on numerous transmissions of child abuse material between 25 December 2023 and 1 April 2024 to multiple accounts on the ‘Telegram’ application. On nine occasions between those dates the offender transmitted child abuse material. Whilst the volume of child abuse material transmitted by the offender was relatively low, he deliberately transmitted it on several occasions, to multiple different users.
In addition, when transmitting the child abuse material to other consumers, the offender sent messages which themselves constituted child abuse material and included the offender describing his enjoyment of the infliction of pain on children in the context of sexual acts. This transmission offence is at the mid-range of objective seriousness.
Charge CC2024/42190 relied on two conversations on 17 February 2024 and 1 April 2024, engaged in by the offender when he caused child abuse material to be transmitted to himself. In the interaction on 1 April 2024 the offender sought to ‘trade’ in child abuse material and informed the other user that he had “paid good money for all of it” explaining later to police that he used Bitcoin. The transmission on 17 February 2024 included multiple image files of a female child performing a sex act on an animal. The transmission on 1 April 2024 included multiple video and image files depicting female children aged between 6-12 years in sexual poses exposing their genitals or engaging in oral or penetrative sexual intercourse. This was an offence at the mid-range of objective seriousness.
The offender accessed child abuse material between July 2022 and April 2024 (CC2024/42180) through a carriage service by moving files he obtained to his account on the encrypted cloud storage application ‘Mega’. The offender accessed child abuse material over a prolonged period. The offender’s ‘Mega’ folder contained 2,446 files organised into 45 folders totalling 75.02GB. A “substantial” number of the files were explicit and highly depraved child abuse material, though the Crown accepted that the precise number cannot be determined. The offender transferred the material to the ‘Mega’ application to enable it to be shared. I am satisfied this reflected his want to participate in the broader market which exists for the exchange and trade of child abuse material. The objective seriousness of this offence is at the mid-range of objective seriousness.
The offender solicited (CC2024/42181) child abuse material on two occasions. One occasion in December 2023 and the other in February 2024. The solicitation effectively included an offer to ‘trade” child abuse material with other consumers. This is an offence at the lower end of objective seriousness.
On two occasions (1 March 2024 and 1 April 2024) the offender made child abuse material available (CC2024/42188) to two consumers by the provision of a link to access his ‘Mega’ account which contained images and videos depicting highly depraved child abuse material. The detail of the messages exchanged between the offender and the other consumers revealed that the offender readily and deliberately shared the child abuse material. This offence is at the mid-range of objective seriousness.
The Territory offence (CC2024/4008) involved a breach of the obligations upon the offender because he is a registrable offender within the meaning of the Crimes (Child Sex Offenders) Act 2005 (ACT). The registry is a protective regime intended to guard the community against conduct which risks the safety and wellbeing of children. The conduct relied upon is the failure by the offender to disclose seven digital accounts that he had created and was operating at the time of the offending. The accounts were not utilised by the offender to commit any of the other offences, though there were numerous of them and the offender’s predilection for internet-based offending serves to underline the importance of his compliance with the requirement to report use of digital accounts.
In Bisiker v R [2002] NSWCCA 110, Kirk J (with whom Bell CJ and Price J agreed) relevantly identified the protective nature of such legislation and that its purpose included the provision of intelligence to police to improve the management of child sex offenders in the community, before concluding that there was a need to treat breaches by registered offenders of their obligations as involving “quite distinct criminality” from related offending at [25]:
Achievement of these purposes would be undermined if any failure to comply with the Act was seen as being subsumed within any subsequent offence which occurred in connection with something with something which should have been reported. In order for the protective regime to be effective it is important that there be deterrence for the very fact of failing to comply with the requirements of the Act.
In my view the Territory offence was toward the lower end of objective seriousness.

Subjective circumstances

Pre-Sentence Report (PSR)

The offender is 28 years old. He was born and raised near Coffs Harbour in New South Wales (NSW). He has one younger brother and several step and half siblings with whom he has no contact. The offender’s parents separated when he was six years old and he recalled many arguments between them. He reported that he moved between the homes of his mother and his father and also lived with his grandfather. The offender’s father passed away suddenly in 2021 and he was not able to attend the funeral because he was in custody in NSW. He reported a difficult relationship with his mother and he ceased contact with her towards the end of 2023. The offender has regular phone contact with his grandmother. The offender reported forming a new relationship whilst in custody.
The offender has been diagnosed with Autism-Spectrum-Disorder (ASD) and Attention-Deficit-Hyperactivity-Disorder (ADHD). The pre-sentence report (PSR) recorded that the report of psychologist Patrick Sheehan dated 15 March 2022 confirmed that the offender has been diagnosed with ASD and ADHD and also suggested a diagnosis of paedophilic disorder. The offender is currently a recipient of the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) funding.
Prior to being remanded in custody the offender lived in a shared property with one other tenant. Upon his release from custody he understands that accommodation would be organised by his NDIS service provider.
The offender completed year 12. He was briefly employed in the fast-food industry for a period of 3 weeks many years ago but has not worked since. He reported that he had explored volunteer work with the assistance of the NDIS but could not find any work he found interesting. He stated to the report author that he attends the library twice weekly but did not want to discuss engaging with any programs or education within the Alexander Maconochie Centre (AMC).
The offender does not have any debts and was receiving a disability support pension prior to his remand. He reported that except for NDIS support service providers he did not have any friends or associates. He reported no current issues with alcohol or drug use.
With respect to his attitude towards the offences the offender acknowledged that his actions have caused harm to others. The offender “was able to identify the harm that may have been caused for the victims in the form of trauma, emotional scaring, difficulty engaging in healthy relationships and trust”. He advised he had no intention of accessing child abuse material in the future. However, the offender also acknowledged that he has a curiosity towards victims aged between three and 12 years old and that he allowed himself to believe that the material was “not real life”. The author of the PSR concluded that the offender displayed limited insight into his offending conduct and how to address his criminogenic risk factors.
The offender told the author of the report that his partner would support him and assist him not to reoffend. The author recorded that the offender’s partner was also known to ACT Corrective Services and has a history of sexual offending against children.

Forensic Mental Health Assessment of Ms Frew

A report authored by Ms Tabitha Frew dated 8 August 2025 was tendered. Ms Frew is a clinical psychologist and holds a Master of Clinical Psychology from the University of Canberra. Ms Frew concluded that the offender suffered from the following mental impairments at the time he committed the offences:
(a)Autism Spectrum Disorder, level two (requiring substantial support) with intellectual impairment (borderline intellectual functioning).
(b)Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, predominantly hyperactive/impulsive presentation.
(c)Paedophilic Disorder, no-exclusive type, sexually attracted to males and females.
(d)Major Depressive Disorder, moderate severity, recurrent episode.
The following is a summary of the observations and conclusions contained in Ms Frew’s report:
(a)Mr Wake’s intellectual functioning was assessed as being in the ‘borderline range’ in the Neuropsychological Assessment report by Ms Kerrin Danswan, clinical psychologist, dated 01 February 2023. Borderline intellectual functioning is a neurocognitive impairment that has significant effects on the daily lives of people who experience it.
(b)Mr Wake’s most severe areas of disability were in the areas of social and cognitive, specifically his ability to communicate with and understand others, and participate in social activities within everyday society.
(c)It is impossible to know whether Mr Wake’s borderline intellectual functioning resulted from Autism or was caused by early and repeated exposure to family violence or being born premature, or a combination of those factors.
(d)Mr Wake’s ability to exercise appropriate judgment was impaired by the interaction of Autism, borderline intellectual functioning, and paedophilic disorder. Difficulties with perspective-taking and understanding abstract social norms, coupled with reduced reasoning ability, limited his capacity to fully weigh the moral and legal consequences of his conduct. Specifically, his borderline intellectual functioning likely compromised his insight into the offending.
(e)Whilst the offender is capable of understanding that his behaviour was illegal, his limitations make it less likely that he could develop genuine victim empathy or sustain self-monitoring without structured support. The deliberate and sustained nature of his offending shows that his planning abilities remained intact, as evidenced by the capacity to source the Child Abuse Material, and to maintain interactions and relationships with online co-offenders.
(f)The offender’s Paedophilic Disorder provided the deviant sexual interest that underpinned his actions to seek the Child Abuse material while Autism, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder and borderline intellectual functioning reduced his capacity for self-regulation and ethical abstract reasoning, thereby weakening his ability to manage the sexual attraction lawfully and/or seek treatment. The level of planning and persistence involved in Mr Wake’s offending demonstrates that his culpability was likely to be only partially mitigated by his conditions; his capacity for choice and goal-directed offending behaviour was not wholly impaired.
(g)Paedophilic Disorder is likely to make imprisonment more onerous for the offender than for the average detainee at AMC.
(h)The most detrimental impact of custody appears to be the forming of his romantic relationship with an adult with a history of like offending. This relationship has been maintained for over 12 months and it has continued even after his partner’s release from custody. Mr Wake’s future plans involve residing with his partner, who potentially also has a Paedophilic Disorder. Mr Wake does not appear to conceptualise the risks associated with these plans.

Verdins consideration

Ms Frew concluded that there was a direct connection between the offender’s psychological conditions and his offending conduct. She further concluded that the offender’s psychological conditions only partially mitigate his conduct in view of the level of planning and persistence involved. It was accepted by the Crown, in light of Ms Frew’s conclusions, that the principles in R v Verdins [2007] VSCA 102; 16 VR 269 are enlivened.

Bugmy consideration

The material established that which the Crown did not contest, namely that the offender’s childhood background was one of disadvantage. His childhood was attended to by instability arising from his parents’ separation and he was exposed to family violence and substance abuse. The offender’s disadvantaged childhood experience must be given “full weight”: Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571; [2013] HCA 37.

Conclusion on subjective factors

This is a matter where the offender’s psychological and cognitive conditions are difficult to disentangle from his childhood experience. As Ms Frew identified it is difficult to identify whether the offender’s cognitive condition arises from his autism, early and repeated exposure to family violence, his premature birth or a combination of those factors.
I am satisfied that the cumulative effect of those interconnected factors is a reduction in the offender’s moral culpability: NK v R [2025] NSWCCA 73 at [100]. I am satisfied that general deterrence should be moderated to some degree as a result. I will come to a consideration of countervailing factors further on in these remarks.
I acknowledge that imprisonment will be more onerous on the offender because of his autism, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, borderline intellectual functioning, and paedophilic disorder as to which Ms Frew concluded:
The sensory overload, unpredictability, and social complexity of the custodial environment can cause heightened anxiety and distress for individuals with Autism, while the Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder may exacerbate restlessness and impulsivity, increasing the risk of disciplinary incidents. His borderline intellectual functioning may limit comprehension of prison rules, grievance processes, and program content, making him more dependent on others and more vulnerable to exploitation. The stigma attached to sexual offending against children places him at elevated risk of victimisation in custody.
However, it should also be noted that Ms Frew observed an improvement in the offender’s mental health in custody because he was no longer engaging in a “sedentary and socially isolated lifestyle like he was in the community”. Additionally, Ms Frew considered that his mental health had likely improved because of his reduced exposure to child abuse material and the effect of this on his psychosocial functionality.

Remorse and rehabilitation

The offender has expressed limited remorse for the offending. His capacity to do so meaningfully must be viewed through the prism of his diagnoses. Mr Frew recorded that when asked about empathy for others the offender responded, “I do feel it, I can’t show it though”. Relevantly, Ms Frew concluded:
The combination of Autism and borderline intellectual functioning likely meant that his understanding of wrongfulness was more focussed on the fact that the conduct was against the law, rather than Mr Wake having a full appreciation of the profound and lasting harm caused to children used in the child abuse material. Limited perspective-taking skills would have made it harder for him to conceptualise the victims as real individuals suffering from ongoing trauma, particularly where the abuse occurred in the past or was mediated through images.
The prospect of rehabilitation is a factor I must consider including pursuant to s 16A(2AAA) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) by considering whether it is appropriate in determining the length of any sentence or non-parole period “to include sufficient time for the person to undertake a rehabilitation program”.
In a record of interview with police on 4 April 2024 the offender stated:
Essentially, I relapsed – have either of you two read the report?...I was incarcerated for something similar…and basically, this isn’t an excuse I’m being as genuine as I can and I relapsed when I thought I was doing better, and pardon my French but I fucked up and I ….I don’t care anymore.
…
It’s a bit of a mental issue as well…I’m breaking at the seams is how I would describe it.
The offender highlighted the lack of support that he has received in the community since being released from custody in NSW and the causal link between his offending and his mental health and cognitive conditions. The offender indicated willingness to receive anti-libidinal treatment, a chemical injection that would supress his sexual urges, though he was unwilling to participate in any specific sex offender programs at the AMC citing concern that he would be targeted by other inmates as a result.
Despite the offender being subject to a community correction order in NSW, the PSR did not provide any detail of supports provided to him or any rehabilitative demands placed upon him when he was released from prison in NSW, prior to his relocation to the ACT.
Ms Frew assessed the offender as having poor prospects of rehabilitation and a high risk of reoffending concluding that the offender’s “capacity for logical reasoning, self-regulation, and moral judgment is assessed as being indirectly and moderately compromised by the impact of his co-occurring conditions.” The PSR author similarly concluded that the offender was a medium risk of general reoffending and a high risk of sexual reoffending.
Ms Frew recommended that the offender participate in an offence-specific psychological intervention program which could be partially delivered in the custodial setting. She also recommended that if placed on a community-based order, the offender be assessed by a forensic psychiatrist for suitability for voluntary anti-libidinal treatment to suppress sexual urges. Ms Frew considered it necessary that the offender recommence stimulant medication to manage his attention deficit hyperactivity disorder but noted this may be impossible in the custodial environment. Ms Frew also expressed concern about the offender having unsupervised access to the internet and concluded that “this should be considered within his conditions on release to the community”.
The following conclusion from Ms Frew sounds as cause for concern about the risk he presents to the community:
While individuals convicted solely of Child Abuse Material offences generally demonstrate lower rates of contact sexual recidivism than contact offenders, Mr Wake’s profile diverges from the typical ‘low-contact-risk’ online offender. His CPORT Score (Child Pornography Offender Risk Tool), history of escalation, persistence despite legal consequences, explicit offence-related fantasies and association with other offenders substantially elevate concern for both continued online offending and the potential for progression for contact offences.
As it stands, in my view, the offender has poor prospects of rehabilitation. The offender has limited insight and remorse. The intervention of the criminal justice system for like offending in 2021 failed to deter him, the consequence of which included registration on the child sex offender register (and the prospect of further imprisonment for breach conduct) which additionally strengthened the prospect of detection of any reoffending conduct. The offences for which he must now be sentenced represent an escalation in the scope and seriousness of his offending conduct.
The offender has formed a relationship in custody. The offender’s paedophilic disorder influences his capacity for rehabilitation and the need to protect the community. The offender’s new partner is similarly recorded for this kind of offending. Ms Frew observed:
Paedophilic disorder further distorts his moral reasoning by introducing sexual gratification as a competing priority, which can override the willingness to learn about the harm caused to children, including abstract ethical considerations about the broader impact on society of his own psychosocial functioning.
The relationship the offender has formed in custody has continued for over 12 months including after his partner’s release from custody. The offender’s inability to identify the risks associated with that connection, such that he intends to reside with his partner upon his release, is troubling. Not because of the fact of the relationship, but because of what the offender’s attitude toward it reveals about the insight he has into his own circumstances. There is a real prospect of the relationship reaffirming the “moral reasoning” which underpins the offender’s pursuit of sexual gratification from child abuse material. Ms Frew concluded that the formation of his relationship was “the most detrimental” aspect of the offender’s remand and that the couple’s interaction with each other should be monitored because of the potential for “offence-parallelling behaviours”.
I acknowledge, as Ms Frew suggested, that the offender could develop greater insight through targeted offence-specific intervention that might be made available to him in custody. His reluctance to engage is child sex offender treatment whilst in custody provides limited scope for hope that there can be any meaningful intervention whilst he is incarcerated. The reality is that without significant intervention and support the offender will remain at high risk for similar offending in the future. The offender’s refusal to participate in targeted intervention whilst incarcerated will delay the commencement of meaningful treatment. The parole authorities will be best placed to assess the offender’s specific needs in the context of community protection when he becomes eligible for release, including the need for him to complete child sex offender specific rehabilitation programs.

Criminal history

On 31 March 2022, the offender was convicted in NSW of the following offences:
(a)one count of possess child abuse material contrary to s 91H of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). The offender was sentenced to 2 years and 6 months of imprisonment with a non-parole period of 18 months (which commenced on 19 January 2021 and ended on 18 July 2022); and
(b)one count of possess child-like sex doll or other object, contrary to section 273A.1 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth). The offender was sentenced to a community corrections order for a period of 2 years, commencing 31 March 2022 and concluding 30 March 2024.
Both offences meet the definition of a “child sexual abuse offence” contained in s 3 of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth). The NSW offence is a state “registrable child sex offence”, and the federal offence is a “Commonwealth child sex offence”.

Time in custody

The offender has been in custody since 4 April 2024 and the sentence I impose will be backdated to take account of that period of pre-sentence custody.

Guilty pleas and reductions

The offender pleaded guilty to the offences in the ACT Magistrates Court.
It was accepted that the pleas came at the earliest opportunity and had significant utilitarian value. By his early pleas of guilty the offender has facilitated justice.
On 4 April 2024 when a search warrant was executed, the offender made several admissions including as to his creation and use of seven digital accounts.
For the Territory offence, s 35(4) of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) precludes a significant reduction in circumstances where a case is “overwhelming strong”. The prosecution submitted that s 35(4) applied in this instance and the seven digital accounts the offender admitted would have been discovered by investigators without his admission.
This is not entirely clear from the statement of facts. Not every account was obviously connected to the offender. The statement of facts sets out the Territory offence as based only on the offender’s admissions. The offender is recorded as making “full admissions” which included the name of the application and the account name for each of the seven digital accounts which made out the Territory offence. I am not satisfied based on the material before me that the digital accounts would inevitably have been discovered by investigators had the offender not nominated them as belonging to him.
The case against the offender with respect to the Territory offence was “overwhelming strong” because he made full admissions to the existence and operation of the accounts. The result is that s 35(4) applies. I will reduce the sentence I impose in recognition of the utilitarian value of the pleas of guilty by 5%. It is appropriate to reduce the sentence for the Territory offence by a further 25% pursuant to s 36 of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act in recognition of the substantial assistance to law enforcement authorities that the offender’s admissions represented.
With respect to the federal offences, the offender was co-operative with investigators admitting that the electronic devices in his bedroom were used by him exclusively and offering a general explanation for his offending conduct. This is a matter to be taken into account pursuant to s 16A(2)(h) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth). So too pursuant to s 16A(2)(g), the offender’s prompt plea of guilty which facilitated justice to a significant degree.

The application of s 16AAAB and 16AAC (2) and (3) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)

As I have already recorded, s 16AAB of the Crimes Act1914 (Cth) applies to the federal offences. It mandates a minimum term of imprisonment, subject to exceptions, of 4 years.
The Crown submitted that a reduction in accordance with s 16AAC “is ordinarily only appropriate where the prima facie sentence determined falls within, or falls close to, the “least serious circumstance””. The Crown submitted that the offending in this instance “falls well above that which may be contemplated in the least serious circumstances” and “the Court will not need to impose a sentence below the prescribed mandatory minimum head sentence in this matter”.
Properly considered by reference to the authorities, I understood the effect of the submission to be that in this matter there will be no need to invoke s 16AAC because the term imposed arising from the objective seriousness of the offending should not fall below the minimum mandatory term.
It is useful to consider some of the authorities with respect to the approach required when s 16AAB applies and the effect of s 16AAC.
In Hurt v The King; Delzotto v The King [2024] HCA 8; 98 ALJR 485 (per Edelman, Steward and Gleeson JJ) the High Court endorsed that which was determined by the ACT Court of Appeal in Hurt v the Queen [2022] ACTCA 49; 18 ACTLR 272 and the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal in R v Delzotto [2022] NSWCCA 117; 298 A Crim R 483 (consistent with Bahar v The Queen [2011] WASCA 249; 45 WAR 100) namely that a mandatory minimum term serves a “double function”. That double function is to be understood as first, a restriction on sentencing power to the minimum period of imprisonment, subject to the limited exceptions, and second, the provision of a yardstick, “that imposes an increased starting point for the appropriate term of imprisonment for the offence in the least serious circumstances” thereby operating “to increase the appropriate term of imprisonment generally for that offence”: at [54].
With respect to the “limited exceptions” contained in s 16AAC(2) the majority in Hurt; Delzottto concluded at [103] - [104]:
The effect of s 16AAC(2), and the reason that s 16AAB(2) is made, relevantly, subject to s 16AAC(2), is that an offender's plea of guilty or an offender's co-operation with law enforcement agencies, or both, could result in the reduction of an offender's sentence below the prescribed minimum: there is a "discretion to deviate from the minimum terms set statutorily by up to 25 per cent each, to allow for the recognition of early guilty pleas and cooperation with law enforcement". Where, as here, the minimum sentence is four years' imprisonment, s 16AAC(3) has the effect that the discount for either a plea of guilty or co-operation cannot reduce the sentence below a floor of three years and the combined discount for both cannot reduce the sentence below a floor of two years.
The exceptional circumstances in which a discount can lead to a sentence of imprisonment below the minimum prescribed sentence do not detract from the role of the minimum sentence as a yardstick. Rather, the process contemplated by s 16AAC reinforces the yardstick role of the minimum sentence. The discretion in s 16AAC(2) applies where it is "appropriate to reduce the sentence", implying that a legitimate procedure will involve determining a prima facie sentence with the use of the prescribed minimum sentence as a yardstick, prior to considering the discount. The subsequent and transparent consideration of the discounts in s 16A(2)(g) (plea of guilty) and s 16A(2)(h) (co-operation with law enforcement agencies) reinforces the utilitarian goals underlying those considerations.
(Citations omitted).
In Delzotto the Court upheld a ground of appeal that the sentence imposed at first instance did not reflect “the sentencing principle that a mandatory minimum head sentence of 4 years imprisonment was for the least serious category of offending” at [8]. The Crown abandoned another ground of appeal (ground 2) which asserted that a reduction pursuant to s 16 AAC could only be made “unless sentence would otherwise be one at the statutory minimum of 4 years” at [95].
Beech-Jones CJ at CL (as his Honour then was), agreeing with Adamson J that the appeal should be upheld and the offender re-sentenced, observed at [3] that “[A]t least one permutation of ground 2 contended that the power conferred by s 16AAC(2) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) to reduce a sentence below the minimum periods specified in column 2 of the Table in s 16AAB, on account of an offender’s plea of guilty or cooperation with law enforcement agencies, could only be exercised in a case that involved the “lowest category of offending” which I understand to mean an offence the objective seriousness of which was at the bottom of the range.” His Honour expressed a view at [4] that there is “nothing in the text of s 16AAC which supported this contention”.
Consistent with that observation, Adamson J taking into account the offender’s significant subjective circumstances resentenced the offender in relation to an offence in the “mid-range” of objective seriousness, to a “pre-discount” term of six years of imprisonment. A reduction of 25 per cent for the plea of guilty and 5 per cent for co-operation with law enforcement was applied which resulted in the imposition of a term of four years and two months of imprisonment.
In Glasheen v R [2022] NSWCCA 191 the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal considered an appeal from a sentenced imposed before the judgment in Delzotto was given, where the sentencing judge acceded to a submission from the Crown that the reductions pursuant to s 16AAC could only apply to offending in the “least serious category”. The sentencing judge concluded, despite a determination that the appropriate “undiscounted” head sentence was 4 years and 6 months of imprisonment, that the mandatory minimum term “obliged” the imposition of term of 4 years of imprisonment and the reductions to which the offender was entitled could not be applied. At the hearing on the appeal “the Crown accepted that it was not necessary for the sentence to be the mandatory minimum sentence, or even in the lowest category of objective seriousness, before the deductions in s 16AAC could be utilised” at [14]. Drawing on the Beech-Jones CJ at CL analysis in Delzotto the Court concluded that the sentencing judge was not “obliged to impose a sentence of 4 years’ imprisonment” and the appellant was re-sentenced accordingly, the detail of which I will come.

In R vTaylor [2022] NSWCCA 256 (determined after Delzotto and Glasheen but before Hurt; Delzotto), Simpson AJA (with whom Davies J agreed and Wilson J agreed on the grounds which considered s 16AAB) ultimately dismissed a Crown appeal against a sentence which imposed the mandatory minimum term of 4 years of imprisonment, reduced to 3 years of imprisonment by application of s 16AAC(2)(a) and (3)(a) for the offender’s prompt plea of guilty. Her Honour rejected the Crown’s contention that “unless the offending in respect of which an offender is to be sentenced is expressly found to be “within the least serious category of [relevant] offending”, a sentence exceeding the mandatory minimum term must, as a matter of law, be imposed” [emphasis in original] and observed at [69]:
It may well be that, as a matter of judgment, it will be a rare case that a sentence at the level of the mandated minimum meets the requirements of sentencing unless the case is judged to be “within the least serious category of offending”.
It follows from the authorities that the “double function” requires acknowledgement of the general restriction which applies to the sentencing power in relation to the federal offences in this matter and consideration of the yardstick provided by the minimum mandatory term as a starting point for an offence in the least serious circumstances and the maximum penalty at the other end of the spectrum.
In this matter, after applying the reduction in recognition of the offender’s early plea of guilty and his cooperation with law enforcement authorities to the “pre-discounted” term, if it be that the sentence falls below the mandatory minimum term, I am permitted to go below that term pursuant to s 16AAC(2)(a) and (b) if I consider it appropriate to do so, observing the “floor” below which the sentence cannot extend pursuant to s 16AAC(3)(a) and (b).
The interests of transparency are advanced by an express quantification of the reduction applied: Abreu v The Queen [2020] NSWCCA 286 at [40]. I consider it appropriate to reduce the sentence imposed on the federal offences because of the offender’s early plea of guilty by 25% and because of his co-operation with law enforcement authorities by 5%.

Sentencing practice

The Crown provided a table of comparable sentencing outcomes. Care must be taken in the process of comparison. Consistency in sentencing requires consistent application of principle, not numerical equivalence. The outcomes I was taken to included the following matters: Hulsman v R [2025] VSCA 63; R v Stiller [2023] QCA 51; Glasheen.
In Hulsman v R the offender was charged with one count of use carriage service to access child abuse material contrary to s 474.22(1) (charge one), one count of use carriage service to transmit child abuse material and causing child abuse material to be transmitted contrary to s 474.22(1) (charge two) and one count of possess of control child abuse material contrary to s 474.22A(1) (charge three). Pursuant to s 16AAB a mandatory minimum head sentence of 4 years applied to each offence. Charge one related to the offender being present in a zoom meeting on 10 June 2023 where child abuse material was broadcasted by the host of the meeting to the meeting participants. The offender was in the online meeting for approximately 38 minutes. Charge two comprised of the offender transmitting child abuse material via the Messenger application in 12 different chats between May 2023 and August 2023. Charge 3 related to the offender possessing 575 files constituting child abuse material across four devices. The offender was sentenced to 3 years and 3 months for charge one, 4 years and 2 months for charge two, and 4 years and 2 months for charge three. The total effective sentence was 6 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 3 years and 9 months.
The offender had no significant work history, minimal pro-social supports and a history of sexual abuse. The offender had alcohol abuse issues and was a regular user of methamphetamine, though he had made attempts to address his drug issues. The offender had not offended between 2009-2021. The offender had complex mental health issues including Complex-Post-Traumatic-Stress-Disorder, depressive disorder, a personality disorder, a generalised anxiety disorder, ADHD and a mild-moderate intellectual impairment. A term of imprisonment was accepted to likely be more burdensome because of his mental illness. The Bugmy principles were applied. The sentencing judge concluded that the highly depraved nature of the material meant that the lower than is usual volume of material was not “a matter that substantially reduces the gravity of the offending” at [14]. An appeal by the offender was dismissed.
In R v Stiller the offender was charged with one count of use carriage service to access child abuse material contrary to s 474.22(1). Two additional child abuse material offences were taken into account. S 16AAB applied. The primary offence was an offence that took place over six and half months where the offender accessed 140 child abuse material files. The two additional offences took place over a period of 5 years and 8 months. The offender cooperated with authorities, confessed to the offending, and entered an early plea of guilty. The offender was sentenced to 3 years and 6 months with a non-parole period of 12 months. An appeal which asserted error with respect to the application of s 16AAC(2) and (3) and manifest excess was dismissed.
The offender drew my attention to Mertell v The Queen [ 2022] ACTCA 69. The offender was sentenced for nine separate offences relating to accessing or possessing child abuse material. Each offence had a maximum penalty of 15 years of imprisonment, though s 16AAC did not apply. The offender was found in possession of 513 child abuse material files across seven different devices. Seven of the offences related to possessing the same material across the seven different devices. The additional two offences related to accessing child abuse material. The offender was initially sentenced to a total of 6 years and 3 months imprisonment with a non-parole period of 24 months. An appeal which alleged that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive on the basis that was attended to by a failure to give adequate weight to the principal of totality, was upheld. The subjective factors of the appellant included a diagnosis of Attention-Deficit-Hyperactivity-Disorder (ADHD) and Autism-Spectrum-Disorder (ASD), estrangement from his family and limited social network, a history of being sexually abused as a child, and lack of prior convictions. It was noted that the appellant had failed to acknowledge the seriousness of the offending, lacked remorse and lacked empathy for the victims. The court resentenced the appellant to a total of 30 months of imprisonment to be released after serving 12 months of imprisonment, on a 2-year recognisance release order with conditions.
In Glasheen the offender was sentenced for one “rolled up” count of use carriage service to access child abuse material. The offender was subject to the mandatory minimum term and had 64 child abuse material images on his laptop. The offending took place over 8 days. The sentencing judge imposed a period of imprisonment of 4 years with a non-parole period of 2 years and 8 months after determining that the mandatory minimum term “obliged” the imposition of a sentence of four years’ imprisonment. The offender’s prospect of rehabilitation was assessed as “guarded”. The offender appealed the sentence. The Crown conceded that the sentencing judge had erred and that “it was not necessary for the sentence to be the mandatory minimum sentence, or event in the lowest category of objective seriousness, before the deductions in s 16 AAC could be utilised”. On appeal none of the findings made by the sentencing judge were challenged. Subjective features included the offenders a diabetes diagnosis, Covid-19 conditions and mental health difficulties in custody, the impact of incarceration on family members, relevant criminal history and an early plea of guilty. For the offence which was assessed as being “below mid-range but not into the least serious category of offending” the offender was re-sentenced to 3 years and 1 month term of imprisonment with a non-parole period of 2 years and 4 months. The “undiscounted” head sentence was 4 years and six months of imprisonment.

Cumulation, concurrency and totality.

In respect of the Territory offence I am satisfied, having regard to possible alternatives, that the only appropriate sentence is a period of imprisonment. No submission was advanced to the contrary.
The analysis in Bahar, Delzotto and Taylor was to the effect that the mandatory minimum term pursuant to s 16AAB operates to preclude a non-custodial sentence as an “available sentence” (cf Gagelar CJ and Jagot J in the minority at [34] in Hurt; Delzotto). There could be no suggestion in this case that anything other than a period of imprisonment would be an appropriate outcome and so much was conceded by the offender.
This sentencing task requires a sentence be imposed on nine individual offences. I approach it by determining the sentence for each offence and then turn to consider cumulation, concurrency and totality.
Where, as in the case here, an offender is to be sentenced for multiple federal child sex offences or a combination of Territory registrable child sex offences and federal child sex offences, s 19(5) of the Crimes Act (Cth) imposes a presumption in favour of cumulation subject to s 19(6) and (7).
I have had regard to s 19(1)-(4) noting that 19(3) dictates the approach that must be taken when imposing a period of imprisonment for both a territory offence and federal offences. The effect of s 19AJ of the Crimes Act (Cth) is that I cannot impose a single non-parole period for both Territory and federal offences.
Accordingly, I will structure the sentence so that the period of imprisonment imposed on the Territory offence will be entirely served before the first period of imprisonment with respect to the federal offences is commenced. Of course, in coming to set the non-parole period for the federal offences I will have regard to the overall period of imprisonment imposed upon the offender as well as to s 16A(2AAA). Whilst the total period of imprisonment will be taken into account in setting the non-parole period, it will commence on the first day of the term of imprisonment imposed on the first federal offence.
The offending represents a sustained course of conduct where the offender deliberately engaged in accessing, possessing and transmitting child abuse material for the purposes of sexual gratification.
There is substantial overlap in some of the offender’s engagement with child abuse material. The access offence (CC2024/42180) relates to the “Mega” account the offender possessed (CC2024/4007) when police executed the search warrant. The access offence in my view should be entirely concurrent. The child abuse material transmitted (CC2024/4009 and CC2024/42182) by the offender was material which he accessed and possessed, a consideration which favours substantial concurrency as between those offences (see the approach taken on the resentence by Kennett and Rangiah JJ in Hurt v The Queen [2022] ACTSC 9 at [200]). In addition, the application of the totality principle in my view requires significant concurrency to avoid a crushing outcome for the offender and to permit a substantial period over which the offender can be supervised in the community.

Determination

The offender’s federal offences were not victimless. It is an inescapable conclusion that significant physical, emotional, and/or psychological harm was inflicted upon the many children depicted in the child abuse material.
In R v Clarkson [2011] VSCA 157, the Victorian Court of Appeal noted at [3]:
The absolute prohibition on sexual activity with a child is founded on a presumption of harm. The prohibition is intended to protect children from the harm presumed to be caused by premature sexual activity, that is, activity before the age when a child can give meaningful consent
Procuring and sharing child abuse material ensures the existence of a market for its production. The offender engaged in the trade and exchange of child abuse material, including by Bitcoin purchase, which contributes to the demand for its production and drives the attribution of commercial value for conduct which unequivocally exploits and harms children. By his conduct the offender perpetuated that harm.
That the offending involved a relatively low volume of child abuse material compared to other examples which come before sentencing courts, must be considered in light of the highly depraved, grotesque nature of the material and the significant number of real children involved. The community rightly expects that offenders who give effect to a perverse sexual interest in children by engaging with child abuse material, thereby fuelling its production, should receive severe punishment.
The offender’s capacity to control his conduct was weakened to an extent by his mental and intellectual impairments The conclusion that the offender’s moral culpability is reduced moderates to a degree the weight to be afforded to general deterrence. That is not to say that it is extinguished altogether; the effect of the reduction in moral culpability is that general deterrence does not take on entirely the significance it ordinarily has when sentencing for this kind of offending.
Notwithstanding the reduction in his moral culpability, the offender’s conduct revealed a capacity for planning and persistent pursuit of his deviant sexual predilection by deliberate participation in a market which relies on causing harm to children. This was despite a higher risk of his conduct being detected by virtue of his registration as a sex offender. The offender’s conduct must be denounced, and the community must be protected from it.
Specific deterrence and punishment are highly relevant. Combined with the offender’s lack of insight, his limited remorse, his reluctance to engage in specific treatment which might assist him in custody, his overall poor prospects of rehabilitation and his high risk of re-offending, protection of the community looms large in this sentencing exercise. Those factors also favour a significant period of supervision on parole.
I bear in mind that the deterrent and punitive effects of a sentence must reflect in both the head sentence and the minimum term to be served. The principles relevant to the setting of the minimum term that justice demands the offender serve, are not altered by the application of a mandatory minimum sentencing regime. The considerations relevant to setting a head sentence apply equally to a determination of when an offender should become eligible for release to the community. I have acknowledged the application of s 16A(2AAA) and considered the targeted, substantial rehabilitative intervention the offender requires to reduce his risk of re-offending and to address the factors which influenced his offending conduct. I have had regard to the need for the total effective sentence to be of a severity appropriate in all the circumstances.
The starting point for CC2024/4008: Failure to report as required as a registerable offender, contrary to s 58A(1) of the Crimes (Child Sex Offenders) Act 2005 (ACT) is 12 months of imprisonment reduced to 8 months and 12 days imprisonment for the offender’s plea of guilty and his assistance to law enforcement authorities.
The starting point for CC2024/42197: Use carriage service to possess child abuse material, contrary to s 474.22A(1) of the Criminal CodeAct 1995 (Cth) is 6 years of imprisonment reduced to 4 years, 2 months and 11 days for the offender’s plea of guilty and his assistance to law enforcement authorities.
The starting point for CC2024/4007: Use carriage service to possess child abuse material, contrary to s 474.22A of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) is 5 years and 6 months of imprisonment. It is appropriate to reduce the sentence pursuant to s 16AAC to 3 years, 10 months and 6 days for the offender’s plea of guilty and his assistance to law enforcement authorities.
The starting point for CC2024/42180: Use carriage service to access child abuse material, contrary to s 474.22(1) of the Criminal CodeAct 1995 (Cth) is 5 years and 6 months of imprisonment. It is appropriate to reduce the sentence pursuant to s 16AAC to 3 years, 10 months and 6 days for the offender’s plea of guilty and his assistance to law enforcement authorities.
The starting point for CC2024/42182: Use carriage service to transmit child abuse material, contrary to s 474.22(1) of the Criminal CodeAct 1995 (Cth) is 5 years and 6 months of imprisonment. It is appropriate to reduce the sentence pursuant to s 16AAC to 3 years, 10 months and 6 days for the offender’s plea of guilty and his assistance to law enforcement authorities.
The starting point for CC2024/4009: Use carriage service to transmit child abuse material, contrary to s 474.22(1) of the Criminal CodeAct 1995 (Cth) is 4 years and 6 months of imprisonment. It is appropriate to reduce the sentence pursuant to s 16AAC to 3 years 1 month and 24 days for the offender’s plea of guilty and his assistance to law enforcement authorities.
The starting point for CC2024/42181: Use carriage service to solicit child abuse material, contrary to s 474.22(1) of the Criminal CodeAct 1995 (Cth) is 4 years and 6 months of imprisonment. It is appropriate to reduce the sentence pursuant to s 16AAC to 3 years 1 month and 24 days for the offender’s plea of guilty and his assistance to law enforcement authorities.
The starting point for CC2024/42188: Use carriage service to make available child abuse material, contrary to s 474.22(1) of the Criminal CodeAct 1995 (Cth) is 5 years and 6 months of imprisonment. It is appropriate to reduce the sentence pursuant to s 16AAC to 3 years, 10 months and 6 days for the offender’s plea of guilty and his assistance to law enforcement authorities.
The starting point for CC2024/42190: Use carriage service to cause child abuse material to be transmitted to self, contrary to s 474.22(1) of the Criminal CodeAct 1995 (Cth) is 5 years and 6 months of imprisonment. It is appropriate to reduce the sentence pursuant to s 16AAC to 3 years, 10 months and 6 days for the offender’s plea of guilty and his assistance to law enforcement authorities.

Forfeiture Order

The Crown makes application for an order of forfeiture pursuant to s 23ZA of the Crimes Act1914 (Cth). The offender has been notified of the intention to seek the order in relation to specific devices seized during the execution of the search warrant on the basis that the items were derived from, or used in connection with, the commission of a Commonwealth child sex offence CC2024/42182: use carriage service to transmit child abuse material contrary to s 474.22(1) of the Criminal CodeAct 1995 (Cth). The offence carries a maximum penalty of imprisonment of 15 years and/or 900 penalty units.
The offender did not oppose the making of the order. Pursuant to s 23ZD I am satisfied that the offender has committed a Commonwealth child sex offence, that the devices named in the order sought are forfeitable things (see s 23ZA(c)), that the devices were used in connection with the offending and that they have not already become property of the Commonwealth. Accordingly, I must make the order.

Orders

For those reasons I make the following orders:
(1)On each offence the offender is convicted.
(2)CC2024/4008: Failure to report as required as a registerable offender, contrary to s 58A(1) of the Crimes (Child Sex Offenders) Act 2005 (ACT) the offender is sentenced to 8 months 12 days of imprisonment to start on 4 April 2024 and end on 15 December 2024.
(3)On CC2024/42197: Use carriage service to possess child abuse material, contrary to s 474.22A(1) of the Criminal CodeAct 1995 (Cth) the offender is sentenced to 4 years 2 months 11 days of imprisonment to start on 16 December 2024 and end on 26 February 2029.
(4)On CC2024/4007: Use carriage service to possess child abuse material, contrary to s 474.22A of the Criminal CodeAct 1995 (Cth) the offender is sentenced to 3 years 10 months 6 days of imprisonment to start on 20 October 2026 and end on 25 August 2030.
(5)On CC2024/42180: Use carriage service to access child abuse material, contrary to s 474.22(1) of the Criminal CodeAct 1995 (Cth) the offender is sentenced to 3 years 10 months 6 days of imprisonment to start on 20 October 2026 and end on 25 August 2030.
(6)CC2024/42182: Use carriage service to transmit child abuse material, contrary to s 474.22(1) of the Criminal CodeAct 1995 (Cth) the offender is sentenced to 3 years 10 months 6 days of imprisonment to start 19 June 2027 and end on 24 April 2031.
(7)CC2024/4009: Use carriage service to transmit child abuse material, contrary to s 474.22(1) of the Criminal CodeAct 1995 (Cth) the offender is sentenced to 3 years 1 month 24 days of imprisonment commencing to start on 1 September 2028 and end on 24 October 2031.
(8)CC2024/42181: Use carriage service to solicit child abuse material, contrary to s 474.22(1) of the Criminal CodeAct 1995 (Cth) the offender is sentenced to 3 years 1 month 24 days of imprisonment to start on 28 February 2029 and end on 20 April 2032.
(9)CC2024/42188: Use carriage service to make available child abuse material, contrary to s 474.22(1) of the Criminal CodeAct 1995 (Cth) the offender is sentenced to 3 years 10 months 6 days of imprisonment to start on 14 April 2029 and end on 19 February 2033.
(10)CC2024/42190: Use carriage service to cause child abuse material to be transmitted to self, contrary to s 474.22(1) of the Criminal CodeAct 1995 (Cth) the offender is sentenced to 3 years 10 months 6 days of imprisonment to start on 13 February 2030 and end on 18 December 2033.
(11)The total period of imprisonment imposed is 9 years, 8 months and 15 days. The non-parole period starts on 16 December 2024 and ends on 4 February 2030.
(12)Pursuant to s 23ZD of the Crimes Act (Cth) the following items are forfeited to the Commonwealth:
(a)Samsung Galaxy a54 mobile phone; and
(b)Gee Mee Connect 2 mobile phone

I certify that the preceding two-hundred and eleven [211] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Sentence of her Honour Justice Taylor

Associate: N. Dwyer

Date: 17/09/2025

Rosie Lynn	“Cuteee”
Offender	“Thanks hun”
Offender	“Wish I had someone to make me there bitch^^”
Rosie Lynn	“Any pizza aha?”
Offender	“Ooooo u mean cheese pizza?”
Rosie Lynn	“Hehe yep”
“I’m very fond of cheese pizza”
Offender	“I’ll see what I can do for u daddy^^”
Rosie Lynn	“Mommy* aha”
Offender	“Oh your a she?”
“All good”
Rosie Lynn	“Trans”
Offender	“Ooo nice, would love u breed u then^^”
Offender	[Offender sends four image files and two video files constituting Child Abuse Material]

Offender	“Hey how u doing?”
A	“Good”
“Mostly horny lol”
“You?”
Offender	“Same tbh”
“Wish I had a cute little thing to brake in rn”
A	“Same here...”
“To fill and overflow with my love”
Offender	“Mm hell yeah, to head her sob and moan would be so good.”
A	“With some cute little whimpers in between”
Offender	“Mmm yeah, got some (cheese and pizza emojis) if you wanna trade?”
A	“Sure”
Offender	[Offender sends four video and three image files constituting Child Abuse Material]

Tanuki	(emoji of an animal with its tongue out saying "MLEM")
Offender	"Wish I had a kid rn to brake in and train"
Tanuki	"oh fuck me"
Offender	"To far?"
"Or did they just show ?"
Tanuki	"I'm actually fucking leaking"
Offender	"Mmm wish I was there to help ^^"
Tanuki	"goddamn I wish i was there"
"the second video loaded"
"what a fucking cock"
Offender	"I know right?"
Tanuki	"and that girl!!!"
"mmff"
Offender	"I love watching that one when I use my flashlight"
Tanuki	"i bet you cum nice and hard to that ;3"
"that first video not loading is such a tease"

"And you distracted me with tiny holes stuffed with big poles!"
"i missed that sexy video of you shaking your tail like a good boy >:)"
Offender	"Mmm I'll resend it"
[Offender sends image and video of himself]
Tanuki	[Responding to one of the videos constituting Child Abuse Material]: "how old is she in this one?"
[Responding to the video of the Offender]: "fuck you are such a sexy kitty!"
"I bet you love cocks filling that slutty hole of yours don't you?"
Offender	"Mmm, I do, Daddy. I think she's like 9 or something, and I never really got an answer that one"
Tanuki	"that's so hot"
"i love nice fat cocks spreading young holes"
Offender	"Mmm yeah, love hearing them moan and sob"
Tanuki	"what ages are you in to??"
Offender	"Would love to be that young again, I knew a few of my teachers who wanted me badly^&" "6 to 18 and in-between"
Tanuki	"i'm new to all this but i love them as young as I can see 'em"
":3"
Offender	"Nice"

Offender	"Would love a nice tight little thing to brake in"
[Offender sends two files unable to be viewed by police]
Tanuki	"just imagining my little niece getting bent over and spread nice and wide"
"I fucking love chubby girls"
Offender	"Oooo u got a little one?"
Tanuki	"so much to grab on to"
Offender	"So true"
Tanuki	"Just 2 nieces"
Offender	"Mmm nice, how old?"
Tanuki	"8 and 12?"
"i rarely see them"
"but I imagine the 12 year old when she was a few years younger"
"a little chubby, tits are already starting to come in"
"just me and her dad railing her ;))"
"Mmm fuck yeah, would love to force my cock deep into that and breed her"
Tanuki	"you could take her pussy while i fuck her asshole"
"want to leave it swollen and leaking by the time i'm done"
Offender	"Mmm I'd love to hear her screaming/moaning/sobbing"
[Tanuki sends a lawful pornographic image]
Offender	"Mmm fuck yeah"
[Offender sends two files that are unable to be viewed]
Offender	"Mmmm"
[Offender sends two images constituting Child Abuse Material]
Tanuki	"goddamn"
"are you trying to get me to blow my load???"
"Maybe^^"
[Offender sends nude images of himself]
Tanuki	"oh you definitely are"

Offender		"Mmm yeah I know the feeling"
"I've some teen cp if u wanna trade?"
Victor		"Sure ^^"
[Offender and Victor exchange multiple files unable to be viewed by police].
Victor		"Great stuff ^^"
Offender		"Thanks"
Victor		"That is heaven lol"
Offender		"Glad u like it hun"
Victor		" Of course lol"
"But fr"
"Pedos should be accepted"
"It's not our fault that we can see that kids are hot lol"
Offender		"Lol ture"
"True"
"Tho rn I need a good breeding lol"
Victor		(in response to the defendant needing a good breeding) "Wouldn't pass on a diking myself"
"*dicking"
Offender		"Mmm yeah"
Victor		"Hehehe"
"I love dicks man"
Offender		[Offender sends multiple files unable to be viewed by police]
Offender		"Would u like to have me?"
Victor		"Of course i would ^^"
Offender		"Would u like to have a bit of fun?"
Victor		"Right after It we could rape a kid togheter"

[2025] ACTSC 416

12 September 2025