R v Watson

[2019] NSWDC 767

District Court

New South Wales

• Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Watson [2019] NSWDC 767
Hearing dates:	26 November 2019
Decision date:	18 December 2019
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Mahony SC DCJ
Decision:	Full-time custodial sentence. For orders see [162]
Catchwords:	Contravene Child Protection Prohibition Order; failure to comply with Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Act; access and transmit child pornography material.
Legislation Cited:	Child Protection (Offenders Prohibition Orders) Act 2004 (NSW) Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Act 2000 (NSW) Commonwealth Crimes Act 1914 Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 Criminal Code (Cth) 1995 Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth)
Cases Cited:	DPP v Haynes [2017] VSCA 79 DPP v Swingler [2017] VSCA 305 Leach v R (2008) 183 A Crim R 1 Postiglione v R (1997) 189 CLR 295 R v Gordon (1994) 71 A Crim R 459
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Jessica Watson (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel: M Keks (Crown) Ms A Healey   Solicitors: Ms Bolas
File Number(s):	19/288005
Publication restriction:	Order made pursuant to s 7 of the Court Suppression and Non-Publication Orders Act 2010 as to the identity of any victim referred to herein. S 15A of the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW) prohibits the publication of the name of a person if the proceedings relate to the person and the person was a child when the offence to which the proceedings relate was committed. The publication of the offender’s name in connection with any offence of which she was committed as a child is therefore prohibited by S 15A.

REMARKS ON SENTENCE

1. On 27 November, 2019, the offender entered pleas of guilty upon arraignment to the following counts:-

Count 1 – Between about 10 March 2016 and about 16 June 2018 contravened a Child Protection Prohibition Order without reasonable excuse on (18) occasions contrary to Section 13 (1) of the Child Protection (Offenders Prohibition Orders) Act 2004 (NSW).

Count 2 - Between about 11 March 2016 and about 20 April 2018 failed to comply with reporting obligations under the Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Act 2000 (NSW) without reasonable excuse, namely, failed to disclose (8) internet and social media accounts contrary to Section 17 (1) of the Child Protection (Offenders Registration Orders) Act 2004 (NSW)

Count 3- Between about 2 November 2015 and about 14 December 2017 used three carriage services namely a HP Laptop, Alcatel Mobile Phone with cracked screen and a Telstra ZTE GSM – & 81 Telstra Tempo device, to access child pornography material contrary to Section 474.19 (1)(a)(i) of the Criminal Code (Cth) 1995.

Count 4 – Between about 2 October 2016 and about 15 March 2017 caused material to be transmitted using a carriage service, the material being child pornography material contrary to Section 474.19(1)(a)(iii) of the Criminal Code (Cth) 1995.

2. The maximum penalty prescribed for both Counts 1 and 2 was 500 penalty units ($55,000) fine, and/or 5 years imprisonment. The maximum penalty prescribed for both Counts 3 and 4 were 15 years imprisonment and/or 900 penalty units ($162,000).

3. The offender had pleaded guilty to a number of charges earlier in the Local Court, and it was common ground that she was entitled to a 25% utilitarian discount on sentence in respect of Counts 1 and 2 and was also entitled to a discount on sentence in respect of Counts 3 and 4.

The Sentence Hearing

4. The sentence hearing took place at Goulburn District Court on 27 November, 2019. The Commonwealth Crown sentence summary became Exhibit A. It included an Agreed Statement of Facts which may be summarised as follows.

5. By way of background, the offender identifies as transgender (female) and has a mild intellectual disability. Since June 2015 she had been provided disability support services by “Koomarri”. In January 2016 a support person at Koomarri identified that she had been communicating a desire to commit sexual offences against young female children. That person also observed offensive material on a Telstra mobile phone and HP Laptop belonging to the offender whilst visiting her residence. Her concerns were reported to Queanbeyan Police in January 2016.

6. In February 2016, Police located evidence of communications between the Facebook profile of the offender and children in the Cooma/upper Monaro area via an application known as Facebook Messenger. On the basis of those investigations, an interim Child Protection Prohibition Order (“CPPO”) was made against the offender on 23 February 2016.

7. On 7 March 2016 the final CPPO was granted for a period of 5 years subject to the same conditions which were as follows:

“That the respondent Jessica Watson NOT

1. actively communicate or attempt to communicate (directly or indirectly) with any person under the age of 18 years;

2. To reside, or remain in residential premises, with any person under the age of 18 years;

3. Seek or undertake paid or voluntary work that brings the offender into unsupervised contact with any person under the age of 18 years;

4. Actively seek or remain in the company of any person under the age of 18 years;

5. Attend or be in the vicinity of playgrounds, sporting fields, sporting courts, parks, caravan parks, schools, internet cafes, video arcades, electronic games stores, swimming pools, libraries, toy shops or any other locations that are intended for use by persons under the age of 18 years;

6. Knowingly associate or contact, either directly or indirectly, any registrable person or a person who has been convicted of a class 1 or class 2 offence pursuant to the Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Act 2000 (NSW);

7. View, access or possess any child abuse material;

8. View, access or download pornography where the participants purport to be teenagers engaged in sexual acts;

9. Download any images of children obtained from social media or other internet sites;

10. Attend any public premises frequented by children that have an internet connection that have including, but not limited to internet cafes or internet centres for the purpose of using a computer.”

8. The final CPPO (Ex C) was served on the offender on 7 March 2016. Its conditions were explained to the Offender on two further occasions, namely 16 March 2016 and 10 May 2016.

9. By virtue of the final CPPO the offender was deemed a registrable person under the Child Protection (Offender Registration) Act 2000 (NSW) for a period of 5 years. Notices were issued to the offender under the Act, concerning her reporting obligations and her statutory duty to supply personal information to the Police including her mobile telephone number, email address and Facebook account details.

10. On 8 June 2017 whilst executing a search warrant at the offender’s residence Police located 4 mobile phones and 2 tablets that were not registered items.

11. A further mobile phone was seized from the offender on 14 December 2017 and 16 June 2018 whilst conducting a bail compliance check Police seized yet another mobile phone.

COUNT 1 – Contravene CPPO contrary to Section 13(1) of the Child Protection (Offenders Prohibition Orders) Act 2004 (NSW)

12. Between about 10 March 2016 and about 16 June 2018, the offender contravened the CPPO on 18 occasions:

1. On 10 March 2016, the Informant was advised that the "Jess Watson" profile was now using another profile called "Jessica Watson" and that the profile picture was a female child under 18 in an orange bikini (“TW”). A screenshot was provided to the Informant who was informed that the profile had "just added two of TW's friends at school" (Contravene condition 1).

2. On 11 March 2016, the Informant was advised that Facebook profile "Jess Watson" had sent a friend request to a child, TW (Contravene condition 1). The profile image for this account was a dark and blurred proof of age card. A screenshot of this profile was sent to the Informant. The Informant edited the contrast and sharpness of the image and was able to identify some of the information on the photo card. In particular, the Informant was able to identify the words "Anne WATSON", "Fergus Rd Karabar" and a partial date of birth "NOV1986". These details match that of the offender.

3. The Informant was sent an email on 14 March 2016 containing another Facebook profile picture. The email stated "this is the other photo from her profile". The image depicted a child approximately 10 years' old in a bikini on a rip-stick. The same Facebook account also contained an image of the offender's proof of age card as another profile picture (Contravene condition 9).

4. On 15 March 2016, the Informant was advised that the Facebook profile "Jessica Smith" had sent a message to TW using the Facebook messenger application (Contravene condition 1). In the course of the Facebook messages, the profile referred to herself as "Miss Jessica Watson". The offender downloaded and then used an image of a child as the profile picture for this Facebook profile. The image depicted a child approximately 10 years' old, dressed as a gymnast with a painted ghoul face doing a headstand (Contravene condition 9).

5. Around May 2016, the offender sent a Facebook friend request to a child, KB, using the Facebook profile "Jess Watson" (Contravene condition 1). KB did not accept nor decline the request. The Facebook profile picture for that profile was a small girl wearing a colourful bikini and jumping into a pool. The offender also sent a Facebook friend request to KB's sister, RB. RB had recently turned 18 years' old at the time. At the time, RB and KB resided in the Jindabyne area.

6. On 21 July 2016 the Informant located the Facebook profile "Jessica Watson" belonging to the offender (Profile ID number ending in 3387). The Informant took a screenshot of this profile and saved it as a pdf. The profile image for this profile was blank but for the silhouette of a female profile.

7. On 22 September 2016 the Informant located the Facebook profile "Jessica Watson" belonging to the offender (Profile ID number ending in 3431). The Informant screenshotted this profile and saved it as a pdf. The profile image was a female child in a two piece black leotard on a red floor (Contravene condition 9). Underneath the profile name was the comment "i am a young girl is cute and funny".

8. On 21 December 2016 the Informant received a friend request from Facebook profile "Jess Watson" (Profile ID number ending in 8620). The profile picture for this profile was an image of the young female child sitting on a balance beam in a purple leotard (Contravene condition 9). A close up of the profile showed the words "SUCCESS" behind the child. The Informant accepted the friend request, downloaded the profile image and friends list and then blocked the account.

9. On 17 January 2017 the Informant located Facebook profile "Jess Ann Watson" belonging to the offender (Profile ID number ending in 1734). The profile image for this account was the offender's ID card. The Informant identified that this profile had a number of Facebook friends who were under the age of 18.

10. The Informant located one of the children that this profile was "friends" with, HG. HG was under the age of 18 at the time. The Informant spoke with HG in relation to the profile "Jess Ann Watson". On 5 May 2018 HG provided a statement explaining that she had searched for the Facebook profile "Jess Ann Watson" in her Facebook friends, and had found the account. HG stated that she did not know the profile personally. She confirmed she became friends with the profile in June 2016 when she was 15 (Contravene condition 1). She took screenshots of the profile and sent them to the Informant on 18 January 2017. Notably, below the profile image is the date of birth of the user of that profile. The date of birth matches that of the offender.

11. At about 3:51am on 2 August 2017 the Vice President of the Seven Hills Netball Club began to receive text messages from the offender's mobile number ending 659. These messages enquired about the offender's ability to play netball with school age females and to have photos of them. The offender also asked the Vice-President if she had children. This was reported to the police and screenshots were provided. Information of this investigation was provided to the Informant by Blacktown LAC on 21 October 2017 (Contravene condition 4).

12. On 7 November 2017 the Informant conducted a review of the offender's Alcatel mobile phone (Exhibit X0002528566). During the review of this device, the Informant located images of children. In total, the Informant estimated that there were 400 images of children downloaded to the phone's storage (Contravene condition 9).

13. Also during November 2017 the Informant conducted a review of the offender's Pendo Pro Tab (Exhibit X0002528561). A review of this device demonstrated that the Offender had accessed Hungry Jacks free Wi-Fi at times frequented by children on at least 9 separate occasions between 3 August 2016 and 21 September 2016 (Contravene condition 10). Other Wi-Fi connections on the device included Target, Riverside Plaza, and "Vikings".

14. Sometime in 2017, the Informant became aware of an undeclared Instagram account, namely profile "jessicawatson8880" belonging to the offender. The profile was activated in February 2016. The profile image was an image of a child throwing a discus (Contravene condition 9). The same image had been sent to the Informant in relation to a Facebook account said to be used by the Offender.

15. On 23 March 2018, the Informant received the SEEB report for the Alcatel mobile phone with multiple cracks on the screen (Exhibit X0002528571). The Informant observed that the Offender accessed 25 images that contained CETS category 1 child pornography material. One of those images was called "teen_little_bath.jpg", which was downloaded on 21 November 2016. On 29 March 2018, a Cellbrite examination was conducted on the offender's Telstra ZTE GSM-T81 Telstra Tempo device. The Informant identified that (6) images containing child exploitation material were accessed on that device between 19 September 2017 and 14 December 2017 (Contravene condition 7).

16. On 9 May 2018, the Informant also reviewed the Cellbrite report for the Alcatel mobile phone with multiple cracks on the screen (Exhibit X0002528571). This phone is linked to mobile number ending 563. The report demonstrated that the device had accessed Wi-Fi networks at Hungry Jacks and McDonalds on 13 occasions. It also demonstrated that the device had accessed 787 URL addresses containing the word "girls". The Informant also located 8544 images on this device and reviewed these. The Informant observed that the offender downloaded 123 images of children (Contravene condition 10).

17. At about 9:47pm on 16 June 2018, police arrived at the Offender's residence to conduct a bail compliance check. Police inspected the offender's black Optus phone (Exhibit X0002528837) to determine whether she was complying with a bail condition that prohibited her from accessing the internet. The Offender provided the passcode for this device. Police inspected the "Downloads" file and located an image of a female child who appeared to be between 8-10 years old in a swimsuit consisting of a black crop top and mini skirt. The child appeared to be in an adult modelling pose. When shown the image, under caution, the Offender replied "someone hacked my phone". She then became emotional and stated "I downloaded it this afternoon just delete it, I'm sorry, I can't help it, I need help" (Contravene condition 9).

18. In January 2019, the Informant examined the contents of the ZTE GSM T85 Telstra Tempo mobile phone (Exhibit X000290462). The Informant identified that the device was activated on 19 September 2017. The Informant examined the contents of this device and observed the following:

• The examination identified 9060 images, including 1435 recovered deleted items. Approximately 4000 of the images consisted of cached files and deleted jpeg images of children aged from babies to sixteen years of age. These images included child models out of department store catalogues; children outdoor clothed or partially clothed; toddlers sleeping; children in gymnastic wear; and children in athletics wear (Contravene condition 9).

• The Informant also located 31 data files not retained on cached files that depicted children.

• The examination also identified 16 images with "hardcore youth" in the bottom right hand corner of the image. The Informant was satisfied that these images represented participants who purported to be teenagers engaged in sexual acts (Contravene condition 8).

13. The Offender and RB also had 25 mutual friends on Facebook, including KB. The mutual friends were all female, all lived in the Jindabyne area, and were aged between 14 and about 18 years' old. It is not known when the offender became friends with these children.

14. The offender and HG also had 13 mutual friends on Facebook. The mutual friends were all female, and appear to be under the age of 18 years. It is not known when the offender became friends with these children.

15. By successfully sending friend requests to children under the age of 18 years, the offender obtained access to personal information relating to the children, including their photos, locations, schools, extra-curricular activities, siblings and friends.

COUNT 2 – Failure to comply with reporting requirements contrary to section 17(1) of the Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Act 2004 (NSW)

16. Between about 11 March 2016 and about 20 April 2018, the offender failed to comply with her reporting obligations on eight (8) occasions:

1. The offender failed to advise police that she had created a Facebook profile, namely profile ID number ending in 8592 in the name of "Jess Watson". The Facebook profile was registered on 11 March 2016 and deactivated on 20 April 2018. The Facebook profile pictures associated with this profile included the image depicting a child approximately 10 years' old in a bikini on a rip stick, and the offender's "proof of age" card.

2. The offender failed to advise police that she created a new email address, namely "[email protected]". This email address was used to create Facebook profile ID number ending in 3431.

3. The Offender failed to advise police that she had created a Facebook profile, namely profile ID number ending in 5109. The profile was registered on 7 June 2016 and deactivated on 13 February 2017, under the name of “Jessica, watson. 73926".

4. The offender failed to advise police that she created a Facebook profile, namely profile ID number ending in 1734. The profile was subscribed to "Jess Anne Watson", and was activated on 10 October 2016. The profile was still active as at 23 March 2018. The offender used the email addresses "[email protected]" and "[email protected]" to create the Facebook profile. The offender also failed to advise police that she had created these email addresses.

5. The offender failed to advise police that she had created an Instagram account in about February 2016, namely the profile "jessicawatson8880". On a review of the Alcatel mobile phone with cracks (Exhibit X0002528571) seized on 8 June 2017, the Informant identified the application Instagram had been downloaded on to this device on 22 April 2016.

6. The Offender failed to advise police that she had created a Facebook profile, namely profile ID number ending in 8620. The profile was subscribed to "Jess Watson", and was activated on 30 September 2016 and deactivated on 7 January 2017. The name supplied was "jess.watson.3". The offender sent friend requests to Koomari and the Informant using this Facebook profile.

17. The offender did not have a reasonable excuse for failing to comply with her reporting obligations.

COUNT 3 – Access child pornography material contrary to section 474.19(1) of the Criminal Code (Cth) 1995

18. Between about 2 November 2015 and about 14 December 2017, the offender engaged in an ongoing course of conduct to access child pornography material on the following devices.

HP Laptop

19. On 27 January 2016, Detective Sergeant Christopher Putt collected the HP Laptop (Exhibit X0001635332) from Queanbeyan Police Station and commenced an examination of the device using the ADF Triage Examiner. He continued this examination on 28 January 2016 and prepared an extraction of that device, which he recorded on the NSW Police Force exhibit system as exhibit X0001556569 and provided to the Informant.

20. On 28 January 2016 a Cellbrite examination was conducted of the HP Laptop. As a result of this examination, police identified a video titled "37162-full.mp4" in the laptop "Downloads" folder. This file was accessed and created on 13 December 2015.

21. This video file was 28 minutes' in length. The video depicted two teenage girls aged between 14 and 17 engaged in sexual acts. The video contains masturbation and mutual masturbation, including brief digital penetration. The Informant categorised the video as CETS category 4 material.

22. Also located on the HP Laptop device were three (3) images located in the "cache" of the device as follows:

• Image 1 was accessed by the offender on 2 November 2015. The image depicted an adult male and a child under the age of 18 and over the age of 14 engaged in sexual acts. The male is in an upright position and engaged in penetrative sex with the child. The Informant has categorised the image as category 4 on the CETS scale.

• Image 2 was accessed by the offender on 8 January 2016. The image depicted an Asian child with pigtails aged under 18 and over the age of 12 engaged in fellatio with an unknown aged male. The Informant has categorised the image as category 4 on the CETS scale.

• Image 3 was accessed by the offender on 8 January 2016. The image depicted a girl engaged in fellatio. The Informant has categorised the image as category 4 on the CETS scale.

Alcatel mobile phone with cracked screen

23. On 1 August 2017, Detective Sergeant Putt commenced an examination of the Alcatel mobile phone with cracked screen (Exhibit X0002528571) that was seized during a search warrant at the offender's residence on 8 June 2017. Putt used the Cellbrite Forensic Examination tool.

24. As a result of the Cellbrite examination, the Informant identified that the offender accessed 25 CETS category 1 images on the device (3 of which were duplicates) between 5 October 2016 (date the phone was activated) and 8 June 2017 (date the phone was seized under search warrant).

25. In particular, of these 22 images the Informant identified an image titled "teen-little-girl-bath.jpg" in the web history of the device. Police identified this image as having been accessed by the Offender on 21 November 2016. The image depicts one female child under the age of 18 years engaged in a sexual pose in an empty bath tub.

Telstra ZTE GSM- T81 Telstra Tempo

26. On 29 March 2018 a Cellbrite examination was conducted on the Telstra ZTE GSM -T81 Telstra Tempo mobile device (Exhibit X0000290462) and the results of that examination were exhibited as exhibit X0000290470.

27. The Informant observed that there were 9060 images, of which 1435 were recovered deleted images, on the device. Of those 1435, the Informant located 6 images that contained child pornography material that were accessed between 19 September 2017 and 14 December 2017:

28. These images included and were categorised as follows:

1. Image 1 of 6 (336 of 9060) - depicts a female child under the age of 18 without makeup (who appears to be aged approximately 16) wearing a yellow beaded necklace holding a silver packet laying on a bed naked with legs raised and parted (CETS category 1).

2. Image 2 of 6 depicts two topless female pubescent children without makeup (who appear aged approximately 16) from the waist up in a hugging position. A child with brown hair is hugging a child with red hair and pig tails from behindin a naked pose (CETS category 1).

3. Image 3 depicts a naked female pubescent in a bedroom with children's storage boxes in the background on a shelf. The child is faced down on the bed on her knees in an act of penetrative sexual activity with an adult (CETS category 4).

4. Image 4 depicts a naked female pubescent child wearing a hair clip and beaded necklace and no makeup, on a bed facing the camera with legs apart in an act of penetrative sexual activity with an adult (CETS category 4).

5. Image 5 is the same female pubescent child as Image l, lying face down on the bed in the same naked pose (CETS category 1).

6. Image 6 depicts a female pubescent child who is naked and lying on her front on a bed in a post (CETS category 1).

COUNT 4 – Transmit child pornography material contrary to Section 474.19(1) of the Criminal Code (Cth) 1995

29. On 8 October 2016, the Informant was advised that a friend request had been received from the Facebook profile "Jess Watson", and a copy of an image was attached to the profile to the Informant.

30. Attached to the profile "Jess Watson" was an image of a girl aged under 10 years of age sitting on a balance beam in a purple gymnastics leotard. This image appeared to have been uploaded as the profile image for the profile "Jess Watson" on 30 September 2016.

31. On 2 October 2016 the profile "Jess Watson" commented on the image, "can you rape me”.

32. On 18 December 2016, JY saw the offender at Riverside Plaza and identified her as possibly transgender. JY was involved in the local transgender community and had been supplying transgender persons with makeovers. JY approached the Offender and explained her role. She provided the Offender with her business card.

33. On 19 December 2016, JY began receiving text messages the Offender, who identified herself as "Jessica", using mobile number ending in 563. A subscriber check was ordered on that mobile number which showed that this number was subscribed to the offender.

34. A number of the text messages caused JY to fear that the Offender had a young female child with her and was planning on sexually assaulting her. In particular, there were the following conversations:

“JY: What would you like to talk about?

Offender: I see girls body parts cool

Offender: About my baby sitting and my feelings and girls shopping

JY: Ok I will be home then

Offender: should I put same clothes on her

JY: Goodnight

JY: Why is she naked?

Offender: We are teaching our body ... OK goodnight

Offender: she always sleeps in that way

Offender I do to

JY: Don't touch her Jessica that is not ok

JY: Go and put your pj's on or a nightie

Offender: Why

Offender: I don't have any

JY: Because it is not safe you are young and should be safe

JY: Ok well keep her safe

JY: That is your job and no breastfeeding that is not ok

Offender: My friend is getting undress now and she is getting me undress

JY: Why are you telling me this?

Offender: She is touching the I don't know what to do

Offender: And she ask for my breast milk her mummy does not want her

Offender: She will not stop asking me to breastfeed her

Offender: Can we talk please

JY: I am at work this is very concerning where are you?

Offender: Breastfeed my friend's little girl

Offender: She has taken off her clothes and mine to

Offender: She is on top of me

JY: I am worried you are sexually active with her she is 9 years old that is not ok it is breaking the law and fucking terrible

JY: If you are touching her inappropriately I will fucking find you

Offender: I have said no to her

Offender: I will go down town and found a little girl

Offender: Do you want me to go found a little girl

JY: What do you mean?

Offender: I have a little girl

Offender: To go and get her same clothes and try them on and see her body parts

Offender: and see her nude

Offender: Are you they

Offender: Are you there

JY: Yes

Offender: I have the girl with me nude

Offender: The little girl is with me

Offender: I want to go and get a young little girl

Offender: I want to go and get a little girl

Offender: What should I do to her

Offender: I want to have little girl love to her

Offender: What should I do to her after I had little girl love to her

Offender: Why do I feel this way

Offender: I have the girls now.”

35. In March 2017, JY received a message from the mobile number ending in 003 belonging to the offender. JY asked who the sender of the message was, and the person identified themselves as "Jessica". JY identified the person as the "Jessica" who had previously contacted her from mobile number ending in 563. The following messages occurred:

“Offender: I have done something very bad

Offender: Please say something

JY: What did you do?

JY: Are you getting support with your transition? It is very important to have people to talk to?

Offender: I am in the girls change room and they ask me to feel the girl's Boob's and on the girls leg's and no I don't have people to talk to about it

Offender: But I said no to them

Offender: What can I do about the 2 girls

JY: I don't know what you're referring to. Go to your parents or the police if you need help.

Offender: They got undress in the girls change room and they ask me to feel them on the pussy and the Boob's.

JY: I don't care. Why are you telling me this?

Offender: I have them at my home and its great.”

36. The offender's communications constituted child pornography material.

37. The offender participated in a recorded interview on 6 June 2017 in which she made a number of relevant admissions. She was charged with the current matters on 2 November 2017 whilst in custody on other matters. She was released on parole for those other matters on 4 December 2017 however she returned to custody on 14 December 2017 and concluded the balance of her parole on 3 June 2018. She was bail refused in relation to the index offences while she was in custody, however on 5 June 2018 she was granted bail on strict conditions. On 16 June 2018 the offender re-offended (see Count 1 particular in [12(q)] above) and was arrested and has been remanded in custody.

38. She made a second record of interview on 16 December 2018 and made a number of relevant admissions.

39. Exhibit A contained the criminal antecedents of the offender. Relevantly, in 2017 she had been convicted of an offence of Contravene a Prohibition Order and on 6 November 2017 was sentenced to imprisonment for 7 months commencing on 4 October 2017 with a non-parole period of 2 months (3 `offences). The contraventions concerned were also breaches of the same CPPO.

40. Exhibit A included a Sentencing Assessment Report under the hand of Ms. A Cremer, dated 6 November 2019. That report recorded that whilst on remand the offender has incurred 5 institutional misconduct charges. The author noted that the Department of Family and Community Services were currently working to identify appropriate accommodation for the offender when she is released from custody. It was noted that the offender has an NDIS plan and will have funded support upon her release from custody. The report also noted that she is subject to a Guardianship Order.

41. Under the heading “History of Anti-Social Behaviour” the author noted that the offender has a history of violent and sexualised behaviour and a long term pattern of contravening CPPO’s by accessing child abuse material or actively seeking contact with female children.

42. Under the heading “Attitudes”, the author noted that the offender was unable to demonstrate any insight or accept any personal responsibility for her offending behaviour. The author stated, “she considered her behaviour to be a result of not taking her medication and blamed her disability support service for not monitoring her more closely.”

43. The author went on to state that the offender had been assessed as presenting with a paraphilic sexual attraction to young females. She was also assessed as well above average risk range of committing further sexual offences.

44. Under the heading “Mental Health”, the author noted the offender’s lengthy history of mental health issues and CSNSW records indicated that she had been previously diagnosed with Psychosis, Anxiety, Schizophrenia, Paranoid Disorder, multiple Paraphilia’s (Paedophilia, Fetishism and Sadism). She had also received a provisional diagnosis of conduct disorder, social anxiety and panic attacks. She had received a full diagnosis of borderline personality disorder. The offender was currently prescribed psychiatric medication and was compliant with her medication regime. She had been assessed as having a mild to moderate intellectual disability and upon assessment had difficulty understanding the consequences of her actions and their impact on others, limited problem solving skills, limited abstract thinking, impulsiveness and difficulty regulating emotions.

45. Under the heading “response to supervision”, the author noted that the CSNSW records indicated that whilst under supervision the offender demonstrated significant resistance to addressing criminogenic issues related to child sex offending. She was assessed as a T3 medium risk of reoffending. The following supervision plan must be implemented upon her release upon a supervised order:-

• Referral to CSNSW Forensic Psychology Services for assessment.

• Referral to individual dialectical behaviour therapy.

• Monitor compliance and engagement with NDIS support and interventions identified by the Community Justice and integrated services program.

• Monitor compliance with mental health services and medication regime.

• Interviews will incorporate Practice Guide to Intervention (PGI) exercises which will focus on managing impulsivity and self-awareness.

• Liaise with Police in relation to compliance with Child Protection Prohibition Order.

46. The report recommended that a further condition be imposed namely that she have no contact with children under 18 years of age.

47. Annexed to the Sentencing Assessment Report was a Pre-Sentence Report Consultation Report under the hand of Ms E Higgins, Psychologist which assessed the risk of sexual re-offending as “well above average”. Also annexed to the Sentencing Assessment Report was a service Model Assessment Report (SMAR) dated 14 February 2019 under the hand of Ms N. Arango. It was a detailed report setting out the offender’s family and social history, her diagnostic history and details of the support that will be available to the offender upon her release to the community.

48. Exhibit A also included a report of Dr. A. Ellis, Forensic Psychiatrist, dated 10 November, 2018. Dr Ellis confirmed the diagnosis of intellectual disability and borderline personality disorder. He expressed a significant concern for a diagnosis of paraphilic disorders on the basis of historical reports of behaviour, and stated that such a diagnosis was not concluded due to a psycho-sexual history not being obtained during his review. He found that the offender was fit to be tried with some assistance and modifications to the Court process.

49. Exhibit A contained the Facts upon which the offender was sentenced for previous breaches of the CPPO on 6 November 2017.

50. Exhibit A also contained a breach parole report dated 13 December 2017 in respect of the offender’s failure to accept support of her disability services provider and to comply with her supervision and intervention requirements.

51. Exhibit B was a procedural chronology outlining the chronological history from 2 November 2017 when the offender was first charged by way of a future Court Attendance Notice to the sentencing hearing on 26 November 2019.

52. Exhibit C was a sealed copy of the Court Order Notice dated 16 March 2016 setting out the terms of the CPPO.

53. Exhibit D was a printout of messaging that occurred between the offender and a victim.

54. Exhibit E was the photo downloaded from the offender’s Facebook page of a young girl dressed in a leotard on a bar, underneath which were the words:

“Jess Watson can you rape me

October 2 at 12:42 am”

The offender’s evidence

55. The offender tendered a bundle of documents which became Ex 1.1 to 1.13. Exhibit 1.1 was a report of Ms M Godbee, forensic psychologist, dated 7 November 2019. Ms Godbee interviewed the offender via AVL on 1 November 2019 for a period of one hour and 40 minutes. Ms Godbee set out the offender’s family and background history, including education and employment. Under the heading “Psychological assessment”, the author noted that the offender “has a complicated mental health history. Dr Boer reported that she has previously been diagnosed with Psychosis, Schizophrenia, Paranoid Disorder, Paraphilia’s, anxiety, Conduct Disorder, Oppositional Defiant Disorder, panic attacks and social anxiety.”

56. Dr Boer it was noted had also diagnosed the offender with Borderline Personality Disorder.

57. The offender’s mental health history as recorded by Ms Godbee was based on her self-report and supplemented by “the provided documents”. I note those documents included the integrated service response – summary report dated 21 January 2019 authored by Kylee Blackwell, psychological reports of Dr Boer, clinical psychologist dated 23 May 2016 and 8 September 2017, the psychiatric report by Dr Joey Le dated 27 March 2019, together with a behavioural support plan by psychologist Emily Higgins dated 11 August 2018, and the service model assessment report from Ms N Arango dated 14 February 2019.

58. Under the heading “Risk Assessment”, the author noted the limitations with any risk assessment measure, together with complicating factors in the assessment of the offender’s risk of reoffending. Whilst she was assessed somewhat differently depending on the model used, overall, it was the opinion of the author that:

“The offender was a higher risk of sexual offending than the average offender. She presented with multiple dynamic risk factors, reflecting problems in multiple areas, including a history of sexual violence, limited insight into her offending, mental health difficulties, inter-personal problems and difficulties with risk management.”

59. The author was of the opinion that the offender requires intensive treatment and management to address her risk of sexual reoffending.

60. On the relationship between the offender’s mental condition and her offending, the author opined as follows:

“The factors that have contributed to Ms Watson’s offending included sexual identification with or attraction to young girls; limited insight into her problematic behaviours; limited self-regulation skills and difficulties engaging appropriately with support services. These factors correspond to gender dysphoria and paedophilia, intellectual disability and borderline personality traits, respectively. These issues have been present for Ms Watson since her developmental years and appear to be pervasive.”

61. Unsurprisingly, the author opined that the offender has some vulnerabilities in a custodial environment, which was conceded by the Crown.

62. Ms Godbee was of the opinion that the offender required offence-specific intervention to help her recognise that her sexual offending was inappropriate. She will require assistance to develop clear guidelines about what behaviours are safe for her to engage in, as well as support and supervision to avoid unsafe behaviours.

63. Exhibit 1.2 was a report of Dr J Q Le dated 27 March 2019. Dr Le conducted a psychiatric assessment of the offender on 27 March 2019 and was qualified with the reports of Dr Boer referred to above, together with reports of Dr Sally McSwiggan dated 5 August 2018, and Dr Andrew Ellis dated 10 November 2018. Dr Le was asked to provide an opinion as to the offender’s fitness to plead.

64. Dr Le recorded the offender’s psychiatric history including admissions as an inpatient in 2014 and 2015. She had been diagnosed with “Gender Identity Disorder” around 2015 by her general practitioner. The report went on to consider what are known as the Presser factors in determining the question of fitness, and Dr Le was ultimately of the opinion that the offender was not unfit to plead.

65. Exhibit 1.3 was a report of Dr Andrew Ellis dated 10 November 2018. It also set out her psychiatric, substance use and addiction, medical and criminal histories. In Dr Ellis’ opinion, the offender met criteria for an intellectual disability diagnosis, and there was significant evidence for a diagnosis of Borderline Personality Disorder. Dr Ellis opined that there was significant concern for a diagnosis of paraphilic disorders on the basis of historical reports of behaviour and her offence history, however, a diagnosis of Gender Dysphoria was not within the scope of his assessment. On the question of her fitness to be tried, Dr Ellis was of the opinion that she was fit to be tried with some assistance and modifications to the court process.

61. Exhibit 1.4 was a report of Dr Sally McSwiggan dated 5 August 2018. Dr McSwiggan is a clinical neuro-psychologist and her report was also directed to the question of the offender’s fitness to plead. Ultimately, it was her opinion that the offender was unfit to plead because she failed a number of the Presser criteria.

62. Exhibits 1.5 and 1.6 were the reports of Dr D Boer, clinical psychologist, dated 8 September 2017 and 23 May 2016 respectively. Dr Boer was of the opinion that the offender met all of the diagnostic criteria for Borderline Personality Disorder. In his earlier report he assessed the offender as a moderate to high level of risk of reoffending and that she had a relatively high need for intensive support.

63. Exhibit 1.8 was the service model assessment report by Ms N Arango which set out in detail the high level of support that the offender would require to assist her with daily living in the community.

64. Exhibit 1.10 was a copy of the guardianship order made on 13 December 2018. I have been advised that this was renewed.

65. Exhibit 1.11 was a letter from the offender to the court dated 30 September 2019. It expressed remorse for her conduct (i.e. “for what I did to upset people”) and stated that she had learnt “to not do this again”. The offender expressed her desire to be sentenced by way of time served, so that she could take care of her mother and family.

66. Exhibit 1.12 included an email from the Services and Program’s officer, Corrective Services New South Wales, stating that the offender works as a packer whilst in custody, packaging headphones for airline companies. She was described as a good worker.

67. Exhibit 1.13 is a procedural chronology setting out the court history of this matter.

68. Following the sentence hearing, I received on behalf of the offender, a report from Ms A Mulholland, occupational therapist, dated 6 November 2019, being an NDIS OT Functional Assessment Report. The author noted that the offender has a recognised disability by the NDIS and included a lengthy functional assessment, as well as a living skills assessment, which noted that the offender is under the care of the NSW Trustee and Guardian. The author then sets out a number of detailed recommendations for the support the offender requires to achieve her NDIS goals and to promote her independence in the community. The report will become Ex 2 on the sentence hearing.

The Crown submissions

74. The Crown relied on a detailed written outline of submissions. By way of overview, the Crown submitted that the offending in Counts 1 and 2 were very serious examples of the offences therein when considered in the context of the offending subject to Counts 3 and 4. The offender shows a strong sexual interest in female children and teenagers which manifested in a number of ways. She had shown a willingness to act on that sexual interest by contacting children via Facebook and by texting the Vice President of a netball club about girls enrolled at that club. She had concealed her behaviour by creating multiple social media accounts, on multiple devices, and had failed to advise police of those accounts. It was submitted that her behaviour may be the precursor to physical (as opposed to online) contact offending.

75. It was submitted that, given the objective seriousness of the offending, the offender’s prior convictions for similar offences and the prominence of general and specific deterrence for this kind of offending, terms of imprisonment should be imposed in respect of each charge with some accumulation.

76. The Crown submissions referred to well-known sentencing provisions and principles applicable to sentencing in respect to both Commonwealth and State offences.

77. In respect of Counts 1 and 2, the offender had demonstrated a pattern of flagrant disregard for her obligations under the CPPO. Given the frequency and broad range of the contraventions, the Crown submitted that each offence was at the upper level of seriousness for each category of offence.

78. The Crown submitted the objective seriousness of child pornography offending in Count 3 is ordinarily determined by reference to the following factors;

1. The nature and content of the material, in particular the age of the children and the gravity of the sexual activity depicted.

2. The number of items or images possessed.

3. Whether the material is for the purpose of sale or further distribution.

4. Whether the offender will profit from the offence.

5. In the case of possession or access of child pornography for personal use, the number of children depicted and thereby victimised, and

6. The length of time for which the pornographic material was possessed.

79. The Crown submitted that child pornography offending fuels the fantasies of child sexual assault offenders, or may stimulate persons with sexually deviant inclinations to commit such acts on viewing the material. The Crown submitted it is pernicious offending which may promote a distorted view of reality where children are seen as appropriate sexual partners for adults.

80. The following features of the offending should be taken into account in assessing its objective seriousness:

1. The child pornography material was accessed on three different devices, totalling one video and 34 images.

2. The video was 28 minutes in length and had been downloaded by the offender. It contained CETS Category 4 material and depicted two teenage girls aged between 14 and 17 engaged in sexual acts, including brief digital penetration.

3. The images accessed also included nine images categorised as CETS Category 4. These images are characterised by penetrative sexual activity by children with adults or between children.

4. The images accessed included 25 images categorised as CETS category I. While the majority of the material was classified as Category I, courts have emphasised that even Category I material is capable of possessing significant gravity.

5. The offender accessed child pornography material over a lengthy period of time, in excess of two years. The offending conduct was not an aberration or isolated incident.

6. The child pornography material depicted actual (as opposed to fictitious) children.

81. Count 4 related to the transmission of communications that described child pornography, first, by reference to the profile picture of a child under 10 years of age in a purple gymnastics leotard as shown in Ex E, with the comment “Can you rape me?” Secondly, the offender engaged a member of the community (JY) in a series of conversations, as outlined above, that contained depictions of the sexual abuse of children. The offender described the abuse as if it were in real time. The features of the offending which should be taken into account in assessing its objective seriousness include:

1. The offender placed herself at the centre of the fantasies.

2. The communications were graphic.

3. Most of the communications were directed at an unwilling member of the public (JY) and caused her to fear that the offender was sexually abusing children.

4. The SMS messages were reasonably lengthy and the offender must have spent some time composing them.

5. The offender contacted JY on two distinct occasions separated by three months. The offending conduct was therefore not an aberration or isolated incident.

6. Whether or not the material in the communications was the result of fantasies is irrelevant.

7. That the communications were limited to only one recipient is not a mitigating factor. Given that their distribution was via electronic means there was potential for wide dissemination of the material.

8. The fantasies distorted reality. The production and dissemination of material that does not involve the depiction of real children can still constitute extremely serious offending.

82. Under the heading, “Totality of offending”, the Crown submitted that the offending conduct taken together was objectively very serious for the following reasons:

1. The conduct involved a series of acts showing a similar pattern over a lengthy period of time, namely, about 2 years and 7 months.

2. The offender’s sexual interest in children manifests in multiple ways and can be seen on a scale of increasing seriousness. She persistently downloaded and accessed otherwise innocuous pictures of children, as well as accessing pornography in which participants purported to be teenagers. The offending escalated to access of child exploitation material. She also fantasised about personally sexually abusing children, and transmitted those fantasies to an unwilling member of the public. Most seriously, the offender demonstrated that she was willing to act on her sexual interest in children by contacting or attempting to contact children in her area. The Crown submitted that the offender’s behaviour may be a precursor to physical (as opposed to online) contact offending.

3. Her use of the internet was prolific. On one device alone the offender accessed 787 URL addresses containing the word “girls”.

4. The offender took deliberate measures to conceal her behaviour from investigating police. In all, nine devices were seized and police identified eight undeclared social media or email accounts. At times the offender used Facebook profile pictures of children to conceal her true identity.

5. The CPPO and reporting obligations did not deter the offender, and she further rejected supports in place to assist her.

83. The Crown submitted the offender’s moral culpability was heightened by her “extreme minimisation of her offending behaviour, denying any wrongdoing and blaming victims for reporting her behaviour” (see report of Ms M Godbee, [38(d)]).

84. The Crown submitted in relation to Count 1 that the offender had contacted actual children and that contact was the subject of concern among parents. The child exploitation offence comprising Count 3, the Crown submitted, was not a victimless crime in that accessing child exploitation material creates a market for the continued corruption and exploitation of children in which children are sexually abused in order to supply the market.

85. In relation to Count 4, the Crown submitted the offender’s conduct had an “extremely significant” impact on JY.

86. Under the heading, “Matters in mitigation”, the Crown made the following submissions:

1. The offender had shown some remorse which could be inferred from the fact that the plea and the partial admissions made by her in her Records of Interview. However, any discount for remorse must be reduced by her tendency to blame the victims and/or support staff for her offending. The offender’s lack of remorse was further demonstrated by her subsequent offending and breach of parole.

2. A reduction could be made for her plea of guilty if the court was satisfied that the plea demonstrated genuine remorse, acceptance of responsibility or a willingness to facilitate the course of justice. The timeliness of the plea, as well as the strength of the Crown case are factors to be taken into account. Here, the offender pleaded guilty prior to Committal. A trial was thereby avoided, meaning vulnerable witnesses, including children, were not required to give evidence. The offender is therefore entitled to some discount on sentence, however, the plea of guilty was in response to an overwhelming prosecution case and was made in recognition of the inevitable.

3. The offender is 33 years old and she has relevant prior and current convictions. On 23 May 2001 she was convicted in the Children’s Court of two offences of assault occasioning actual bodily harm and one charge of aggravated indecent assault. On 27 April 2002 she was convicted of two counts of common assault, again in the Children’s Court. The offences for which she was convicted in 2017 had a complex history as follows:

1. On 9 October 2017 she was convicted in the Queanbeyan Local Court in respect of two Court Attendance Notices (sequences ending 384 and 422). Both related to earlier contraventions of the CPPO dated 6 March 2016 (the same CPPO subject to the current offending) pursuant to s 13(1) of the Child Protection (Offenders Prohibition Orders) Act 2004 (NSW).

2. In respect of CAN sequence ending in 384, she was convicted of three contraventions of the CPPO between 1 April 2017 and 8 June 2017. In the Local Court she was sentenced to seven months imprisonment with a non‑parole period of four months.

3. In relation to CAN sequence ending 422, the offender was convicted of one further count of contravening the CPPO on 17 August 2017. The offender was sentenced to eight months imprisonment with a non-parole period of four months.

4. On appeal to the District Court on 6 November 2017, the head sentences of seven months and eight months imprisonment, respectively, were upheld, however, the non-parole period was reduced to two months, commencing on 4 October 2017 and concluding on 9 December 2017.

5. The offender was charged with the current offences before the court by way of future CAN’s on 2 November 2017. She was released on parole on 4 December 2017 (for sequences ending in 384 and 422), however, on 14 December 2017 a revocation of parole warrant was issued for her arrest on the basis that she had failed to obey all reasonable directions of her parole officer and failed to accept the support of Koomari and comply with their supervision and intervention requirements. The offender was placed in custody the same day to serve the balance of her parole. She completed her sentence for sequences ending in 384 and 422 on 3 June 2018. On 5 June 2018 the offender was granted bail in respect of the fresh offences (sequence ending in 162).

6. On 16 June 2018 the offender reoffended and was arrested and remanded in custody (sequence ending in 276). Those offences and a further subsequent CAN (sequence ending in 107) now constitute the current Indictment.

87. The Crown noted the offender had previously been diagnosed with psychosis, schizophrenia, Paranoid Disorder, Paraphilia’s, anxiety, Conduct Disorder, Oppositional Defiant Disorder, panic attacks and social anxiety. However, no medical evidence has been provided supporting those diagnoses. Dr Ellis had diagnosed the offender with a mild intellectual disability, together with “significant evidence for a diagnosis of Borderline Personality Disorder”. Dr Ellis expressed a “significant concern” for a diagnosis of Paraphilic Disorders and could not confirm that diagnosis.

88. The Crown conceded that the offender had some vulnerabilities in the prison environment, given her mild intellectual disability, and therefore a custodial sentence will likely weigh more heavily on her than it would a person in normal health. Notwithstanding that, the Crown submitted that the prison environment could be conducive to providing the routine and intensive support recommended by psychologists and support services.

89. The Crown noted that the offender had been assessed as having a well above average risk of reoffending and that Corrective Services NSW had assessed her at a T3 medium risk of reoffending. The Crown relied on factors summarised by Ms Godbee to submit the offender’s risk of reoffending was high.

90. The Crown submitted there were extremely low prospects of rehabilitation. The offender had been unable to demonstrate any insight or accept any personal responsibility for her offending behaviour. Further:

1. The offending is the second set of breaches of an existing court order, namely, the CPPO and corresponding reporting obligations. This demonstrated the offender was not deterred by court orders and the court would not be assured that she will comply with a future CPPO upon release.

2. The offender had a recent history of refusing Disability Support Services from Koomari.

3. The offender had demonstrated a lack of insight into her behaviour. Although she reported to Disability Support staff that she knew the conduct was wrong, her behaviour lacked self‑regulation.

4. Whilst the offender had told Dr Ellis that she “does not have a feeling for children”, the Crown submitted that the offender demonstrates a sexual interest in children contrary to her claims, and that that response is indicative of her failure to accept responsibility for her behaviour.

5. The offending conduct is not an isolated occurrence, rather, the repeated breaches of the CPPO are prolific and span a lengthy period of time.

6. The offender failed to show any awareness of victim empathy.

7. The offender appears to be socially isolated and has few, if any, social supports in place in the community.

91. The Crown submitted that a limit or moderation of general deterrence, having regard to the offender’s disability was appropriate in sentencing. Any sentence imposed should be of such a severity to act as a specific personal deterent, however, substantial weight must be afforded to the protection of the community when setting the sentence here.

92. The Crown referred the court to comparative sentences to provide guidance in the application of relevant sentencing principles, acknowledging that each case relied upon presented a unique configuration of charges and factual circumstances.

93. The Crown submitted that the offences were all distinct and therefore required a degree of accumulation between the charges. The court would also take into account that the offender had spent three days in custody from 3-5 June 2018, and has been in custody for this offending since 16 June 2018.

94. The Crown also submitted that the court must impose separate sentences in respect of both State and Commonwealth offences, referring to the Victorian Court of Appeal decision in DPP v Swingler [2017] VSCA 305 at [82] for the correct approach.

95. The Crown submitted that each count represented rolled up offending, reflecting multiple episodes of criminal behaviour, and whilst some elements of the offences overlapped, they were not identical. It was appropriate in those circumstances that there be a degree of accumulation for the sentences imposed for each charge. The Crown submitted that a term of immediate imprisonment was required on each charge and that, in accordance with DPP v Haynes [2017] VSCA 79, a term of imprisonment that included a recognisance release order would not be an appropriate sentence in this case.

96. The Crown supplemented its written submissions with oral submissions in which it rehearsed the characterisation of objective seriousness of offending as outlined above. Count 1 was very serious offending within the upper level of objective seriousness for that offence. Count 2 also constituted serious offending.

97. The Crown submitted that the conduct referred to in Count 3 commenced on 2 November 2015, before the CPPO was made. It endured until 14 December 2017, over two years later. It involved one video, 28 minutes in length (Category 4 CETS), nine images which were category 4 and 25 images which were Category 1. Notwithstanding the relatively low quantity of child abuse material, the gravity of the offending arose from the nature and content of the material, which the Crown submitted constituted a serious example of this offence.

98. Count 4 involved transmission of child abuse material between 2 October 2015 and 16 March 2017. The first transmission was by the offender uploading an image of a child less than 10 years, dressed in a leotard on a balance beam, with the words underneath, “Can you rape me” It was disseminated on Facebook, which was a public forum and open to be viewed by the world. The offence incorporated the creation of the child pornographic material, namely, the text created by the offender. The Crown submitted that production of that material is a lesser offence than the offence of transmission.

99. The offending also incorporated the transmission of two text messages in December 2016 and March 2017. Those were the text messages with JY which contained graphic and explicit material. The Victim Impact Statement of JY evidenced how upsetting it was for her to receive that material and the Crown submitted that such harm was readily foreseeable.

91. The Crown submitted that the sentencing here was not easily compared with other cases. Viewing the offending as a whole, it was objectively a very serious course of conduct, with the offender engaged in criminal conduct continually up until June 2018. It was clear that the offender had a profound interest and a sexual interest in children, and the only rational inference to be drawn from the whole of the evidence was that it manifested a strong sexual interest in children. This arose from the nature of the images (both child pornography and not) and the words, “Can you rape me?” appearing in Ex E demonstrated her attitude and sexual interest. The transmission of the text messages to JY manifested her fantasies and the court would conclude beyond reasonable doubt that the offending was a result of her sexual interest in children. Given the seriousness of the offending, the protection of the community was an important factor in sentencing. It was also clear that children were at risk in her local area, the offender tried to conceal her offending, and was not put off by the CPPO.

92. The Crown also rehearsed its submissions in relation to the offender’s subjective circumstances, setting out the offender’s criminal history, revocation of parole and bail, and the fact that she had had five misconduct charges whilst in custody. The Crown derived the following nine propositions from the evidence concerning the mental health of the offender:

1. The offender has a mild intellectual disability with symptoms of a Borderline Personality Disorder.

2. Other mental health diagnoses are queries and are not made out in evidence before the court.

3. Aspects of the offender’s mental health contributed to the offending. She has limited insight and self-regulation skills.

4. The offender’s risk of re-offending had been described as a medium risk by the Sentencing Assessment Report, but as “well above average risk” by the pre-sentence consultation report. However, in Ex 1.1, the psychologist, Ms Godbee, had assessed her as a high risk of re‑offending.

5. The offender does not have any insight and does not accept responsibility for the offending.

6. The offender denies having a sexual interest in children.

7. The offender is able to describe the nature and seriousness of the offending.

8. The offender is resistant to supervision and addressing the criminogenic bases of the offending.

9. The offender’s vulnerability in custody and treatment needs are unlikely to be met in custody.

102. The Crown conceded that, given the offender’s intellectual disability, the need for general deterrence was diminished in sentencing. However, as the offender knew what she was doing and that it was wrong, such reduction should not be a complete diminution of general deterrence in the sentencing process.

103. The Crown accepted that custody would be more onerous for the offender, however, specific deterrence was significant as the offender denies the offending and is resistant to supervision. This also meant that she had a low prospect for rehabilitation which would elevate the need for specific deterrence in the sentence. In those circumstances, protection of the community assumed significant importance in sentencing here, relying Leach v R (2008) A Crim R 1, together with specific deterrence, that meant a substantial term of imprisonment was warranted here.

104. In a further written submission received on 13 December 2019, the Crown sought leave to file a submission in reply to the offender’s submission as to backdating the sentence. The Crown set out the chronology of the offender’s incarceration as set out in [37] above, and noted the court’s discretion to backdate any sentence imposed pursuant to s 47(2) of the CSPA. The Crown submitted the only pre-sentence custody exclusively referrable to the current matters, was that between 3 June 2018 and 5 June 2018, and from 16 June 2018.

105. The Crown submitted that the principle of totality is not enlivened in respect of the offender’s revocation of parole and her custody up until 3 June 2018, relying R v Gordon (1994) 71 A Crim R 459 at 466; and Postiglione v R (1997) 189 CLR 295, 307-9, re s 16B of the Crimes Act 1914.

The offender’s submissions

106. Learned Counsel for the offender also relied a written outline of submissions. By way of overview, it was submitted that, taking into account the lengthy period of custody already served, the objective seriousness of the offences, which were submitted to be all well below mid-range, her intellectual disability and transgender status, which rendered her less of a vehicle for general deterrence and makes her imprisonment in a male prison more onerous, and the fact that she was likely to receive appropriate support and treatment in the community, should allow for her release in the near future.

107. It was further noted that she would be released to parole for a lengthy period and supervised by Community Corrections, as well as being under the CPPO stringent conditions until 6 March 2021.

108. Counsel for the offender agreed that she appears to show an interest in female children and teenagers, but that it was not agreed that that behaviour demonstrated a “strong sexual interest”. Count 1 involved 17 substantive contraventions of the CPPO, not 18, within a period of two years and three months.

109. It was submitted that in Count 1, contravention of Condition 9 CPPO involved images that were often female children around 10 years old and wearing a swimsuit or sporting leotard. It was submitted that none of the images relating to contravention of Condition 9 (eight occasions) displayed a sexual interest in children. Nor did the contraventions of Condition 1, 4 or 10.

110. It was submitted that contravention of Condition 7 duplicated the facts relied on in Count 3.

111. It was further submitted that contravention of Condition 8 “involves adults representing themselves as teenagers engaged in sexual acts. It is difficult to know whether this displays a sexual interest in children as the images may appear to be 18 years old or over”.

112. It was submitted that Count 2 involved a failure to advise police that she had created four Facebook profiles, one new email address and one Instagram account during a period of two years and one month. All the addresses could be easily linked to the offender using her name and phone number. It was submitted that this does not display a sexual interest in children, per se.

113. In relation to Counts 1 and 2, it was submitted that the objective seriousness was well below mid-range and were of less seriousness than Counts 3 and 4.

114. It was submitted that if the court found that the threshold under s 5 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (“CSPA”) is crossed, then there should be a short fixed term (less than 6 months and noting a 25% discount for the plea) with the offences wholly concurrent, or at the most, slightly accumulated, as they involve a similar course of conduct at a similar period of time.

115. It was not agreed on behalf of the offender that contact with children in the community or texting the netball club showed a “willingness to act on her sexual interest”, as submitted by the Crown. It was further not agreed that the offender’s behaviour “may be the precursor to physical (as opposed to online) contact offending”.

116. It was submitted that none of the four counts would suggest that any child was in fact in danger of being harmed.

117. In relation to Counts 3 and 4, it was accepted that these are more serious than Counts 1 and 2 and may require the imposition of a sentence of imprisonment for a term exceeding 6 months, but not exceeding 3 years. The offender advocated a large degree of concurrency between Counts 3 and 4, and as between the State and Commonwealth offences and/or an aggregate sentence in relation to Counts 3 and 4. It was submitted that the court would have sufficient sentencing scope to make a recognisance release order to commence in December 2019 or shortly thereafter.

118. In her oral submissions, learned Counsel for the offender submitted that the appropriate approach to sentencing for Commonwealth and State offences was the second option identified by the Victorian Court of Appeal in DPP v Swingler, supra. As outlined by the court, that involved grouping all the State offences together and first sentence upon them individually. The court stated:

“This has the advantage of enabling the sentences for Commonwealth offences to be directed to commence at, for example, the expiration of the relevant State non-parole period. That avoids any gap in the custodial term, and seemingly simplifies the process by ensuring that relevant rules as to accumulation and concurrency are applied appropriately, and within the proper sphere of each sentencing regime.”

119. Counsel rehearsed her submissions as to the objective seriousness of the offending, and the submission that the State offences were less serious than the Commonwealth offences. It was submitted that the only breach of the CPPO which revealed any sexual interest in children was Count 3.

120. It was submitted that the offender had been in custody since 14 December 2017. She had previously only been in custody for a period of two months following breach of her previous parole, constituted by not complying with her supervision on 14 December 2017.

121. It was submitted that the relevance of the offender’s two years in custody to date is that she will now want to comply with the CPPO. That goes directly to the issue of specific deterrence and the offender now understood that if there was any further breach, she would find herself back in gaol. This constituted a significant difference for the offender now, which affected the assessment of her risk of reoffending, as well as the need for protection of the community. It was clear that custody was much more difficult for the offender than for other prisoners. She had continued to be locked up and had been a victim of violence in custody on a number of occasions.

122. It was submitted the court would take into account the offender’s letter of apology where she had recognised her need for help and expressed remorse through her legal representatives. The offender maintains that she does not have a sexual interest in children which would have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt.

123. Counsel submitted that the court had a discretion to backdate the sentence here to take into account the period in which she was in custody for breach of her parole, i.e. the period between 14 December 2017 and 3 June 2018. Any delay in the sentencing here was not the fault of the offender. However, the delay had added stress to her being in custody. It was submitted that she had been a “good worker” whilst in custody, however, when the court pointed to the custodial record as being “not entirely glowing”, it was submitted that she had done reasonably well in custody and was very proud of her work there.

124. It was submitted that the offender is entitled to a 25% utilitarian discount on sentence for the NSW offences and also to a discount for Counts 3 and 4. A guardianship order had been made and under that current order she would be assisted with accommodation and support upon her return to the community. Plans were being made for her release and she had the support of the NDIS in the community.

125. Counsel referred to the Sentencing Assessment Report and her assessment for reoffending pursuant to the Static 99 model. It was submitted that the court should be cautious acting on the opinions based on such assessment.

126. It was submitted that the majority of the images downloaded were not child pornography material. Whilst the offender had a poor history of compliance with supervision and orders, it was submitted that her conduct will be different in the future.

127. In respect of Count 4, the offending was not a serious example of transmitting child abuse material. It was characterised as “unusual” offending, however, the harm was possibly unlikely to be foreseeable to the offender.

128. Counsel submitted that the court would have regard to the offender’s family background as a child. It was very dysfunctional and should be taken into account.

129. As to concealing the offending from the authorities, it was submitted that the purchase of mobile phones was all done in her name. It was not sophisticated offending and she used her own telephone numbers and identity.

130. As to the Crown’s nine propositions arising from the evidence concerning the offender’s mental health, it was submitted as follows:

1. It was agreed that the offender had a mild intellectual disability. Earlier reports were of a moderate Borderline Personality Disorder.

2. The offender accepted that earlier diagnoses could be queried, however, complex issues arose in her background.

3. The offender agreed that her mental health issues contributed to her offending.

4. The offender’s risk of reoffending had been addressed in submissions.

5. The offender had expressed remorse in her apology and her acknowledgement that she needed help.

6. The offender had addressed this issue in submissions.

7. The offender understood that it was serious offending.

8. Her past resistance to supervision was not an accurate predictor for the future where she will have support in the community.

9. The offender agreed that she was vulnerable in custody and that her treatment needs were unlikely to be met in custody.

131. Finally, it was submitted that the comparative table of cases provided by the Crown were of limited utility. This was a very unusual case which had to be assessed on its own circumstances.

Determination

Counts 1 and 2 – New South Wales State offences

132. Section 3A of the C(SP)A sets out the purposes of sentencing as follows:

“3A The purposes for which a Court may impose a sentence on an offender are as follows:

(a) To ensure that the offender is adequately punished for the offence,

(b) To prevent crime by deterring the offender and other persons from committing similar offences,

(c) To protect the community from the offender,

(d) To promote the rehabilitation of the offender,

(e) To make the offender accountable for his or her actions,

(f) To denounce the conduct of the offender,

(g) To recognise the harm done to the victim of the crime and the community.”

133. The objective seriousness of the offending in Count 1 involved 18 contraventions of a CPPO without reasonable excuse over a period of some 2 years and 3 months. I reject the submission made on behalf of the offender that the objective seriousness was well below mid-range. The offending demonstrated a complete disregard for orders made by the court for the protection of children. Those orders were well known to the offender, and without repeating the particulars of each breach as outlined in [12] above, they constituted deliberate conduct by the offender to go behind the CPPO to further her interest in young females. I find, on the totality of the evidence, that that was a sexual interest.

134. The breach of Condition 7 ([12(o)] above) does involve some duplication of the offending in Count 3, and I have taken that into account. I reject the submission made by the offender that the contravention of Condition 8, referred to in [111] above, made it difficult to know whether the offender displays a sexual interest in children. She clearly does. The objective seriousness of the offending fell within the mid-range for an offence pursuant to s 13(1) of the Child Protection (Offenders Prohibition Orders) Act 2004 and constituted serious offending.

135. Count 2 involved eight contraventions of the offender’s reporting obligations under the CPPO. Again, these were deliberate breaches as outlined in [16] above and whilst the offending was unsophisticated in that the various profiles and email addresses were easily traced to her, the offence constituted offending just below the mid-range for an offence pursuant to s 17(1) of the Child Protection (Offenders Registration Orders) Act 2004. I accept the Crown’s submission that the offending demonstrated a pattern of flagrant disregard for her obligations under the CPPO.

136. The offender’s criminal antecedents do not entitle her to leniency in the sentencing process. She had been convicted in 2017 for similar offences for breaching the CPPO and sentenced to a term of imprisonment, which on appeal, was varied so that she served a non-parole period of two months against a head sentence of seven months and eight months respectively. The subject offending occurred whilst she was on parole and her parole was revoked. Further, the offender has shown no insight into the seriousness of her offending and has not acknowledged responsibility for it.

137. The offender is entitled to a 25% utilitarian discount on sentence in respect of Counts 1 and 2. Her expression of remorse contained in her letter to the court (Ex 1.11) was not given under oath or subject to cross-examination. It must be tempered by the reports of the various psychologists outlined above.

138. I take into account the maximum penalty in respect of Counts 1 and 2 of 500 penalty units representing a fine of $55,000 and/or 5 years imprisonment. The maximum penalty is a guideline in the sentencing process.

139. Whilst general deterrence would ordinarily be a significant factor in sentencing for these offences, as conceded by the Crown, it is not a factor that weighs heavily in the sentencing process here due to the offender’s multifarious mental health issues. Specific deterrence does however have a role in the sentencing process. The offender must understand that upon her release to the community, if she reoffends, she will be subject to further condign punishment. Also important here is the need to protect the public – see Leach v R, supra, at [12].

140. There are significant subjective features to be taken into account in sentencing here. The offender’s mental health issues, as outlined above, are significant and render her inappropriate as a vehicle for general deterrence. The Crown has also accepted, properly in my view, that she will suffer greater hardship in a custodial sentence than other offenders. I accept that her time in custody to date has exposed her to assaults on a number of occasions, however, she has also had a number of infractions whilst in custody.

141. Assessing the offender’s risk of reoffending is not straightforward, given the inadequacy of the testing carried out and the various opinions expressed by the assessors. However, on any view, given the offender’s past history and based on Ms Godbee’s opinion as set out above, the offender must be regarded as a medium to high risk of reoffending, given her past disregard for compliance with court orders and her mental health issues, as set out above. She will clearly need to comply with the support provided to her once she is in the community, to avoid the risk of reoffending.

142. I am satisfied that the threshold in s 5 of the CSPA has been crossed and having considered all possible alternatives, no penalty other than imprisonment is appropriate. I intend to sentence the offender in respect of Counts 1 and 2 by an aggregate sentence. Before I do so, I must set out the Indicative Sentences so as to provide transparency in the sentencing process. The Indicative Sentences are as follows:

Count 1 – offence pursuant to s 13(1) of the Child Protection (Offenders Prohibition Orders) Act 2004 – 1 years and 9 months imprisonment

Count 2 – offence pursuant to s 17(1) of the Child Protection (Offenders Registration Orders) Act 2004 – 1 year and 6 months imprisonment.

143. For these two offences there must some accumulation and I intend to sentence the offender to an aggregate sentence of 2 years and 3 months.

Counts 3 and 4 – Commonwealth offences

144. The objective seriousness of the offending in Count 3 involved the offender accessing child pornography material over a period of just over two years. The material was accessed on three different devices and comprised one video and 34 images. The video was 28 minutes in length and contained CETS Category 4 material, as outlined above. The images contained one categorised as CETS Category 4 and 25 categorised as CETS Category 1. Whilst the offending conduct was not an aberration or isolated incident, the number of images was not great by comparison to other cases dealt with pursuant to s 474.19(1(a) (i)) of the Criminal Code (Cth) 1995.

144. What elevates the seriousness of the offending here was the nature and content of the material, and in particular, the age of the children and the gravity of the sexual activity depicted. Also relevant was that the offending took place over a period of just over two years. I accept the Crown’s submission that it constituted pernicious offending. Whilst it constituted serious offending, given the relatively small number of images involved, it was below the mid-range for an offence pursuant to that section, and in the upper part of the low range of objective seriousness.

145. Count 4 related to the transmission of the child pornography material, being the image contained in Ex E with the comment “can you rape me”, and the communications with Ms JY set out above. This occurred on two separate occasions.

146. That the material subject to the transmission constituted fantasies of the offender is irrelevant to the assessment of the objective seriousness of the offending. The communications with JY were extensive and graphic, and understandably caused her to fear that the offender was sexually abusing children. Section 474.19 (1)(a)(iii) of the Criminal Code (Cth) covers a wide range of offences concerning transmission of child pornography material and given the extent of the offending here, the objective seriousness fell below the mid-range for an offence under that section, and in the middle of the low range.

147. In sentencing the offender for these Commonwealth offences I must have regard to the matters set out s 16A of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth). I therefore take into account the following matters:

1. (a) The nature and circumstances of the offences

2. The offending in Counts 3 and 4 have been set out in detail above, as have my findings as to the objective seriousness of the offending for each offence. I do not accept the Crown submission that the offending, when viewed together, may be a precursor to physical (as opposed to online) contact offending, as a relevant factor in sentencing here.

3. (c) The course of conduct of the offending

4. The offending took place for a period in excess of 2 years whilst the CPPO was in place. The offending conduct consisted of a series of criminal acts both in Count 3 and Count 4, which were not isolated.

5. (d) The personal circumstances of any victim of the offence

6. The Victim Impact Statement of the victim JY has been taken into account and is referred to below. She clearly suffered harm as a result of the offending conduct.

7. The offender’s Facebook communications with a number of known and unknown victims clearly was a matter of concern to those victims and their parents.

8. (f) The degree to which the person has shown contrition for the offence

9. Whilst the offender has expressed remorse in her letter to the court and has pleaded guilty at an early opportunity to the offences, she has failed to demonstrate insight into her offending conduct and acknowledge her responsibility for it.

10. (g) The offender has pleaded guilty

11. As set out above.

12. (h) The degree of cooperation with law enforcement agencies

13. The offender has cooperated with law enforcement agencies to the extent of making admissions in her records of interview.

14. (j) Specific deterrence

15. As outlined above, specific deterrence does have a role to play here, as the offender must understand that if she engages in similar criminal conduct in the future, she will face increasingly lengthy periods of imprisonment. Also relevant here is the offender’s risk or re-offending as outlined above.

16. (ja) General deterrence

17. For the reasons outlined above, based on the offender’s mental health issues and diagnoses, she is not a vehicle for general deterrence as a significant factor in the sentencing process here.

18. (k) The need to ensure the person is adequately punished.

19. (m) The criminal antecedents and subjective matters.

20. These have been set out in detail above and are taken into account.

21. (n) The prospect of rehabilitation of the person

22. The offender has a complex medical and psychological background which will require a great deal of support to enable her achieve any rehabilitation. That support is available through the NDIS, but probably not to the extent that it is required for this offender. Her prospects of rehabilitation are therefore somewhat guarded.

149. The offender is entitled to a discount for her early plea of guilty in respect of Counts 3 and 4, and as outlined above, I have taken that into account as some remorse for her offending, together with the utilitarian value of avoiding a trial, notwithstanding the strong Crown case.

150. I have also had regard to the maximum penalties proscribed in respect of both Count 3 and 4 of 15 years imprisonment and/or 900 penalty units (a fine of $162,000). The maximum penalties are guideposts in the sentencing process.

151. I have also had regard to the Victim Impact Statement tendered by the Crown on behalf of JY. It is clear that harm was done to the victim both psychologically and practically to her life. I note that there is no medical evidence against which to assess the Victim Impact Statement, however, I find that such harm was reasonably foreseeable in the circumstances and I have therefore taken the Victim Impact Statement of JY into account, but I make it clear that I have done so not to aggravate the offender’s moral culpability.

152. I am satisfied that no penalty other than imprisonment is appropriate in all the circumstances, pursuant to s 17A of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth). Pursuant to s 20AB of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), I have power to impose an aggregate sentence of imprisonment for these Commonwealth offences by application of s 53A of the CSPA (NSW). The indicative sentences I would impose are as follows:

Count 3 – offence pursuant to s 474.19(1)(a)(i) – 2 years and 3 months imprisonment

Count 4 – offence pursuant to s 474.19(1)(a)(iii) – 2 years imprisonment

153. For these two offences there must be some accumulation in sentence given the different nature of the offending and I intend to sentence the offender to an aggregate sentence of 2 years and 9 months imprisonment.

154. In assessing the appropriate sentence for all four counts, and the starting date, the principle of totality must be taken into account. In R v Cahyadi [2007] NSWCCA 1; 168 A Crim R 41 at [27], Howie J said:

“There is no general rule that determines whether sentences ought to be imposed concurrently or consecutively. The issue is determined by the application of the principle of totality of criminality: can the sentence for one offence comprehend and reflect criminality for the other offence? If it can, the sentences ought to be concurrent otherwise there is a risk that the combined sentences will exceed what is warranted to reflect the total criminality of the two offences. If not, the sentences should be at least partly cumulative, otherwise there is a risk that the total sentence will fail to reflect the total criminality of two offences. Similarly, where they are part of a single episode of criminality with common factors, it is more likely that the sentence for one of the offences will reflect the criminality of both.”

155. I accept the Crown’s submission that at common law the principle of totality applies when a custodial sentence is to be imposed which will be cumulative upon, or which will overlap with an existing custodial sentence, relying on R v Gordon, supra. The same principle applies in respect of the Commonwealth matters by application of s 16B of the Crimes Act 1914(Cth). I therefore intend to backdate the sentence to take into account the time spent in custody referrable to these matters only, and not the balance of parole. For that reason the sentence to be imposed will be backdated to commence on 13 June 2018.

156. In respect of the sentence for the Counts 3 and 4, I do not accept the Crown’s submission that a term of imprisonment that included a recognisance release order, would not be an appropriate sentence in this case, relying on DPP v Haynes, supra. That submission misconstrued the Victorian Court of Appeal’s decision in Haynes, where the court dismissed a Crown appeal based on a contention that a sentence was manifestly inadequate where the total effective sentence for child sex offences was 30 months imprisonment with a 10 months pre-release period under a recognisance release order. The Court held that that sentence was not manifestly inadequate, notwithstanding that it was quite lenient. I therefore intend to make the sentences for Counts 1 and 2, and Counts 3 and 4 partly cumulative, and order a recognisance release order pursuant to s 19AC of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth).

Sentence

157. The approach I take to sentence is guided by the approach set out in DPP v Swinglar, supra. I therefore intend to sentence first, in relation to Counts 1 and 2, and then to impose a sentence pursuant to the Commonwealth Crimes Act 1914 in respect of Counts 3 and 4.

158. In doing so, I must have regard to the objective seriousness of all of the offending, the subjective factors that have to be taken into account in respect of the offender, the diminished importance of general deterrence in the sentencing process, by way of her mental health conditions, and principles of totality and proportionality, having regard to the totality of the criminality involved.

159. In respect of Counts 1 and 2, I find special circumstances pursuant to s 44 of the CSPA so as to vary the ratio between the head sentence and the non-parole period based on the offender’s mental health issues.

160. I therefore intend to impose in respect of Counts 1 and 2 a non-parole period of 1 year and 3 months to date from 13 June 2018. The non-parole period will therefore expire on 12 September 2019, and the balance of term will be from 13 September 2019 to 12 September 2020.

161. In respect of Counts 3 and 4, I intend to sentence the offender to an aggregate sentence of 2 years and 9 months commencing on 13 September 2018 and expiring on 12 June 2021. I intend to fix a recognisance release order for the offender pursuant to s 19AC of the Crimes Act 1914(Cth) for the release of the offender after a period of 1 year and 6 months, namely, on 12 March 2020.

Orders

162. I make the following orders:

1. You are convicted of the following offences:

Count 1 – Between about 10 March 2016 and about 16 June 2018 contravened a Child Protection Prohibition Order without reasonable excuse on (18) occasions contrary to Section 13 (1) of the Child Protection (Offenders Prohibition Orders) Act 2004 (NSW).

Count 2 - Between about 11 March 2016 and about 20 April 2018 failed to comply with reporting obligations under the Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Act 2000 (NSW) without reasonable excuse, namely, failed to disclose (8) internet and social media accounts contrary to Section 17 (1) of the Child Protection (Offenders Registration Orders) Act 2004 (NSW)

Count 3- Between about 2 November 2015 and about 14 December 2017 used three carriage services namely a HP Laptop, Alcatel Mobile Phone with cracked screen and a Telstra ZTE GSM – & 81 Telstra Tempo device, to access child pornography material contrary to Section 474.19 (1)(a)(i) of the Criminal Code (Cth) 1995.

Count 4 – Between about 2 October 2016 and about 15 March 2017 caused material to be transmitted using a carriage service, the material being child pornography material contrary to Section 474.19(1)(a)(iii) of the Criminal Code (Cth) 1995.

2. In respect of Counts 1 and 2, I sentence you by way of an aggregate sentence pursuant to s 53A of the CSPA to a non-parole period of 1 year and 3 months commencing on 13 June 2018 and expiring on 12 September 2019. The balance of term will be a period of 1 year to date from 13 September 2019 to 12 September 2020.

3. In respect of Counts 3 and 4, I sentence you by way of an aggregate sentence of 2 years and 9 months, to commence on 13 September 2018 and to expire on 12 June 2021.

4. I order a Recognisance Release Order pursuant to s 19AC of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) for you to be released after a period of 1 year and 6 months on 12 March 2020.

163. Note In [152] I have referred to s 20AB of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth). I note the power to aggregate a sentence for two or more Commonwealth offences arises pursuant to s 68(1) of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth).

**********

Amendments

07 October 2020 - Cover Sheet - Case name and parties name amended to delete alternative identity.

Publication Restriction amended to include s15A of the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW)

Decision last updated: 07 October 2020