Sabel v R; R v Sabel

In the case of Sabel v R; R v Sabel, the appellant, Mr Sabel, appealed against his convictions for possession of child pornography and accessing child pornography using a carriage service. The case was heard by the Supreme Court of New South Wales. Mr Sabel contended that his possession of child pornography was for a genuine scientific purpose and that the trial judge had erred in not directing the jury to consider this defence. Additionally, he argued that the judge alone trial was improper and that the sentence imposed was affected by irrelevant considerations.

The legal issues before the court included whether the defence of a genuine scientific purpose under the Crimes Act 1900 required a scientific method and the reasonableness of Mr Sabel's conduct. The court also needed to determine if the trial judge had erred in conducting a judge alone trial and whether the sentence imposed was affected by irrelevant considerations. Furthermore, the court had to consider the relevance of adverse social consequences as an extra-curial punishment in child pornography offences.

The court held that the defence of a genuine scientific purpose did not require a scientific method but rather depended on the reasonableness of the conduct in light of the purpose. The court found that the trial judge had not erred in conducting a judge alone trial and that the sentence was not affected by irrelevant considerations. The court also held that adverse social consequences should not be considered as extra-curial punishment in child pornography offences. The court concluded that the purpose of sentencing in such cases is deterrence.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal against conviction was dismissed, and the appeal against sentence was allowed in part. The convictions were upheld, but the sentence was varied to remove the registration requirement under the Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Act 2000.