The Queen v Miao

[2016] NSWDC 181

District Court

New South Wales

• Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Miao [2016] NSWDC 181
Hearing dates:	17th August 2016
Date of orders:	19 August 2016
Decision date:	19 August 2016
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Berman SC DCJ
Decision:	Sentenced to an overall term of imprisonment consisting of a non-parole period of 1 year 3 months and a head sentence of 2 years and 3 months.
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence- Form 1 – Commonwealth and State offences – Use a carriage service to access child pornography – Possessing child abuse material - Difference between disgusting behaviour and criminal behaviour - Child sex doll
Cases Cited:	Vincenzo Jon Fedele v R [2015] NSWCCA 286
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	The Crown Zhiguo Miao
Representation:	Counsel: Mr McGrath – Crown Ms S Hall - Offender   Solicitors: Director of Public Prosecutions Benjamin and Leonardo Criminal Defence Lawyers
File Number(s):	2014/187114; 2013/231791

SENTENCE

1. This Court is not a Court of morals. Not all behaviour which is strange, or offensive, or even disgusting is criminal and sentencing judges have to be careful not to allow a sense of disgust to lead to an inappropriately severe sentence being imposed upon an offender. What is required is that the judge evaluate the objective gravity of an offender’s conduct by considering well accepted factors which include of course the harm that an offender’s conduct cause to the victims of it. I have begun these remarks on sentence this way because of the disturbing nature of one aspect of this offender’s criminal behaviour.

2. There is apparently at least one factory operating overseas which produces “child sex dolls” for sale to the public. These are anatomically correct mannequins made of silicon. The offender decided that he would like to buy such an object. He contacted the Australian agent for the company which sold the sex dolls and asked whether the 132cm child doll, with sexual function, was available in Australia. The agent, a man called James Stanley Friess, replied the same day by telling the offender that

“the 132 cm doll is sold as a non- sex doll. Although not illegal in Australia, it is delivered with a blank plug. The factory will send you the vagina insert as a separate delivery for an additional $70”.

3. A couple of days later the offender ordered the doll specifying a number of features of the doll he would like, and then in a later email asked that the vagina insert is shipped separately. He paid about $4000 Australian dollars. Two packages were thus sent to the offender from somewhere overseas. The first was detected by the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service. It contained the head of the doll and the silicon vaginal insert. Those items were seized by police and never delivered to the offender, however the second package which contained the child mannequin body was delivered. Police later went to the accused’s premises they executed a search warrant and discovered a number of items which have led to the offender being…