CDPP v Freeman [2026] VCC 160

1. These maximum penalties reflect the seriousness with which Parliament regards each of these offences.
2. The circumstances of your offending are set out in a document entitled 'Summary of Prosecution Opening' dated 16 August 2024. This is an agreed document and represents your acceptance of the elements of the offences to which you have pleaded guilty, as well as the factual basis on which I am to sentence. I have had recourse to the entire document.
3. I will not repeat the entire summary as it is a matter of record and due to the graphic nature of some of the content. I will make some reference to the facts in these reasons so that your offending can be properly understood

1. On 12 October 2018 you were placed on the Sex Offenders Register for a period of 8 years. One of the obligations upon you was to report any internet names that you used, operated or managed within seven days of a change occurring. You were aware of your reporting obligations.
2. On 9 January 2024 police executed a search warrant at your premises. Both you and your partner were present.
3. Various items were seized by police including:

(a) 3 USB's;

(b) 2 iPhones;

(c) 1 orange folder;

(d) 2 Lifebook laptops;

(e) 3 hard drives; and

(f) 1 Mac mini

1. Child abuse material was located on an iPhone SE. You provided your login details and consent to police members to access your online identity.
2. Upon inspection of your mobile phone, which had been seized, the username 'mfeb49' was linked to an account on an application known as Kik. The Kik account with this username had been active for some time with the charge itself commencing on 12 March 2020. You had failed to report the username within seven days. These facts form the basis for Charge 1 - Fail to comply with reporting obligations without reasonable excuse contrary to the Sex Offenders Act 2004_._
3. Between 16 October 2022 and 8 January 2024, using the name 'mfeb', you engaged in conversations with users 'Feisty' and 'Kawpig' on the Telegram application. During these conversations you transmitted files and text-based child abuse material forming the basis for Charge 2 - Transmit child abuse material.
4. You sent 127 child abuse material files to 'Feisty' which was comprised of 98 videos, 29 images and a story. Examples of the content were detailed in the Crown opening.
5. You also discussed with 'Feisty' actually meeting to watch child abuse material together, sent 'Feisty' your home address and phone number, referred to each other as 'pedo' and you communicated that you were really looking forward to meeting and playing 'pedo'.
6. Also as part of Charge 2 were your communications with 'Kawpig' to whom you sent 58 child abuse files comprising 22 videos and 36 images. Descriptions of what you sent were also outlined in the Crown opening.
7. In terms of Charge 3 - Access child abuse material. on 27 April 2023, during a Telegram conversation with 'Feisty', you received a video which police classified as containing child abuse material. You watched this and replied to 'Feisty', "Fucken nice, been too long since I did that."
8. On 1 January 2024 during a Telegram conversation with 'Kawpig' you received a video which police also classified as child abuse material.. You watched this video and replied to' Kawpig', "Fucken beautiful."
9. Police analysed the devices seized from your residence on 9 January 2024. Child abuse material was located on 10 separate devices. At least 16,774 child abuse material files were located, the majority of which were on a Toshiba hard drive. Descriptions of the child abuse material located on each device was annexed to the Crown summary.
10. A number of files stored were named under a descriptor. In a silver Lifebook laptop the child abuse material was saved in folders indicating a categorisation system such as 'baby boy', 'boy- older', 'boy- woman',' girl- animal', 'girl and boy- man'.
11. When executing the search warrant at your premises on 9 January 2024 police also located an orange folder in the attic. In this folder was a printed document entitled, "Hand Jobs, Nut Clenching Daddy Boy stories 9/98."
12. There were 14 stories in the document with police classifying one as containing text-based child abuse material. That story was entitled 'Having Two Dads" and detailed a pubescent male engaging in sexual intercourse with two adult males who claimed to be his father. These facts form the basis for Charge 4

• Possession of Child Abuse Material.

13. You were arrested and interviewed by police on 9 January 2024. During that interview you made full admissions to possessing, sending and receiving child abuse material. You were remanded into custody where you have remained

1. Charge 1 involves your failure to comply with reporting obligations under the

Sex Offenders Registration Act 2004- particularly your failure to report your Kik account username' mfeb49'. You understood the requirements of you in the order made in October of 2018. Your non-compliance, which was for a considerable period of time, reflects an inability to abide by court orders. This is of obvious concern. Whilst it is not suggested that you used the Kik account for your offending, Sex Offender Registration orders are designed to protect children from sex offenders and, as such, contraventions must be punished with deterrence in mind. However, you do not have a history of such non-compliance and you had previously reported the user name 'mfeb' linked to a Grinder account. The circumstances of your offending associated with this charge do not, in my view, demand a term of imprisonment 2. In assessing Charges 2 through to Charge 5, it is long established that the objective seriousness of such offending is determined by reference to a range of non-exhaustive factors. 3. Those factor include the following:

(a) the nature and content of the material;

(b) the number of items or images possessed;

(c) whether the material was held for the purposes of sale or further distribution;

(d) whether the offender would profit from the offence;

(e) the number of children depicted and thereby victimised; and

(f) the length of time for which the child abuse material was possessed.

1. I have no basis to form the view that your offending was related to sale or profit.
2. Charge 2 - transmit child abuse material, as has already been referenced, involves you sending 126 child abuse material files to user 'Feisty' and 58 child abuse material files to user 'Kawpig'. This offending occurred over about a 15-month period and represents you engaging with two other users.

1. The quantity of the child abuse material files is a less relevant factor when assessing the gravity of this offending. A more relevant consideration is the quality of the material. The greater the cruelty, degradation and corruption, and the more the material offends against community values, the more reprehensible the offending'.[1]
2. The samples of the files you transmitted, and the conversations you had with the two other users, as referred to in the Crown opening are some of the most depraved, disgusting and abhorrent material I have had the misfortune to read. By way of brief example the material involved the penetration of deceased children, the penetration of infants, bloodied children and sexual violence against children over and above the inherent violence of the sexual acts themselves.
3. The text-based material was just as vile and wholly supportive of sexual violence and sexual offending against infants referencing torture, snuff material and baby rape. The majority would appear to refer to very young children.
4. Charge 3 - Access child abuse material through use of a carriage service occurred over some seven to eight months but in fact references two discrete occasions on which you received a video, one from 'Feisty' and one from 'Kawpig' and then are said to have viewed each video. A description of the two videos were provided to me. The videos were relatively short and the content not at the highest level of objective seriousness- especially when compared with your other offending.
5. Charge 4 - Knowingly possess child abuse material occurred on 9 January 2024 and references one story of text-based child abuse material located in the attic. Whilst not at the higher end for an offence of this type, it is a further demonstration of your interest is such material
6. Charge 5 - Possess or control child abuse material is in another category altogether. It also occurs on a single date of 9 January 2024 but references the location by police of at least 16,774 child abuse material files on 10 separate devices. I note that the files which are the subject of Charges 2 and 3 are also captured by this charge. I must take care to avoid double punishment in those circumstances given there is a degree of overlap. I certainly consider Charge 2, particularly, to represent very separate criminality.
7. The majority of the child abuse material the subject of Charge 5 was located on a Toshiba hard drive. The description of the material located by police was included in an annexure to the Crown opening and perhaps unsurprisingly, the content was similar to that which I described when referencing Charge 2 and equally as shocking and repugnant. Again, very young children were depicted.
8. Online sexual offending involving children is reprehensible offending which, whilst easy to commit, is often difficult to detect given the anonymity the internet is able to provide.
9. Yours are not victimless crimes. You were not a passive participant. Such material involves real children. Harm is caused as was particularly obvious from the material you possessed. Access to, transmission of and/or possession of such material supports a wicked industry which by its very nature involves and perpetuates the abuse and degradation of children. It literally ruins lives. It is also offending which often involves its victims facing the harsh reality that their images may be published, shared and stored around the world for years if not indefinitely. This risks the continued traumatisation of the children exploited in such material.
10. Text-based child abuse material may not have such direct victims but has its own dangers and harms. It is exchanged with others for sexual gratification and has the tendency to normalise or encourage child sex abuse_._ It risks encouraging reciprocal communications or victim participation[2], relegates children to objects, undermines society's abhorrence of child sexual abuse and ignores the harm that the fantasised activities cause real child victims.[3] There is also a risk that such communications can be further disseminated to others.
11. Deterring others is the primary sentencing objective in offending involving child abuse material. Increases to maximum penalties and the introduction of minimum penalties for certain offences in 2020 reinforces this observation. An offenders personal mitigatory factors are generally given less weight in the circumstances of such offending.

1. I am obliged to take into account the stage at which you entered your guilty plea.
2. I accept that you were cooperative with investigators and that you made full admissions upon your interview with police.
3. You entered your guilty plea at a committal mention hearing held in the Magistrates' Court on 21 June 2025 after discussions between the parties to resolve the appropriate charges and facts.
4. I accept that your plea of guilty was at the earliest opportunity.
5. It has saved the court the time and expense of contested proceedings and the potential for witnesses and members of any jury being exposed to the content of your offending.
6. Whilst I accept you have experienced shame and regret you still lack insight into the seriousness of your offending hence your level of actual remorse is somewhat difficult to determine. You have, however, taken responsibility for your wrongdoing.
7. These factors will be taken into account in your favour.

1. Your personal circumstances are set out in written submissions as well as supporting material tendered on your behalf. I have had recourse to all material tendered on your behalf.
2. You are now aged 63 years of age.
3. Your grew up in Melbourne. I understand your parents ran a milk bar. You have an older sister, Debra. Your relationship with your father was difficult as you constantly felt that you were unable to meet his expectations of you. You have had a supportive relationship with your mother and sister.
4. You recall constant messaging at school and through your father that being homosexual was not acceptable. In your early years you found this confusing and your self-esteem was affected as you identified as homosexual from an early age.
5. The psychological reports tendered on your behalf detail the sexual abuse which you experienced as a child over an extended period of time from multiple perpetrators outside the family home. I will not repeat the detail in these sentencing reasons but, as already indicated, I have read all material provided.
6. I accept that this protracted period of significant abuse perpetrated against you is likely to have interrupted what could otherwise be described as normal sexual development. Your own abuse must have contributed to the man you became. Such experiences would have disturbed your own sense of sexual safety. I accept it is likely to have played some role in your own offending behaviour particularly when you have largely kept these events to yourself. Your own trauma is largely untreated and you now have a complex presentation.
7. You completed your secondary education at St Patrick's College. This would appear to be quite the achievement given the abuse you experienced during your school years. You then completed a Diploma of Hotel Management. You worked in hospitality for some ten years before nine years with Citibank and a further ten years working for a charity. You ceased work when you were around fifty years of age. Since that time you have been a full-time carer for your partner,

Edward Bateson, whom you have known since your late adolescence. 8. You were introduced to substance misuse as a child and in the context of being sexually offended against. This commenced with cannabis which you continued to use into your adult life. At the time of your offending you were using methamphetamine and had done so for some time. You told Ms Steffens, psychologist, that you relied on this drug in order to function.

1. Your prior criminal history is part of your personal circumstances.
2. You have a relatively limited history in terms of court appearances.
3. On 3 March 1982 you appeared at the Cheltenham Magistrates' Court for a charge of theft and were placed on an adjourned undertaking for a period of 12 months.
4. On 17 June 1994 you appeared at the Oakleigh Magistrates' Court for a charge of theft and were placed on a community-based order for a period of 12 months.
5. On 24 June 1996 the Prahran Magistrates' Court convicted and fined you $150 for a charge of theft.
6. The Frankston Magistrates' Court fined you $350 on 2 August 2000 in relation to charges of cultivate a narcotic plant, possess cannabis and use cannabis.
7. These matters have little bearing on the sentencing task.
8. It is your court appearance on 12 October 2018 which has the most relevance. On that day you were sentenced to 18 months imprisonment with a minimum of

9 months imprisonment before being eligible for parole in relation to a single charge of knowingly possess child pornography. The reasons for sentence of

Her Honour Judge Dawes were made available to me. Your offending at that time related to police attending at your premises and locating child abuse material. On that occasion you were in possession of 13,207 images and 1,035 videos. 9. With the relevant prior matter, the nature of the offending before me and duration of it, specific deterrence is of obvious relevance to your sentencing. In your case I am of the view that it also informs your moral culpability which I consider to be relatively high. 10. Whilst not to be punished for your criminal history a second time it is otherwise relevant to the assessment that needs to be undertaken by me as to the weight that should attach to the important principles of denunciation and protection of the community. These factors also carry considerable importance to your sentencing.

1. Your criminal history also assists an assessment as to your prospects for rehabilitation.
2. The offending before me represents a continuation and escalation of your previous offending and occurred within a timeframe not too far removed from your release from custody on 12 March 2020 for similar offending.
3. As a direct consequence you have now been on remand for some 771 days.
4. You have managed to keep yourself occupied by working in the kitchen and doing some creative writing.
5. You suffer from sleep apnoea, asthma, hypercholesterolaemia and lumbar back pain. In addition, you do have a long-standing history of depression, anxiety and suicidal ideation.
6. In February 2024 you suffered an intracranial haemorrhage after a fall whilst on remand and required surgery and hospitalisation. You have experienced brain bleeds, dizziness, memory loss and migraines since. You are of the belief that you have not had adequate medical treatment. You have noticed changes in yourself that are of natural concern to you and you now have the assistance of a carer.
7. Your partner, Edward Bateson, is chronically unwell and has been for an extended period of time. In a letter dated 21 November 2025, Dr Andrew Nicholls confirms that Mr Bateson has end stage chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and that he is dependent on oxygen for survival. He also has an aggressive melanoma which Dr Nicholls describes as totally incurable. Combined with a diagnosis of ischaemic heart disease, Dr Nicholls estimates that Mr Bateson has a survival diagnosis of

12 months. You are naturally concerned for Mr Bateson's well-being in your absence. 8. In addition, Mr Bateson currently resides in the home you shared in Mordialloc and is unable to meet the financial commitment of the mortgage on his own. Documentation has been provided from the Commonwealth Banking Association which confirms a deferral in payments until 12 February 2026. Whether or not

Mr Bateson will be able to remain in the home is uncertain at this stage as is your returning to this home. I accept that this is an additional source of stress for you. 9. Your father, Austin, is now aged 89 years and resides with your mother and sister. He has been diagnosed with dementia and needs assistance with dressing, personal hygiene and other daily tasks. It falls to your mother and sister to help him. Your father requires constant supervision and his mobility is poor. 10. Your mother, Barbara, is 90 years of age. She does play an active role in your father's care and is in reasonably good health for a person of her age. You call your mother daily and she is a source of support for you. 11. Your sister, Debra Lonsdale, has provided a written reference dated

12 November 2025. She is aware that you have been charged with the possession of child pornography. Ms Lonsdale writes that, prior to your remand, you were assisting her with the care of your parents and that you were the sole carer for

Mr Bateson. These tasks are now largely hers with some assistance from support services. Debra has been able to speak with you on the phone and has noticed some affect upon you since you sustained a head injury whilst on remand. 12. I accept that you are concerned for people you care about in your absence and in your inability to assist them. Whilst this did not deter you from offending, I do accept that you are concerned for their welfare and that your father, partner and potentially you mother may be at risk of dying whilst you are undergoing sentence is an additional pressure on you. 13. A plea hearing listed on 23 September 2024 was vacated and the matter was refixed for 14 February 2025. By that date issues relating to your fitness to plead were raised and a further hearing was listed for 26 May 2025. The matter was further adjourned to 26 August 2025 as a further assessment of you was sought by your legal representatives. A further adjournment was granted for similar reasons. As of 7 October 2025 your fitness to plead was no longer in issue and your plea of guilty was fixed for 17 November 2025. Your plea commenced on that day and, with the need for further material, a further plea was listed for 3 February 2026. You are not to be criticised for this timeline. It does represent a delay in being able to finalise your sentencing during which time you have no doubt seen the impact on and decline of important family members. 14. Your source of emotional support is very limited. This is in part associated with the personal circumstances of those that would normally be of assistance, such as your immediate family and partner, and partly because you have not shared the details of your offending. 15. You were assessed by Dr Paul Grech, consultant clinical psychologist, in September 2018 for the purpose of your plea hearing held on 12 October 2018. His report from that time was tendered in your plea before me. At the time of writing his report you had been seeing Dr Grech weekly for about one year. 16. To him you denied being aroused by the images you possessed but believed that you could understand better your own history of sexual abuse by viewing such images reminiscent of your own experiences. 17. In his opinion you required significant and sustained sex offender treatment. Dr Grech was of the view that your risk of re-offending was likely to be low contingent on you completing a full sex offender treatment program. 18. At that time you were described by Dr Grech as being extremely remorseful and as willing to undertake rehabilitation programs. I am told that you did not obtain any further treatment post your sentencing on 12 October 2018. 19. Courtney Steffens, clinical psychologist, has provided reports dated

4 November 2024 and 11 December 2025 respectively. 20. Her first report referenced the severe sexual abuse you experienced as a child. 21. To her you also denied experiencing a sexual attraction to children or infants and explained that you were a people pleaser who said what you believed the other person wanted to hear in order to obtain child abuse material . 22. In your plea of guilty in the County Court in 2018 the facts involved you possessing a large number of images of infants and toddlers being penetrated by adult males. In combination with the facts before me, including the content of your communications with' Feisty' and 'Kawpig', I do not accept that you did not have a personal and unnatural interest in such material. 23. Ms Steffens reported that you did not get any treatment post your release from prison as you told her that no service would accept your referral. I find this difficult to accept. 24. You described to her shame and regret in relation to your offending and expressed some confusion as to why you re-engaged in such offending but you did report a number of sources of stress- particularly in relation to your partner's health. 25. In Ms Steffens opinion you met the criteria for a diagnosis of complex post- traumatic stress disorder primarily associated with your history of chronic sexual abuse by multiple perpetrators. You also presented as severely depressed. Both of these conditions were in existence at the time of your offending. In her opinion none of your conditions directly caused your offending but they did impact on your emotional and behavioural regulation. She does not appear to reference any role your drug use at the time may have played. 26. In terms of any assessment as to your future risk, in her report dated

4 November 2024, Ms Steffens opined that until you engaged in sufficient individual treatment to address your own trauma and your sexual offending, then you were considered to be a moderate risk of future offending and in a similar way. 27. Ms Steffens was also of the view that imprisonment would weigh more heavily upon you than on a person without your conditions. She was concerned that you receive urgent attention for your depression and post-traumatic stress disorder due to the severity of your symptoms. 28. In her second report in time Ms Steffens remained of the opinion that you met the criteria for complex post-traumatic stress disorder and that you were severely depressed. You were expressing suicidal ideation. You were also assessed in relation to your levels of anxiety due to your concerns about the health care which you were receiving in custody. In Ms Steffens opinion you presented with severe symptoms of anxiety likely to be overlapping with your other presentations. 29. In the time since her previous assessment of you Ms Steffens was of the view that your emotional distress was elevated. She states and I quote:

'Overall, Mr Freeman presents as someone who continues to experience severe mental health symptoms and his vulnerability within the custodial environment has further increased with the onset of serious physical health concerns. Mr Freeman is experiencing high levels of anxiety regarding his health concerns, as well as a sense of loss, which is likely to be amplified by feeling isolated and out of control of his current circumstances within the custodial environment.'

1. In my view, and in the context of two assessments of you over a 12-month period, there is a basis for me to apply limb 5 and limb 6 of the decision of

R v Verdins [2007] VSCA 102. That is, the existence of your impairment at the time of your sentencing may mean that a specific sentence would weigh more heavily on you than a person in normal health and, to a lesser extent, I accept that there is a serious risk that imprisonment would have a significantly adverse impact on your mental health. 2. As perhaps already referenced, the difficulty for you in custody is not only related to your mental health but is combined with your concern for your parents and partner in your absence and your concerns about whether or not you are receiving adequate care for your physical health and the sequalae of the brain haemorrhage you suffered. I accept these as added components to the burden for you of your imprisonment. 3. Submissions initially made in relation to applicability of limbs 1, 3 and 4 in the decision of R v Verdins [2007] VSCA 102 were not pursued. 4. In my view there is considerable work to be done to reduce your future risk. I do accept that your experience of imprisonment on this occasion does have a role to play as both a sanction and as a deterrent, perhaps more so than on the previous occasion. Once you do access treatment I accept the submission that there is nothing to suggest that you will not be able to engage with and respond to appropriate treatment.

1. I turn now to the relevant sentencing regimes. Charges 2-5 on the indictment are Class 2 offences under the Sexual Offenders Registration Act and are each registrable offences. You are required to comply with reporting obligations for the remainder of your life and I do so order.
2. Pursuant to section 16AAB of the Crimes Act 1915 (Cth) a conviction on Charges 2, 3 and 5 provides that, subject to section 16AAC, and having previously been convicted of a child sexual abuse offence, a court must impose a minimum head sentence of 4 years imprisonment respectively.
3. Section 16AAC provides that a court may impose a sentence of imprisonment which is less than the prescribed minimum head sentence only if the court considers it appropriate to do so taking into account the plea of guilty or cooperation with law enforcement agencies.
4. The prescribed minimum penalties provide what is described as a yardstick the exercise of the sentencing discretion, that is, the minimum head sentence is a starting point for the appropriate term of imprisonment for the offence in the least serious circumstances.[4]
5. In the decision of Trinh v The King [2024] VSCA 61 at paragraph 40, the

'Following it is beyond doubt that the correct approach to statutory minimum sentences is the double function approach. That is, the minimum sentence restricts sentencing power to the minimum period of imprisonment subject to the exceptions and provides a yardstick representing the least worst possible case warranting imprisonment against which the case before the court at the time can be measured or the offence in the least serious circumstances. Thereby the statutory minimum operates to increase the appropriate term of imprisonment generally for that offence.'

1. Therefore, and in accordance with what is ordinary sentencing practice, the court must take into account any plea of guilty and/or cooperation when fixing an appropriate sentence. Section 16AAC allows for a reduction of sentence below the statutory minimum only if it is necessary in order to give weight to a guilty plea and/or cooperation. It is said to be that it would be in very limited circumstances that s16AAC would allow a court to impose a sentence of imprisonment of less than the prescribed minimum head sentence. Such factors do not automatically end in a sentence which is below the required minimum.
2. Should, however, that circumstance arise, the court may reduce the sentence by an amount up to 25% of the prescribed minimum for each prescribed consideration.[5]
3. Trinh further explained the sentencing process in the following way and again I quote:

'The sentencing process requires the judge to determine a prima facie sentence which involves, but is not limited to, consideration of the offending measured against the yardstick minimum term which is for the least worst possible case deserving of imprisonment and then to overtly consider whether the fact and quality of either the plea or cooperation, or both, renders it appropriate in all the circumstances to impose a sentence less than the prescribed minimum. This does not involve double counting of a guilty plea and/or cooperation. Rather it requires a sentencing judge to separately and expressly consider whether the instinctive synthesis of all relevant sentencing considerations has given adequate expression to those matters if the sentence remains at or above the statutory minimum. In all cases an offender who has pleaded guilty and/or cooperated with law enforcement agencies will receive a benefit for the plea and cooperation. In only some cases will that benefit extend to a sentence of imprisonment of less than the minimum term'[6].

1. The Crown submits that your offending the subject of Charges 2 and 5 particularly each merit a sentence which exceeds the prescribed minimum penalty. I have had regard to the comparable cases to which I was referred. These sentences are of assistance in illustrating relevant sentencing principles and are of some utility in the present sentencing exercise. However, as frequently occurs, it is very difficult to find cases of sufficient factual similarity and so each case must ultimately be decided on its own facts and circumstances.
2. In determining the sentences to be imposed on Charges 2 and 5, having regard to the relevant sentencing principles, the objective seriousness of your offending and the subjective mitigating factors you rely on, the overall seriousness of your offending on each of these charges falls above that which may be contemplated to be in the least serious circumstances. I do not need to resort to s16AAC to impose a sentence below the prescribed mandatory minimum head sentence on those circumstances. I accommodate discounts for your plea of guilty pursuant to s16A(2)(g).
3. I do find Charge 3 to be in a different category. It also has a mandatory minimum head sentence of 4 years' imprisonment. In Hurt and Delzotto,[7] the majority held that it is legitimate for a court to first determine a prima facie sentence with the use of the prescribed minimum head sentence as a yardstick prior to considering the discount. In other words the court should first engage in an instinctive synthesis of all relevant factors except for the plea of guilty and any

co-operation. It should then proceed to separately consider s16A(2)(g) and (h) factors and only then determine whether the s16AAC mechanism is required to move below the prescribed mandatory minimum head term. Accordingly, a reduction will ordinarily only be appropriate where the prima facie sentence determined falls within, or close to, what I have referred to as the least serious circumstance.[8] 4. I do see Charge 3 as being at or near the least worst possible case when assessing a charge that otherwise has a maximum penalty of 15 years imprisonment. 5. Pursuant to s19(5), as the Commonwealth charges are for child sex offences, there is a presumption of cumulation with each other sentence for child sex offences. This operates subject to s19(6) which provides the presumption of cumulation under sub-s5 does not apply if concurrency would result in a sentence that was appropriately severe in the circumstances. Section 19(7) requires the court to state its reasons if it departs from the presumption of cumulation. 6. Whilst recognising their separate criminality, in my view, the proper consideration of the totality of your offending gives reason for a departure from the presumption of cumulation between your child sex offences and thus orders for cumulation will be moderated accordingly. Your offending is properly assessed as a course of conduct involving similar or related offences, a factor which leans towards a degree of concurrency in order to give effect to the totality principle. In deciding the appropriate periods of cumulation I have had regard to the overall severity of the total effective sentence. I have also taken into account the various mitigating factors that I have considered in these reasons. 7. Finally, s16A (2AAA) of the Crimes Act provides that a court sentencing an offender for a Commonwealth child sex offence must have regard to the objective of rehabilitating the person, including by considering whether it is appropriate, in determining the length of any sentence or non-parole period, to include sufficient time for a person to undertake a rehabilitation program. I have already commented on your need for extensive therapeutic intervention.

1. Charges 1 and 4 are State offences requiring you to be sentenced in accordance with the Sentencing Act 1991 and for the court have regard to the matters referred to in section 5 of that Act.
2. The basic purposes which a court may impose sentence are just punishment, general and specific deterrence, rehabilitation, denunciation and protection of the community.
3. In sentencing you I must have regard to a range of matters which include the seriousness of the offending, your culpability for it, your personal circumstances and those of any victims. I must also balance the interests of the community in denouncing criminal conduct with the interest the community clearly has in seeking to ensure, where possible, that offenders are rehabilitated and are reintegrated into society.
4. I have taken into account the sentencing purposes referred to in section 5 of the Sentencing Act where relevant to your case and the current sentencing practices for the offences to which you have pleaded guilty. Proportionality and then totality with the other charges on the indictment are of obvious relevance.
5. Accordingly, for the State offences I sentence as follows:

(a) Charge 1 - Fail to comply with reporting obligations you are convicted and fined $2000.

(b) Charge 4 - Possess child abuse material relating to the single story you are convicted and fined $3000.

1. Charges 2, 3 and 5 are each Federal offences requiring you to be sentenced in accordance with Part 1B of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth).
2. I take into account the matters contained in that part and specifically the principles referred to in section 16A which sets out that matters to which the court must have regard when passing sentence on federal offenders.
3. It is made clear by section 17A that imprisonment is to be a sentence of last resort and only to be imposed where a court is satisfied that no other penalty is appropriate in the circumstances of the case. I am so satisfied in your case and direct that my reasons for so finding be entered into the records of the court.
4. Section 16A(2) sets out a non-exhaustive list of factors the court must take into account where they are relevant and known to the court. Of particular relevance to your case are the nature and circumstances of the offences, general deterrence, specific deterrence, contrition, your guilty plea, the need for adequate punishment, your character, antecedents, age and means, your rehabilitative prospects and the impact of any sentence I impose on your family members, which in this case does include your parents and partner. I have already outlined my consideration of these factors and the others referred to in section 16A(2) where relevant to your case.
5. Accordingly, I sentence as follows.

(a) For Charge 2 - Use carriage service to transmit child abuse material you are convicted and sentenced to 4 years' and 2 months' imprisonment.

(b) For Charge 3 - Using carriage service to access child abuse material I have formed the view that offending would attract a sentence of 4 years' imprisonment. I attach a discount of 20% for your plea of guilty and 10% for your cooperation. Rounding in your favour this results in a sentence of 2 years' and 8 months' imprisonment.

(c) For Charge 5 - Possess or control child abuse material you are convicted and sentenced to 5 years' imprisonment.

1. The sentence on Charge 5 commences today.
2. The sentence on Charge 2 commences 1 year and 10 months' from today.
3. The sentence on Charge 3 commences 3 years' and 8 months' from today.
4. It is therefore my intention to impose a total effective sentence on the Commonwealth offences of 6 years' and 4 months' imprisonment.
5. I direct that you serve a minimum non-parole period of 3 years' and 10 months' imprisonment on the Commonwealth offences.
6. I declare pursuant to section 18E of the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic), that you have served 771 days by way of pre-sentence detention which does include your remand up until today.
7. The purpose of fixing a non-parole period is to allow for your supervised release into the community in order to further your rehabilitation. This mechanism naturally also then allows for the protection of the community.
8. If you are released on parole the balance of your sentence will be served in the community subject to conditions. A parole order can be amended or revoked. If you fail without reasonable excuse to fulfil the requirements of any parole order your parole order may be revoked and you may be required to serve the balance of your sentence in prison.
9. Section 6AAA of the Sentencing Act requires me to state the sentence that I would have imposed had not pleaded guilty. Whilst I have taken many factors into account, if not for your plea of guilty I would have sentenced you to a total effective sentence of 8 years' and 5 months' imprisonment with a minimum of 5 years' and 6 months' before you would be eligible for parole and I so order.
10. I don't know whether you want to check my maths.
11. MS HILL: If I could just have a minute or two.
12. HER HONOUR: I can stand down temporarily. It's much more comfortable for all of us.
13. MS HILL: Thank you, yes, Your Honour.
14. HER HONOUR: And at the conclusion of the proceedings, Mr Cameron, I will let you speak to your client over the link if you wish to do so.
15. MR CAMERON: Yes, Your Honour, thank you.
16. HER HONOUR: Thank you, I'll stand down temporarily.

1. MS HILL: Calculations are correct, Your Honour.
2. HER HONOUR: Well, that's a first.
3. MS HILL: Thank you.
4. HER HONOUR: All right, thank you very much.
5. MR CAMERON: That's agreed, Your Honour.
6. HER HONOUR: Thank you. All right. Well, I'll leave you to speak to your client if you wish to do so. And thank you, well, for your assistance today, Ms Hill, and thank you for the assistance I did have from the Commonwealth overall and

thank you of course for your assistance as well, Mr Cameron. 7. MR CAMERON: Of course, Your Honour. 8. HER HONOUR: I'll close the court until 10.30 tomorrow, thank you.

[1] R v Cardwell [2021] QCA 112, [22] (citing R v Vantoosten [2009] QCA 55, [9]).

[2]Innes v R [2018] NSWCCA 90; Meadows v The Queen [2017] VSCA 290; The Queen v Hancock [2011] NTCCA 14 at [42].

[4] Hurt v The King [2024] HCA 8; (2024) 418 ALR 63 [54}

[5] Crimes Act, s16AAC ( 3 ) ( a ) and ( b)

[6] Trinh v The King [2024] VSCA 61 at 44