CDPP v Morgan

1. You were born in November 1962 and were between 59 and 61 years of age at the time of the offending. You have no prior criminal history.

1. The circumstances of your offending are detailed in the summary of prosecution opening for plea dated 24 January 2025 which is the agreed basis upon which you are to be sentenced.
2. On 21 March 2024, the police executed a search warrant at your address where they seized your mobile phone after locating it behind a cushion on the couch. You had placed the mobile phone there while the police searched your house. You were arrested and interviewed during which you made admissions to your offending.
3. You told the police that the mobile phone was yours and admitted you had used a landline number to leave recorded messages on a chatline, described as a gay chatline, which provides an anonymous way to communicate with other users.
4. You admitted that in these messages you had described yourself engaging in sexual activity with your daughter, purportedly when she was 12 years old, and sent images to other users representing that they were actual images of your daughter at the age of 13. Although the messages were all fictional, you admitted that these descriptions of sexual encounters with children constituted text-based child abuse material.

Charge 1 - using a carriage service to make available child abuse material

1. Charge 1 relates to seven occasions between 13 June 2022 and 3 December 2023 that you left recorded voice messages for other adult users. The content of those messages has been assessed as child abuse material, constituted by fictitious descriptions of sexual acts being performed on children, including your daughters, when they were aged between 11 and 12.
2. The first occasion was on 13 June 2022. On that date, you left a voicemail message for a chatline user in which you said that you used to watch your daughters and their friends when they had sleepovers, stating that as they got older, they used to masturbate in the shower. You described digitally penetrating and performing oral sex on your eldest daughter when she was 12. You described her as naked in her bed at the time, and in a deep sleep due to a sleep disorder.
3. The second occasion was on 12 July 2022, when you left two voicemail messages for a different chatline user. In the first message you said that you had touched your daughter, and that she now had a seven-month old baby and invited the other user to come over when you were babysitting to 'have some fun together'.[2] You provided the online user with your street address. In response, the other user wrote to you about masturbating on his grandson. You responded with a second voice message, suggesting that you swap numbers so you could both continue communicating. You told that user that you would be discreet and would send photos of your grandson and daughter.
4. On 18 August 2022, you sent the same user a third voicemail message stating that he could come over one night and get into bed with your daughter, while you slept with the other daughter, stating they were both underage and that you had photos.
5. The third occasion was on 14 July 2022 when you left two voicemail messages for a different chatline user. In the first message, you said you had images of yourself digitally penetrating your daughter when she was 12 years old and asleep. In the second message, you said that your daughter had a sleep disorder and that you could 'basically do anything to her without her knowing'. You asked if the user wanted to swap numbers and offered to send photos of your wife and daughter and provided the user with your street address.
6. The fourth occasion was on 23 July 2022 when you left a voice message with another chatline user, saying you had pictures of yourself digitally penetrating your daughter when she was 12 years old.
7. The fifth occasion was on 25 August 2022, when you left a voicemail message for another chatline user saying that when your wife was 13 years old, she had sex for the first time with a 60-year-old male in the toilet of a pub. You went on to describe your wife in derogatory terms, the content of which is set out in the prosecution opening.
8. The sixth occasion was on 2 October 2022, when you left a voicemail message for another chatline user, in which you spoke of having pictures of your daughter naked and of digitally penetrating her when she was 13 years old and asleep.
9. The seventh and final occasion was over a year later, on 3 December 2023, when you left two voicemail messages for another chatline user, saying you had a picture of your daughter topless on her bed asleep, from when she was about 11 years old and another of her 'sort of topless' when she was three to five years old. In the second message, after being asked if you used to masturbate over your two daughters when they were young, you said you had masturbated over them 'all the time' in their beds and had ejaculated in their underwear.
10. The descriptions you gave of sexual acts being performed on pre-pubescent children aged between 11 and 13 were identified by investigators as Category 2 child abuse material in accordance with the Interpol classification system.
11. When you were interviewed by police about the voice messages, particularly those describing sexual activity with your daughters when they were younger, you agreed it was 'very inappropriate', saying, 'I [think] I just say what I think they want to hear'. You denied ever touching your daughters inappropriately or sexually when they were young.

Charge 2 - Using a carriage service to transmit child abuse material

1. Charge 2 relates to two occasions you sent text messages to a person known as 'Frederick Pryor' and to another person known to you as 'Mark'. In those fictitious messages you describe engaging in sexual activity with your daughters when they were between 11 and 13 years old.
2. Between 24 January and 8 February 2023, you exchanged messages with Pryor, with Pryor sending messages sent from his email account and you replying from your mobile phone.
3. On 2 February 2023, you sent messages to Pryor in which you described sexual acts you said you had performed on your daughter who you said was a 'young age'. You sent Pryor pornographic images you claimed were images of your daughter, although they were not. You told Pryor that your daughters had been in Years 9 and 10 when they lost their virginity to you, saying it was '[your] duty as their dad to help them with this', saying you had been gentle with them and that it was 'pleasurable for everyone'.
4. You sent Pryor a photo of an unidentified woman lying on her back with her genitals exposed and told him this was your eldest daughter. You described your daughter's pubic hair and breasts when she was younger. You sent an image where the same female was being digitally penetrated, purporting to pass it off as an image of your daughter when she was 13, and said that it was your finger depicted in the image.
5. You then sent a picture of your adult daughter to Pryor, fully clothed while holding your grandson, saying 'that's [her] now'.
6. Just over a year later, on 9 February 2024, you engaged in a text message exchange with 'Mark' stating you liked young girls, in pre-school, around one to two years old, saying you like to 'lick their young pussies'. You said you wished 'Mark' was there when your daughters were little, as he could have joined you and no-one would have ever known. You said you played with your daughters when they were little but asked him not to tell anyone.
7. When 'Mark' asked for pictures, you sent him three images, the first of female genitals, the second of a female sitting naked facing a camera displaying her genitals, and the third of yourself in the bathroom, naked, with a partial erection. 'Mark' sent a photo of a semi erect penis. You replied, 'the little girls would love it in their holes'. You said that if you could keep a little girl to do whatever you wanted her to do to you, knowing you were safe, that you would 'one hundred per cent keep her' describing how you would sexually abuse her 'for years'.
8. The material transmitted by you on both occasions was subsequently identified as Category 2 child abuse material.

Charge 3 - using a carriage service to solicit child abuse material

1. Charge 3 relates to two occasions you requested that child abuse material be sent to you in text message exchanges with Pryor and 'Mark'.
2. On 6 February 2023, you had a discussion with Pryor about a USB stick containing child abuse material that you understood belonged to his friend. You asked if Pryor had spoken to his friend to obtain the USB stick and then asked for his friend's number so you could pick it up. When you were not satisfied with the response from Pryor you asked, 'Are you playing games with me?' The two of you discussed it being risky and Pryor warned you that you could go to jail for a long time if you were caught with the USB stick. You replied, 'This is why I need to be able to trust your mate, that he's not a cop or anything like that'.
3. On 7 February 2023, you asked Pryor if he had spoken to his friend about the USB stick. When he responded that he did not know if his friend wanted to part with it, you said you would forget it. However, on 8 February 2023, you offered to pay for the USB stick. When Pryor told you that his friend still did not want to pass it on, you replied, 'So he won't give the USB stick to me. I though he wanted to get rid of it? Did you tell him I will pay a lot for it?' Pryor told you his friend was not interested and said to 'fuck off'. You responded to that message stating, 'So the whole thing was a waste of time or just a fantasy of yours. Don't waste my time anymore. Delete my number. Bye!!' You then ceased all communication with Pryor.
4. A year later, on 9 February 2024, 'Mark' sent you a message stating, 'Me, U, kids, porn'. You replied, 'You don't have any though' and sought to clarify whether he was asking about 'underage porn'. When 'Mark' responded 'Yes, babe' you said 'Show me!' 'Mark' then wrote, 'I don't babe, sorry' to which you replied, 'why can't you get Viber. Without it or underage porn, I'm going to leave it'. You then told 'Mark' that you would delete his number and cease all communication, which you did.

Charge 4 - using a carriage service to cause offence by transmitting private sexual material

1. Charge 4 relates to five occasions you transmitted pornographic images of your wife to Pryor via iMessage. The messages were sent without your wife's consent for the sexual gratification of Pryor. The photographs were sent to Pryor between 25 January 2023 and 5 February 2023, and included naked and partially naked photographs of her, including images of her exposed vagina and breasts. Some were images taken of your wife in the shower. Accompanying the images you sent on 1 February 2023, you wrote, 'are you masturbating to my wife's pics?' and 'enjoy'.
2. When asked about these images during your interview with police, you admitted taking photos of your wife in the shower without her permission. On other occasions you said you had placed the phone in your pocket on record and would walk into the bedroom or loungeroom when she was getting dressed, and when she did not know you were recording her. You said that the last time your wife found out that you had shared images of her online, she had been devastated. You told her that you had stopped doing this, but you had not.

1. In your interview with police, you were asked about the text and voice-based messages where you described sexual activities with your daughters. You said you had told 'Mark' fictional stories about touching and penetrating your eldest daughter about a dozen times. You said you were responding to 'Mark' when he asked, 'oh yeah, you've done things with them, haven't you - when they were little?' You said that this was when you made up a story about sexually abusing your daughter when she was 12, saying she had a sleeping disorder. You told police the offending 'just escalated', and that 'Mark' was 'playing along because it excites him'. You told police you did not know if 'Mark' actually believed you had done those things.
2. As to the images you sent to Pryor, purportedly of your eldest daughter at the age of 13, you told police that the actual images were not her but were found on pornographic sites. You said you believed the actual images depicted females who were at least 18, as they were sourced from adult websites. You denied ever sexually abusing your daughter, stating that you 'did admit to the fantasy, not to doing it_'._
3. More generally, you told police that it was 'exciting' to see a picture or send a message, and that you liked to give other people what they wanted; that you would try to respond in a way that excites them.
4. When asked if you understood that the messages you sent to Pryor describing sexual activity with children was child abuse material, you said, 'I probably wouldn't have thought of it that way, but now you say it that way, I can understand that would be an offence, absolutely' and 'it would be encouraging him to act out - that's not good'.

1. The offending relating to Charge 1 was detected in late 2021, after the owner of the chatline provided police with copies of the audio files, which investigators subsequently categorised as Category 2 child abuse material.
2. Some of the offending conduct relating to Charges 2 and 3, and the offending relating to Charge 4, was detected after Pryor's daughter contacted police in April 2023. The balance of the offending was detected after police executed the search warrant on 21 March 2024.
3. You were charged with this offending in March 2024, and following negotiations the matter resolved to a guilty plea on 8 November 2024 without the need for a contested committal hearing.

Matters to which the court must have regard (s16A)

1. In sentencing you for these offences, I must have regard to the matters set out in Part 1B of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) ('the Act'). When sentencing an offender for a Commonwealth offence, I must impose a sentence 'that is of a severity appropriate in all the circumstances of that offence'.[3] In particular, I must consider each of the non-exhaustive factors set out in 16A(2) of the Act as far as they are relevant and known to the court.

Nature and circumstances of offending (s16A(2)(a))

1. I turn first to discuss the nature and circumstances of your offending.
2. The maximum penalty of 15 years' imprisonment for each of the CAM-related offences reflects the inherent gravity of these offences, and the seriousness with which Parliament, on behalf of the community, views offending of this kind.
3. In assessing the gravity of your offending in making available, transmitting and soliciting child abuse material, I have regard to the range of factors set out in the authority of R v Hutchinson.[4]
4. Charge 1 involves seven separate occasions you left voicemail messages constituting child abuse material with other anonymous online chatline users, being a total of 12 voicemails. In the main, this material was made available by you to six of those users over a five-month period between June 2022 and October 2022, with further messages sent to another user over a year later on 3 December 2023.
5. The material was classified as Interpol Baseline Category 2. Whilst the child abuse material was not a depiction of real children - being constituted by fantasy discussions only - the fact you chose to fictionalise the sexual abuse of your own daughters (when aged between 11 and 13) and your wife (purportedly at the age of 13), elevates the gravity of the offending. Concerningly, in one of the messages you provided one of the chatline users with your home address, inviting them to come around when you were babysitting your seven-month-old grandchild, to 'have some fun together'. In another communication you offered to swap numbers to send images of your wife and daughter, and to give that user your street address.
6. I accept that the criminality involved in the communication of fictional material is of a different nature to that of an offender who makes available CAM depicting real children. I also accept that you were not the one to initiate these communications. The prosecution fairly accepts that with respect to one it could reasonably be inferred that you were responding to the voicemail left by others, by 'simply responding to what others wanted to hear when he described sexual fantasies concerning children'.[5]
7. However, this is not to deny the concerning nature of this offending. Such material has the effect of desensitising those involved, normalising exploitative sexual offending against children and encouraging reciprocal communications. As the Queensland Court of Appeal explained in R v Edwards:

'The capacity of child exploitation material, even that which does not depict real children, to affect the community goes beyond the tendency to normalise exploitative sexual activity involving children and even to stimulate potential participants in it. In my view, it serves to fuel the demand for such material, whether or not it involves real children. Further, such material has the capacity to groom not only the recipients of it but those who may be affected by the recipients of it.'[6]

1. Against this, I accept that the number of voicemail messages constituting CAM was 12 in total; far fewer than the vast number of images or items of CAM often associated with cases of this kind, with the majority of messages made available over a relatively short five-month period. The messages were purely fictional, and beyond their sexually explicit nature, did not involve depictions of overtly cruel or sadistic acts. You received no financial or other benefit for making the CAM available to others but rather responded to other users with the type of material you understood they wanted to receive.
2. Similarly, Charge 2 relates to two occasions you sent fictitious messages to others describing yourself engaged in sexual activities with your daughters when they were 11 to 13 years of age, and transmitted pornographic images of unidentified women that you sought to pass off as images of your daughter. Again, the most concerning aspect of this offending is that you chose to reference your own daughters being sexually abused by you in these fictionalised stories and did so for the sexual gratification of others. These were not fictitious persons. You made your family, your daughters, your wife and grandson, the victims of your offending. You also disclosed your daughter's personal details, including her name and a current image, to persons unknown to you.
3. In assessing the objective gravity of this offending, however, it is relevant that it relates to only two occasions you transmitted the material; on 2 February 2023 to Pryor's email address, and on 9 February 2024 to 'Mark', and again did so to respond to their interest in such material.
4. Charge 3, soliciting child abuse material, relates to two occasions you requested child abuse material be sent to you from two individuals in text message exchanges. One request was made over three days and the other over a day. In the first request, you offered to pay a lot for images of child abuse material, and your requests were increasingly insistent over that period, even after one of the individuals warned that you 'could go to jail for a long time if caught' with child abuse material. Nonetheless, the offending involved only two occasions, one year apart.
5. There was an absence of sophisticated planning involved in your offending. Rather, once you had begun to use the chat line to connect with other men, you responded with sexually deviant chats in a desire to meet their sexual fantasies involving children. The child abuse material was not made available or transmitted by you to others for the purpose of sale or further distribution. The content of the material is far from the worst seen in the courts in cases such as this.
6. Overall, I assess your offending in making, transmitting and soliciting child abuse material as lower-level examples of inherently serious offences.
7. The offending in relation to Charge 4 is different in nature, involving the transmission of pornographic images of your wife on five occasions to another individual without her knowledge or consent. This was an egregious breach of her trust and right to privacy. Your offending can only have caused your wife embarrassment and distress. You must have known that distributing intimate images without her consent was unacceptable and if discovered, would be devastating for her.
8. Overall, your moral culpability for your offending is considerable, however, this is also informed by your personal circumstances to which I now turn.

1. You were born into a close and supportive family in 1962 and were raised in Melbourne as one of five siblings. Your parents, now aged 89 and 90, live close to you and remain supportive of you.
2. Your family was a religious one, and being part of the Methodist Church was an important part of your day-to-day life as you grew up, attending church activities multiple times a week.
3. You attended a local public primary school from Prep to Grade 6 and graduated Year 12 from a technical college. You report being an average student and had difficulty establishing and maintaining relationships at school, struggling to establish strong friendships. You did not spend time with friends outside of church and school. You also report being bullied during secondary school for being a teacher's pet.
4. After completing Year 12, you commenced a plumbing apprenticeship, after which you became a qualified plumber and gasfitter. You have worked for one employer in their plumbing business for 44 years, ultimately becoming a site supervisor. As a result of these proceedings, you have ceased work due your employer's concern for your personal safety on work sites given the nature of your offending. You were made redundant from your position on 3 March 2025. In an email dated 21 February 2025, your former employer has described you as 'an extremely competent tradesman' who was responsible for 'planning and controlling many project'' on behalf of the business, and someone who was held in 'genuine respect' by your fellow employees.[7]
5. You met your current wife in 2012, and you have been married for 12 years. Despite this offending you continue to have your wife's support, and she remains committed to your relationship together.
6. You were married to your first wife for 17 years, and with whom you had your two daughters, now both adults. This relationship ended when your first wife left you unexpectedly, leaving you devastated at the time.
7. As a result of these charges, you were unable to have contact with your eldest daughter, her husband or son, for six months under the conditions of your bail and an intervention order obtained by police. Your bail was varied, and you recommenced contact with your daughter, after you wrote her a letter of apology and a safety plan was put in place.
8. You were assessed for the purposes of your plea by psychologist, Ms Courtney Steffens on 31 January 2025.[8] During that assessment you told Ms Steffens that you accessed a men's chat line to engage in erotic conversations with men, stating that your engagement was mostly for 'connection',[9] denying any sexual interest in men or children. You said this occurred at a time when you were experiencing intimacy difficulties with your wife, which you told Ms Steffens led to depressive symptoms and low mood, with a tendency to ruminate about your sexual dissatisfaction.
9. You have no history of mental health problems and have never abused alcohol or illicit substances.
10. In her report dated 14 February 2025, Ms Steffens concludes that you have a number of 'personality vulnerabilities'[10] which she states are 'marked by rigidity, emotional suppression', coupled with 'a reluctance to express dissatisfaction', conflict avoidance and limited ability to 'process relationship stressors'.[11] Ms Steffens considers these personality traits provide the context to your offending, stating:

'To avoid what he perceived as marital infidelity, Mr Morgan[12] sought connection in male chat rooms, believing this to be a moral compromise. However, his need for social validation and affiliation led to further entrenchment in maladaptive behaviours, including CAM engagement...his susceptibility to group norms, shaped by his personality vulnerabilities and interpersonal difficulties, likely reinforced his continued involvement.'[13]

1. Since being charged with this offending, you have voluntarily engaged in psychological treatment with Ms Alessia Mattia, engaging in fortnightly sessions since July 2024. In her report dated 11 February 2025,[14] Ms Mattia states that you have presented as forthcoming and motivated in these offence-specific treatment sessions.
2. Ms Mattia reports that you have felt ashamed, embarrassed and disappointed by your offending behaviour, explaining that you were 'shocked' at how easily you had deviated from your personal morals by this offending. You described a sense of relief when you were arrested, allowing you to then seek treatment and support for your behaviour.
3. Following psychometric testing, Ms Mattia assessed you as falling within the normal range of symptoms for depression, anxiety and stress and no reliance was placed on the authority of Verdins[15] to argue that you suffer from any diagnosed mental health condition that may operate to reduce your moral culpability for this offending.
4. At the age of 62 you have attended a general practitioner at the Ashwood Medical Group for many years. In a letter written by Dr Philip Westmore dated 3 January 2025[16], he outlines a medical history of issues with renal colic, lactose intolerance, a hiatus hernia in 2018, shingles in 2020, cervical spondylosis in 2022 and tubular adenoma of the colon in 2022 and 2024. More recently you have been referred to Associate Professor Daniel Moon, with Advanced Urology Melbourne following a diagnosis of prostate cancer.
5. In a letter to the court dated 30 March 2025, Associate Professor Moon states that you have a significant cluster of prostate cancer affecting your family, noting that your grandfather died from prostate cancer, and that both your father and brother required radical prostate removal. [17] He states that a recent biopsy in March 2025 has revealed the presence of a small volume of prostate cancer; and that whilst two of those areas are 'low grade', another contains up to four millimetres of intermediate grade cancer. Given your family history, Associate Professor Moon recommends surgery to remove your prostate within four to six weeks following the biopsy. He states that a six to eight week period of physical recovery is generally required following surgery.

1. In detailed written submissions made on your behalf that were expanded upon at your plea hearing, Ms Roodenburg highlighted the following matters that operate in mitigation of your sentence.

Guilty plea and co-operation with authorities (ss16A(2)(g) and (h))

1. First and foremost, you entered a guilty plea to these charges and did so at an early stage in the proceedings. In pleading guilty at a committal mention hearing, you not only saved the court and the community the time and resources associated with a contested committal or a trial; but through your plea you also acknowledged responsibility for your offending and facilitated the course of justice.
2. Moreover, you co-operated with police during the execution of the search warrant at your property by providing investigators with access and passwords to each of your electronic devices after being directed to do so. You also made extensive admissions to your offending conduct during your interview with police.

1. In addition to the remorse inherent in your guilty plea, you have also discussed your offending in a frank and open manner with family, friends and professionals. In her assessment report Ms Steffans states you have made no attempt to minimise or deny your offending, expressing deep remorse for your conduct which you described as 'disgusting'. Ms Mattia states that during her ongoing sessions with you, you have made repeated references to your 'guilt, remorse and shame' for your offending. You also acknowledge the pain and anguish caused to your family by your actions and the significant breach of your wife and daughters' trust in you.
2. I accept that since your arrest you have demonstrated contrition for your offending, although for reasons I expand upon later, I have some reservations about your insight into the specific nature of your offending and specifically your motivation for transmitting and soliciting child abuse material.

1. There are a number of very positive indications for your future rehabilitation.
2. At your initiative, since being charged with this offending you have voluntarily engaged in psychological counselling and other programs directed at reducing your risk of re-offending. In addition to the fortnightly offence-specific treatment with Ms Mattia, you have completed a marriage counselling program with your wife, facilitated by your church, in addition to other programs detailed in Ms Steffens' report directed and targeted at addressing deviant sexual behaviours.
3. In her report, Ms Steffens concludes that you have demonstrated a 'good capacity to engage in intervention directly targeting cognitive distortions' that maintain your offending and have taken responsibility for your offending behaviour, expressing a desire to explore future treatment options.
4. Ms Steffens, having conducted psychometric testing, concludes that you pose a low to moderate risk of future offending, without any additional intervention. As a corollary of that risk assessment, Ms Steffens' states that you require low to moderate levels of future intervention to mitigate your recidivism risk.
5. In Ms Steffens' assessment, the risk factors contributing to your offending are distinct from those seen in other individuals with entrenched sexual deviance, stating:

'Mr Morgan's[18] behavioural pathway appears more consistent with affective and relational distress, combined with maladaptive coping strategies and affiliative reinforcement. As such, risk management strategies should focus on emotional regulation, communication of interpersonal needs, healthy conflict resolution, and reinforcing appropriate boundaries in online and offline social contexts.'[19]

1. You retain the support of your family and friends, many of whom have provided references on your behalf. In her letter dated 15 January 2025,[20] your wife writes of her initial shock, confusion and disappointment when you were arrested in March 2023, noting the egregious breach of trust associated with your conduct in distributing intimate images of her. She states that she has elected to remain with you due to your 'willingness right from the start' to be open about your offending and to seek treatment, recognising the hurt you have caused to those close to you.
2. You also retain the support of your elderly parents, both of whom describe your offending as out of character. In a reference provided by your brother dated 7 January 2025, he refers to your active involvement in the church over the years, and your work ethic, describing you as someone who takes pride in your work and who has been a loyal employee for over 40 years. The pastor of your church writes that you are a 'warm, enthusiastic and friendly person' who has made a valuable contribution to the life of the church. The references all speak of your remorse and understanding of the toll your offending has taken on your family.
3. Your redundancy after 40 years of service with the one employer, has also been a significant consequence of your offending. To your credit, since losing your employment, you have put a weekly work schedule in place to ensure you remain busy, including with church-related activities and caring for your elderly parents.
4. You are a person of otherwise good character. What led you, a man of 59 with no criminal history, to engage in this offending behaviour is examined in the psychological material provided on your behalf.
5. During your assessment with Ms Steffens, you admitted to accessing the chat line to engage in erotic conversations with men, as a means of 'connection', but denied any sexual interest in children or men. When asked about the escalation of your sexual behaviour, you stated it came 'outside of [your] control'. Ms Steffens states that you 'appeared to lack an appreciation for the gradient escalation of [your] behaviour into the men's chat line and CAM material' reporting that in order to remain connected to other online users, you felt you 'needed to say what they wanted to hear' whilst denying any sexual interest in minors.
6. Using the sexual addiction screening test, Ms Steffens' concluded that your results indicate 'clinically significant problems with compulsive sexual behaviour/sexual addiction' at the time of your offending, particularly with internet-based sexual behaviour.
7. In an addendum report dated 19 March 2025, Ms Mattia states that you knew that your offending was wrong, yet engaged in the conduct saying you lacked 'meaningful and intimate connection in your own life' and therefore 'continued to go along with it to keep the other person engaged and happy', convincing yourself that it was 'just a sex thing'.
8. I accept that since being arrested you have disclosed your offending frankly and have repeatedly expressed remorse for your offending conduct in your discussions with professionals, family and friends. I further accept that the personality traits identified by Ms Steffens including your 'need for social validation and affiliation' played a significant role in your engagement in the CAM-related offending.
9. However, I do not consider that this explanation sufficiently addresses the nature and extent of your offending behaviour. In particular, whilst your desire to please others and connect with other online users, may explain your offending behaviour with respect to Charges 1 and 2, and Charge 4, it is at odds with your repeated attempts to solicit child abuse material, including the offer to pay for a USB disc of child pornography that is the subject of Charge 3. When your attempt to solicit this material failed, your response in abruptly ending all contact with those users displays a degree of frustration that does not sit comfortably with the explanation proffered by you of engaging in this conduct to please others.
10. In this regard, I hold some residual concern as to your insight into the nature of your offending, and the motivation for your behaviour. I accept, however, that you continue to engage in treatment and remain willing to explore the extent of your offending behaviours through specialist counselling. In my view, ongoing sex offence treatment is warranted in order to further reduce your risk of re-offending.
11. Balancing these matters, I presently assess that you have good prospects of rehabilitation and that your low to moderate risk of re-offending will improve with ongoing offence-specific treatment. There remains, however, a need for the sentence I impose to operate as a specific deterrent to you.

1. I turn now to other relevant sentencing considerations.
2. For offending involving child pornography, the sentencing considerations of general deterrence and denunciation are given prominence. Others must be deterred by the sentence I impose from exploiting the anonymity afforded by the internet to transmit child abuse material of any form. The legislation provides that unless exceptional circumstances exist, a sentence involving an immediate term of imprisonment is ordinarily warranted, and less or limited weight is given to an offender's prior good character than for other offences.
3. Although the term 'exceptional circumstances' is not defined by the Act, I have had regard to the observations of the Queensland Court of Appeal in R v Tootell,[21] which held that the expression 'describes a circumstance which is such as to form an exception which is out of the ordinary course, or unusual, or special, or uncommon. To be exceptional, a circumstance need not be unique or unprecedented or very rare; but it cannot be one that is regularly or routinely encountered'.[22] Exceptional circumstances can arise from a combination of factors or from one significant or singular factor.
4. In this case the prosecution submits that 'exceptional circumstances' have not been established and that the combination of mitigating factors relied upon by your counsel are routinely encountered in offending of this nature. The prosecution submissions also highlight the need to consider any mitigating factors against the 'egregiousness' of the offending and the need for deterrence in determining whether they can be said to amount to exceptional circumstances of that kind.
5. I have considered the prosecution's submissions carefully but have concluded that exceptional circumstances are established in your case having regard to the compounding effect of a combination of factors.
6. Firstly, that the nature and extent of your offending is at the lower end of the spectrum of seriousness for offending of this kind.
7. Secondly, at the age of 62 you are a man of previous good character with no prior convictions.
8. Thirdly, that following your arrest you co-operated with authorities, made extensive admissions and entered an early guilty plea. Moreover, you have openly and frankly disclosed your offending to family and friends and expressed genuine remorse for your conduct.
9. Fourthly, notwithstanding your candour you retain the support of your family, friends and church community.
10. Fifthly, and significantly, you have taken extensive steps to seek out and voluntarily participate in sex offender treatment.
11. Sixthly, you have recently been diagnosed with prostate cancer requiring imminent surgery.
12. Finally, you have been assessed with positive prospects of rehabilitation and with a low-moderate risk of reoffending, which, in the opinion of Ms Steffens, will further reduce with ongoing treatment.
13. To be clear, I consider that these factors combine to take this case outside the kind regularly or routinely seen in the courts in cases of this nature. I also have regard to the fact that an immediate term of imprisonment would be particularly difficult for you given your recent cancer diagnosis and the recommendation of your specialist that you have your prostate removed within four to six weeks of your biopsy. Any delay in this procedure would, understandably, cause you a level of anxiety not experienced by other prisoners.
14. For these reasons, I do not consider that a sentence involving an immediate term of imprisonment is necessary to meet all relevant sentencing considerations in this case.
15. Pursuant to s17A of the Act, a court must not pass a sentence of imprisonment unless, having considered all other available sentences, the court is satisfied that no other sentence is appropriate in all the circumstances of the case.
16. It is common ground between the parties that no sentence other than one of imprisonment is appropriate to achieve the relevant sentencing purposes of general and specific deterrence, denunciation and community protection having regard to the objective gravity of your CAM-related offending.
17. Section 19(5) of the Act also provides that there must be full cumulation of sentences imposed for more than one Commonwealth child sex offence; a provision that operates with respect to Charges 1 to 3.
18. However, the requirement for cumulation is qualified by s19(6) which provides that s19(5) does not apply if the court is satisfied that imposing the sentence in a different manner - that is, in a manner that allows for partial or full concurrency - would result in sentences that are of a severity appropriate in all the circumstances. In this way the legislation incorporates the sentencing principle of totality. I have given particular regard to the fact that Charges 2 and 3 occur within the same series of conversations with two other users, and that any cumulation should reflect the separate criminality of the offending associated with those two charges, and no more.
19. Finally, I have regard to the specific legislative provision which requires the court, when sentencing offenders for Commonwealth child sex offences, to have regard to the objective of rehabilitating the person, including by considering whether it is appropriate when making an order to impose any conditions about rehabilitation or treatment options.
20. In this regard, I give weight to Ms Mattia's assessment that you have made significant progress in your treatment and note Ms Steffens' concern that the individualised treatment plan developed for you in the community is unlikely to be available in custody. I consider that your future rehabilitation, and the community protection that will follow, is likely to be enhanced by continuing to engage in treatment and intervention in the community, noting Ms Steffens' opinion that your risk profile will further reduce if you engage in additional psychosexual counselling.

1. Finally, I have regard to the sentences imposed in comparable cases by appellate courts to which I was referred by the parties, noting the desirability of achieving consistency in the application of relevant legal principles when sentencing for Commonwealth offences.
2. While comparable cases do not act as a precedent or set limits within which any sentence must be imposed, comparable cases assist in identifying relevant legal principles and may yield discernible sentencing patterns or a range of sentences against which to examine a proposed sentence.
3. Amongst the cases to which I was referred, both the prosecution and defence submissions highlighted the cases of Phibbs v R[23] and Lyons v R.[24]
4. In the case of Phibbs, the Victorian Court of Appeal resentenced the offender to a total effective sentence of six months' imprisonment, to be released immediately on a recognisance to be of good behaviour for three years, exceptional circumstances having been found to exist. The offending in that case was analogous to your offending in that it also related to messages left on an anonymous chat line where the offender and another adult male discussed 'in explicit and abhorrent terms' the sexual activities in which they had engaged with children and those they wanted to engage in with children, giving rise to Charge 1 - use of a carriage service to make available CAM. [25] However, the offending that was subject to that charge was not as prolonged as here, being offending over a period of 40-minutes on one day only. The other charge of possession or control of CAM related to two videos and one image of CAM.
5. The case of Lyons is a more serious example of CAM-related offending where the offender accessed 640 images and 139 videos over a three-year period where the images were classified at Categories 2,3 and 4 of the Australian National Victim Image Library scale. The second charge arose from the offender transmitting texts and images of child pornography to other online users in communications over an 18-month period. Pursuant to s16BA of the Act, another offence was taken into account when the offender was sentenced on the second charge where the offender admitted to asking another individual for CAM on one occasion.
6. The offender, a 28-year-old male with no criminal history, was sentenced to two years, six months' imprisonment to be released on a recognisance of $5,000 over four years, after serving 18 months' imprisonment.
7. In rejecting the appeal against sentence, the Victorian Court of Appeal noted that the access charge was a 'serious instance' of that type of offending with 'considerable material in the higher classification of seriousness'[26]. In addition, the material that was the subject of Charge 2 was characterised as 'both depraved and violently sadistic'.[27] Such a characterisation does not apply in this case.
8. I also have regard to the other decisions to which I was referred, including other decisions of this court where, although the factual circumstances differed to here, they inform the principles that apply in determining whether exceptional circumstances are found to exist.
9. As always, each case must turn on its own facts and circumstances.

1. Balancing the matters to which I have referred, whilst having regard to the maximum penalty for each offence, I now sentence you as follows.
2. On Charge 1 - using a carriage service to make available child abuse material, you are convicted and sentenced to 14 months' imprisonment. This is the base sentence.
3. On Charge 2 - using a carriage service to transmit child abuse material, you are convicted and sentenced to eight months' imprisonment.
4. On Charge 3 - using a carriage service to solicit child abuse material, you are convicted and sentenced to six months' imprisonment.
5. On Charge 4 - using a carriage service to cause offence by transmitting private sexual material, you are convicted and sentenced to three months' imprisonment.
6. I make the following orders for cumulation on the sentence imposed on Charge 1 and upon one another:

(a) two months of the sentence imposed on Charge 2; and

(b) one month of the sentence imposed on Charge 3.

1. I direct that the sentence imposed on Charge 4 be served concurrently with all other sentences of imprisonment. This gives a total effective sentence of 17 months' imprisonment.
2. Pursuant to s20(1)(b)(ii) of the Act, I direct that you be released immediately upon you giving security by way of recognisance of $3,000 that you will comply with the following conditions:

(a) That you are to be of good behaviour for three years;

(b) That you are to be under the supervision of a probation officer appointed in accordance with this order;

(c) That you obey all reasonable directions of the probations officer,

(d) That you are to attend, undertake and complete any sex offender treatment program or any other program to reduce the risk of offending that the probation officer reasonably directs you to attend; and

(e) That you must not, during this period, travel interstate or overseas without the prior written permission of the probations officer.

1. I am required to explain the purpose and effect of the recognisance release order I have just made. The order reflects the gravity of the Commonwealth offences but also the mitigating factors to which I have referred. If you are of good behaviour over the following three years and comply with the conditions, then you will have complied with the recognisance.
2. If you are not of good behaviour or you fail to comply with the conditions of the order, you may be brought back before the court. Depending on the nature and seriousness of any contravention, the court may either take no further action, impose a fine, extend the period of your good behaviour, impose a different penalty or revoke the recognisance release order and deal with the offences by ordering that you serve the whole of the term of imprisonment imposed.
3. Your offending attracts the provisions of the Sex Offenders Registration Act 2004 (Vic) and you are a registrable offender. Having been found guilty of three Class 2 offences, your reporting obligations under that Act are for life.
4. Pursuant to s6AAA of the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic), I indicate that had you not pleaded guilty to these offences, the sentence I would otherwise have imposed is a sentence of 24 months' imprisonment, subject to a recognisance release order of three years after serving eight months immediate imprisonment.
5. Finally, I make the forfeiture order sought by the prosecution, noting that it is not opposed.

[2] Exhibit 1 - Summary of Prosecution Opening dated 24 January 2025 at [16]

[3] Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) s16A(1)

[4] R v Hutchinson [2018] NSWCCA 152, [45]

[5] Supplementary Crown Submissions on Sentence dated 27 March 2025 at [7]

[6] R v Edwards [2004] QCA 20 at [61]

[8] Exhibit 2 - Psychological Report of Ms Courtney Steffens dated 14 February

[14] Exhibit 1 - Treatment Summary Report of Alessia Matia dated 11 February 2025

[15] R v Verdins (2007) 16 VR 295

[16] Exhibit 4 - Letter from Dr Philip Westmore of Ashwood Medical Group dated 3 January 2025

[17] Exhibit 11 - Letter from Associate Professor Daniel Moon dated 30 March 2025

[21] [2012] QCA 273

[22] Ibid at [18] quoting R v Kelly (Edward) [1999] UKHL 4; [2000] 1 QB 198

[23] [2023] VSCA 123 (Phibbs)

[24] [2019] VSCA 242 (Lyons)