• Lawyers in Sydney
• Lawyers in Melbourne
• Lawyers in Brisbane
• Lawyers in Perth
• Family lawyers
• Employment lawyers
• Criminal lawyers
• Wills and estates lawyers
• Find a lawyer

1. On 30 June 2025, a jury found Shegu Bobb (the offender) guilty of the following offences: (a) Two counts of using a carriage service to procure a person under 16 years, in contravention of s 474.26(1) of the Criminal Code (Cth) (counts 1 and 6); (b) One count of using a carriage service to transmit an indecent communication to a person under 16 years, in contravention of s 474.27A(1) of the Criminal Code (Cth) (count 2); (c) Three counts of using a carriage service for child abuse material, in contravention of s 474.22(1) of the Criminal Code (Cth) (counts 3, 4 and 5); and, (d) One count of committing an act of indecency on a person under 16 years, in contravention of s 61(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) (count 7).

2. The jury also found the offender not guilty of one count of sexual intercourse with a person under 16 years (count 8: digital intercourse) and one count of committing an act of indecency on a person under 16 years (count 9: kissing on the victim’s face, forehead, cheek, neck and thigh).

3. The maximum penalties for the offences that the offender was found guilty of are: (a) Use carriage service to procure a person under 16 years (s 474.26(1) of the Criminal Code (Cth)): 15 years’ imprisonment; (b) Use carriage service to transmit indecent communication to a person under 16 years (s 474.27A(1) of the Criminal Code (Cth)): 7 years’ imprisonment; (c) Using a carriage service for child abuse material (s 474.22(1) of the Criminal Code (Cth)): 15 years’ imprisonment; and (d) Act of indecency on a person under 16 years (s 61(2) of the Crimes Act): 10 years’ imprisonment.

4. The offender is now to be sentenced for these offences.

The offending

5. The victim first met the offender on the online dating platform “Badoo” in February 2020. At that time, the victim was 11 years old and the offender was 21 years old. The victim lied about her age, and described herself as 19 years old. She said that she was “slim” and was “130cm tall”.

6. On Saturday 22 February 2020, the victim received a notification from the offender that “Charles likes you” on the app. The victim and the offender then began to exchange messages. A large number of messages were sent to the victim by the offender between 6:13pm on 22 February 2020 and 3:32pm on 23 February 2020. The jury accepted that the offender sent these messages with the intention of procuring the victim to engage in sexual activity with him (count 1: use carriage service to procure a person under 16).

7. The messages included the making of arrangements for the offender to have sexual intercourse with the victim, discussion of the victim’s virginity and the nature of the sexual intercourse which would be performed. The offender provided detailed information to the victim about what she could expect during intercourse, including in relation to pain and bleeding. At various times the victim expressed apprehension about engaging in sexual activity. The offender reassured the victim that he would keep her “safe” and that he would not hurt her. He also warned the victim about the dangers of corresponding with “bad guys” on the Badoo app. There was also discussion about the possibility of the victim falling pregnant. In response, the victim said that she knew where her mother kept her “plan b” pills. The messages sent by the offender during this exchange included the sending of indecent material, proposed sexual activity and images of the offender’s penis (count 2: use carriage service to transmit indecent communication to person under 16). Although the text messages did not in terms refer to the victim’s age, the “fairly huge age gap” between the victim and the offender was discussed, with the offender remarking “can’t believe you that young”. The victim said in the text messages that she was aware that the offender was 21 years old.

8. At around 7:13pm, during the course of those messages, the offender sent a message to the victim which said “Can I see that pussy? (pictures)?”. The victim sent the offender a photograph of her genital area (count 3: use carriage service for child abuse material).

9. The offender made sexualised comments to the victim in response to that photograph. The conversation ended after the victim said “My mum’s coming gtg”.

10. The text messages on the Badoo app continued the following morning.

11. On Sunday 23 February 2020 from 7:47am, the offender and the victim exchanged further messages concerning the plan to meet up to have sexual intercourse. The victim again reiterated that she was a “lil scared”. The offender again stated that he would not hurt the victim, and that he would “take it slow”.

12. At approximately 12:01pm, the offender again asked the victim “Can I see that pussy?” The victim sent the offender a further photograph of her genital area (count 4: use carriage service for child abuse material).

13. Between 1:41pm and 3:22pm, the offender exchanged further messages. Count 5 occurred during that time. At approximately 2:25pm on 23 February 2020, the offender asked the victim “Would I be able to see that pussy ;)?”. The victim sent another photograph of her genital area (count 5: use carriage service for child abuse material).

14. The text exchange on Badoo continued, and the victim again said that she was scared. The offender reassured the victim that he did not want to hurt her or to put her in pain. He asked if she could trust him, and then said “I’ll pick u up somewhere else up the street I’ll park and u just come in”. The victim asked the offender to tell her “step by step what’s gonna happen”. The offender responded with details of how he would pick the victim up, where they would go, and the sexual acts that he would perform on the victim whilst she was in his car.

15. Around 3:24pm, the offender sent the victim a text in which he told the victim that he had arrived. The victim said that she would wait until the people behind him had gone. The offender then instructed the victim to keep walking because there was a person in a ute nearby. The victim repeatedly said that she was scared. She also asked the offender whether he wanted to listen to music whilst they had sex.

16. Around this time, the accused wound down the front passenger window of his car and told the victim to “get in”. The victim did so, and sat in the front passenger seat. The accused began to drive.

17. The victim was too scared to speak with the offender, so the pair continued to exchange text messages on the Badoo app. Whilst the offender was driving, the victim texted the offender asking where they were going. The victim again repeatedly said that she was scared. The offender reassured the victim, saying “everything will be good”, and “it will be fun okay, trust me”.

18. The offender then parked his car at a location between Mount Stromlo High School and Weston Creek Veterinary Hospital. The offender and the victim remained in the car. Between 3:52pm and 4:25pm, the offender and the victim exchanged the following messages: OFFENDER: Jump to the back VICTIM: Ok OFFENDER: Just relax VICTIM: I can’t do this VICTIM: I cant VICTIM: I cant OFFENDER: I promise you I wouldn’t hurt you VICTIM: I can’t do this

19. The victim continued to protest that she was scared. The offender continued to pressure the victim to have sexual intercourse with him. The messages sent by the offender from 3:37pm, after the offender met the victim in person, constitutes count 6: use carriage service to procure person under 16.

20. During the course of the above Badoo exchange, the offender and the victim climbed through the centre of the car and moved to the back seat. The offender then put his arm around the victim and stroked her hair, before touching and squeezing the victim’s right thigh. The offender moved his hand towards the victim’s genital area, and began rubbing the victim’s genitals over her underwear. As this was occurring, the victim sent messages to the offender saying: “I cant” (count 7: act of indecency on a person under 16 years).

21. Eventually, the victim said “Maybe I should just go”, “I’ll just go home”. The offender responded “Idk when another time would be it hard to find free time :(”. The victim told the offender that she had to go and would text when she got home. She said: I’m going to go home now Please I’ll walk home

22. The offender initially responded “Just chill nothing has to happen”. The victim said “Please let me go home if you don’t I will get you in trouble”. The offender again pressured the victim. The following exchange then occurred: OFFENDER: Please VICTIM: Next time when I’m ready OFFENDER: When will that be VICTIM: Idk VICTIM: Bye VICTIM: I need to go home my mum will be wondering were I am then we will both get in trouble VICTIM: Please I have to go VICTIM: Ok bye VICTIM: I need to leave OFFENDER: I’m sorry sure you;ll probably not talk to me anymore, I’ll understand VICTIM: Otherwise you will get in trouble VICTIM: Can I get out OFFENDER: Okay u can go was never stopping you, gonna stop talking to me? VICTIM: No bye The Victim Impact Statements

23. The victim and her mother each provided victim impact statements.

24. In her victim impact statement, the victim described suffering from “long-term psychological challenges” following the offending, for which she is receiving treatment. These challenges have disrupted her education. She was unable to complete Years 9 and 10. She also ran away from home. Her family has since relocated interstate. The offending has had “lasting effects” upon her.

25. The victim’s mother described feeling “overwhelming grief, helplessness, anger and guilt” following the offending. She said that the offending has “created a ripple effect” that has changed their family dynamics. The family is now withdrawn, cautious and “on edge”. The victim’s siblings have been affected by the offending. They “have had to adapt to a home environment that is often tense and unpredictable”. The victim’s mother further notes that while the victim has made some progress since engaging with trauma-focused therapy, “[their] family continues to navigate the long road to healing”.

Subjective circumstances

The offender’s childhood

26. The offender was born in war-torn Sierra Leone. At the age of 8, he and his mother fled the war, and settled in Sydney. He had no contact with his father after this time. Shortly after the offender and his mother arrived in Australia, the offender’s mother left the offender with a family friend, who was made his legal guardian.

27. [Redacted].

28. The offender left home at the age of 18, and moved to Cooma with his then-partner. Their relationship resulted in two children. He separated from his partner in 2021. The offender has no contact with these children. The offender has been with his current partner for approximately two and a half years. He shares a 10 month old daughter with her.

29. The offender told the author of the Intensive Correction Order Assessment Report that he has recently reconnected with his father, with whom he had had no contact since fleeing to Australia. The offender described his relationship with his mother as unstable and often strained.

30. The offender completed Year 12, and went on to obtain several certificates, including in graphic design, hospitality, tiling, working with asbestos and silica, and working at heights, as well as with the State Emergency System. He has had a stable employment history, including a period of seven years continuous employment within the construction industry. The offender recently obtained employment with a critical infrastructure provider, but that employment was terminated by reason of his findings of guilt for the present offending. The offender is currently unemployed. He is reliant on his partner for income, while he is a stay-at-home father.

Mental health

31. On 22 September 2025, the offender underwent a forensic psychological assessment performed by forensic psychologist Kris North. Ms North subsequently prepared a report dated 14 October 2025.

32. Ms North reported that the offender has experienced a number of traumatic events; including [redacted], being involved in a motor vehicle accident that resulted in the death of a cyclist; and grieving the sudden death of a close friend. In 2019, the offender was involuntarily admitted to Goulburn Hospital for two weeks after his former partner expressed concerns over his risk of self-harm. Following his admission and until 2021, he was treated by a clinical psychologist, having presented with symptoms of depression and anxiety. The offender’s depression has, at various times, included suicidal ideation, and he has made one previous attempt at suicide.

33. Clinically significant elevations were indicated on the offender’s clinical scales in relation to anxious arousal, depression, anger, intrusive experiences, defensive avoidance, dissociation, sexual disturbance, suicidality, insecure attachment, impaired self-reference, and tension reduction behaviours. There were also significant elevations in the factor scales relating to self-disturbance, post-traumatic stress, externalisation and somatisation. Ms North concluded that these results are consistent with a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder and a reported history of complex trauma.

34. Ms North noted that: [R]esearch relating to depression has indicated depression can negatively impact on cognitive performance, including reduced attention and impaired executive functioning, including decision-making and impulse control abilities. This was felt to be consistent with [the offender’s] description of having been “not mentally there” at the time of the offences.

35. Ms North also assessed the offender against the Static-99R and STABLE-2007 scales, which measure risk of sexual recidivism. The combined rating of these scales determined the offender to be a Level III Average Risk for sexual recidivism; that is, he poses a 7.5% risk of sexual reoffending within the next five years. Ms North stated that this is comparable to the “average sex offender”.

36. Ms North noted that the offender was referred to a psychiatrist and clinical psychologist by his general practitioner in January 2024, subsequent to a decline in his mental health after having been charged with the present offences. In March 2024, the offender presented to Blacktown Hospital, experiencing suicidal ideation. In April 2024, the offender was diagnosed by his psychiatrist with major depressive disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder. At the time of Ms North’s assessment, the offender was prescribed Valdoxan to manage his depression.

Character references

37. The offender tendered four references in support of his character, from his current partner, a former colleague and long-time friend, a second friend and a cousin. They each expressed the view that the offending was out of character. They explained the challenges which the offender has overcome in his life, and his commitment to being a father. They each also described the offender’s “extreme” remorse for his actions.

Letter of remorse

38. The offender provided the Court with a letter of remorse. In this letter, the offender accepted that there is “no excuse” for his offending and that he is “extremely ashamed” by it. He described the “immense shame, disgrace and embarrassment” he feels when disclosing his offending to others, but appropriately recognised that this “pales in comparison” to the harm he has caused to the victim and her family. The offender said that he has “deeply reflected” on his offending and that he takes full responsibility for his “inexcusable conduct”.

39. The offender explained that his past trauma and mental health conditions may have compromised his ability to make sensible and reasoned decisions. The offender said that since the offending he has engaged with a clinical/forensic psychologist on a monthly basis to understand the underlying factors that contributed to his offending. He also attends a general psychologist on a regular basis to address his past trauma.

40. The offender is “committed to continue these rehabilitation efforts”, which have given him insight into his offending and the skills he believes are required to not reoffend. The letter also described the offender’s difficulties in gaining employment since the offending. The offender also explained that his former partner has not allowed him to communicate with their two children following these proceedings, which has taken a “significant mental toll” on him. The letter concluded with an assurance by the offender that he will not reoffend.

Comparative cases

41. The prosecution provided a table of comparative cases, which is annexed as Annexure “A” to this judgment. I have carefully considered the sentences imposed in these decisions, as required by s 33(1)(za) of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT).

42. It is to be noted that of the cases provided by the prosecution, the only offenders who received a sentence of full-time imprisonment had committed offences against more than one victim: R v Naing [2023] ACTSC 210; R v Kember [2022] ACTSC 153. However, it is also necessary to bear in mind the limitations of such cases: R v Pham [2015] HCA 39; 256 CLR 550 at [29]; DPP v Dalgliesh (a pseudonym) [2017] HCA 41; 262 CLR 428 at [51]–[53]; and Hili v R [2010] HCA 45; 242 CLR 520 at [48]–[49]. In particular, the sample of cases in the present case is very small. Further, none involved a combination of carriage service offences with physical offending against a victim as young as the present victim. Determination

43. Counsel for the offender accepted that the s 10 threshold is crossed. This concession was correctly made. The offences were very serious.

44. There was a 10 year age gap between the victim and the offender. This represents a vast difference in the maturity between the two. To find the offender guilty of the carriage service offences, the jury were required to reject the offender’s defence that he honestly and reasonably believed that the victim was over the age of 16 years. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the offender knew that the victim was under the age of 16. In the text messages, the offender commented on the significance of the age gap between them. He expressed no additional surprise when he picked up the victim on 23 February 2020, but instead took action to ensure the victim would not be seen by anyone when she entered his car.

45. The objective seriousness of each of the offences was heightened once the offender met the victim in person. The evidence in the trial was that the victim was in the bottom first percentile in height and bottom third percentile in weight of children her age. The victim’s appearance in her Evidence in Chief Interview, which was recorded shortly after the offences, was of a child who was considerably younger than her actual age of 11 years.

46. It must be made clear that the fact that the victim did not initially object to the sexual activity in no way mitigates the seriousness of the offending. As Burns and Bromwich JJ held in R v Summerfield [2018] ACTCA 20 at [59]: A child may express a view or behave in a way that does or does not entail objecting in some way to sexual activity taking place with an adult, but the absence of objection cannot in any way constitute mitigation. It constitutes no more than an absence of aggravation and is ordinarily only relevant to rebut, or diminish the extent of, any such aggravation suggested by the Crown or that might otherwise be inferred. That is, given that a child cannot, directly, indirectly, or by any other circumstance, consent to sexual activity with an adult, it is a serious aggravation of an already very serious offence if the child also, in fact, objected to, or otherwise resisted, the sexual activity taking place. That conceptualisation also informs the approach to be taken to a child’s ostensible acquiescence to sexual activity with an adult by reason of such aggravating circumstances as pressure being placed upon, or inducement or encouragement of, a child to engage in that activity. All such acts by an adult to facilitate sexual activity with a child may be regarded, to a greater or lesser extent, as aggravating circumstances.

47. In the present case, the victim repeatedly expressed her anxiety and apprehension to the offender. The offender was not dissuaded by these expressions. Instead, as the prosecution submitted, the offender “set upon a path to make the victim feel safe with a view to engaging her in sexual activity”.

48. Whilst the Commonwealth offending relating to the use of a carriage service for various communications were each relatively brief in duration, a significant number of messages were exchanged. The offences of using a carriage service to procure a person under 16 were serious, in view of the age of the victim, the persistence of the offender, the explicit nature of the communications and the fact that the offender was seeking to engage in sexual intercourse with the victim within a short (less than 24 hour) period.

49. The Territory offence of committing an act of indecency upon a person under 16 years was also a particularly serious instance of this form of offending, given that: (i) The victim was well under the age that is encompassed by this offending, and appeared to be even younger than her actual age; (ii) The conduct occurred after the victim repeatedly told the offender that that she was scared; (iii) The touching was to an intimate area of the victim’s body (the victim’s 1 genitals), albeit that it occurred over the victim’s clothing; (iv) Whilst the offending was isolated, it was not opportunistic. It had been carefully planned by the offender over the course of the previous day; and (v) The victim was particularly vulnerable because she was in the offender’s vehicle.

50. The harm which has been occasioned to the victim, and her family, is clear from the victim impact statements which have been summarised above.

51. As the offender’s counsel submitted, the offender has experienced a traumatic upbringing in a war-torn country. Following his migration to Australia, the offender was [redacted]. The offender’s background is such as to enliven Bugmy principles. Further, at the time of the offending, the offender was suffering from symptoms of depression and post-traumatic stress disorder.

52. I accept that the offender’s experience of custody will be rendered more difficult as a result of the offender’s depression and post-traumatic stress disorder. I also accept that the offender’s moral culpability has been reduced to an extent by the combination of his background, [redacted], and his mental illness, the combined effect of which may have adversely affected his capacity to morally reason about the seriousness of offending of this nature: [Redacted]. Nonetheless, whilst mitigated to some extent, the need for general deterrence and denunciation remains high, particularly given the offender’s persistence in the face of the victim’s expressions of fear and her young age and appearance.

53. The offender is a carer for his 10 month old daughter, particularly whilst his partner is at work. I accept that a sentence of full-time imprisonment will occasion hardship to the offender’s partner and daughter.

54. I accept that the offender is remorseful for his actions. In view of this remorse, the support of the offender’s partner and friends, and the offender’s proactive approach to addressing

1 At trial, the victim gave evidence that the offender moved her underwear in order to digitally penetrate her. However, the jury found the offender not guilty of this count. In acknowledgement of the jury’s verdict in this respect, the prosecution did not submit that I would be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the offender touched the victim underneath her underwear. the underlying factors which contributed to the offending, I find that the offender has good prospects of rehabilitation.

55. The offender’s counsel invited me to impose a non-custodial alternative, such as an Intensive Correction Order. Whilst accepting that this is not a simple exercise, the prosecution submitted that no penalty other than full time imprisonment can meet the need for general deterrence, denunciation and recognition of the harm caused to the victim and her family.

56. I agree with the prosecution’s submission that no penalty other than full-time imprisonment can properly meet the need for general deterrence, denunciation, and recognition of harm to the victim.

57. However, in view of the offender’s subjective case, particularly his favourable prospects of rehabilitation, his remorse, and the hardship to the offender’s family that will be occasioned by this period of imprisonment, I consider that the purposes of sentence may be met by a partially suspended sentence.

58. The offender offered to plead guilty to all of the offences for which he was found guilty at the criminal case conference which occurred sometime before the trial. If that plea had been accepted by the prosecution, the trial would have been avoided. Accordingly, I will afford the offender a 20% reduction of the sentences to be imposed for each offence.

59. There is significant overlap in the criminality involved in each of the Commonwealth offences. Accordingly, there must be substantial concurrency between each of these offences. The Territory offence of committing an act of indecency against a person under the age of 16 years involved the same victim, and occurred within the same 24 hour 2 period as the Commonwealth offences. Accordingly, principles of totality require that there be some concurrency between these offences. Nonetheless, recognition of the different criminality involved in the commission of the physical act, and the harm caused by that act, will require that a significant degree of accumulation be afforded between the Territory and Commonwealth offences.

60. The task of structuring a sentence that is comprised of both Territory and federal offences is not easy: see DPP v Swingler [2017] VSCA 305 at [78]. The prosecution submitted

2 The amendments to s 19 of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) which require full cumulation of the sentences imposed for federal child sex offences, subject to the exception in s 19(6), apply only to offences committed on or after 23 June 2020: Crimes Legislation Amendment (Sexual Crimes Against Children and Community Protection Measures) Act 2020 (Cth), Sch 10, Item 3. The present offending occurred between 21 February 2020 and 24 February 2020. For completeness, I record that even if those provisions had applied, I would still have applied the same level of cumulation, so as to comply with principles of totality, which continue to apply following the enactment of these amendments. that the sentence could be appropriately structured by imposing a sentence for the Commonwealth offences first, and then ordering that the Territory sentence commence during the period of those Commonwealth sentence.

61. The difficulty with the prosecution’s proposal is that s 62 of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act provides that the Territory sentence must commence on the date it is imposed, unless, relevantly, the sentence is accumulated on an “existing sentence”, which is defined as an offence against “Territory law”: see ss 70 and 71 of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act. Previous decisions which have imposed a Commonwealth sentence before a Territory sentence were cases in which the offender’s presentence custody exceeded the sentence of imprisonment for the Commonwealth offence: see, for example, Morrison v Maher [2022] ACTSC 63; DPP v Wickes [2025] ACTSC 443 and DPP v Matas [2024] ACTSC 234. In those cases, s 62 was not breached because the Court was not imposing a future commencement date for offences against Territory law. (Section 19 of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) permits a future commencement date for offences against Commonwealth law.)

62. So as to comply with s 62, I will set the Territory sentence first, and will then order that the Commonwealth sentences be imposed at the time of suspension of sentence for the Territory offence. This will avoid any gap in the custodial term and will ensure that the “relevant rules as to cumulation and concurrency are applied appropriately, and within the proper sphere of each sentencing regime”: Swingler at [78].

63. The head sentence for the Territory offence will be 2 years’ imprisonment. The total sentence for the Commonwealth offences will be imprisonment for 2 years and 1 month, which, with partial concurrency with the sentence for the Territory offence, will result in an overall sentence of imprisonment of 3 years and 1 month.

64. I will suspend the sentence for the Territory offence after 12 months imprisonment. However, the offender will not be eligible to be released from custody at that time, because he will then be serving the sentence for the first of the Commonwealth offences. In respect of the Commonwealth offences, the offender will be released from custody upon entry into a recognizance release order after serving 3 months imprisonment for those offences. I have borne in mind the time that the offender will be required to serve in full time custody pursuant to the Commonwealth sentences when determining when to suspend the Territory offence.

65. In short, the overall head sentence will be a term of imprisonment of 3 years and 1 month, with a minimum term of imprisonment of 15 months. In my view, this adequately reflects the whole of the criminality involved in the offending. Orders

66. The orders of the Court are: (a) For count 7, act of indecency on a young person (SCCAN2024/24), the offender is convicted and sentenced to 2 years and 6 months’ imprisonment, discounted to 2 years, commencing 10 November 2025 and expiring 9 November 2027, to be suspended after 12 months on 9 November 2026, upon entry into a good behaviour order with core conditions for the remainder of this sentence. (b) For count 1, use carriage service to procure person under 16 years (CC2023/2710), the offender is convicted and sentenced to 2 years’ imprisonment, discounted to 1 year and 7 months imprisonment, commencing 10 November 2026 and expiring 9 June 2028. (c) For count 6, use carriage service to procure person under 16 years (CC2023/2715), the offender is convicted and sentenced to 2 years’ imprisonment, discounted to 1 year and 7 months imprisonment, commencing 10 November 2026 and expiring 9 June 2028. (d) For count 2, use carriage service to transmit indecent communication to a person under 16 years (CC2023/2711), the offender is convicted and sentenced to 2 years’ imprisonment, discounted to 1 year and 7 months’ imprisonment, commencing 10 February 2027 and expiring 9 September 2028. (e) For count 3, use carriage service for child abuse material (CC2023/2712), the offender is convicted and sentenced to 2 years’ imprisonment, discounted to 1 and 7 months’ imprisonment, commencing 10 May 2027 and expiring 9 December 2028. (f) For count 4, use carriage service for child abuse material (CC2023/2713), the offender is convicted and sentenced to 2 years’ imprisonment, discounted to 1 and 7 months’ imprisonment, commencing 10 May 2027 and expiring 9 December 2028. (g) For count 5, use carriage service for child abuse material (CC2023/2714), the offender is convicted and sentenced to 2 years’ imprisonment, discounted to 1 and 7 months, commencing 10 May 2027 and expiring 9 December 2028. (h) The offender is to be released from custody on 9 February 2027, upon his entering into a recognizance release order commencing on 9 February 2027 and expiring on 9 December 2028, with security of $200, without surety. The offender will be subject to the mandatory conditions under s 20(1A) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth); namely, that the offender: (i) be subject to the supervision of a probation officer appointed in accordance with the order; (ii) obey all reasonable directions of the probation officer; and, (iii) not travel interstate or overseas without the written permission of the probation officer.

I certify that the preceding sixty-six [66] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Sentence of her Honour Justice Baker. Associate: Date: 10 November 2025 ANNEXURE A – Table of Comparative Cases

Case Name Objective Features Subjective Features Sentence i. 18 months R v Noy [2025] ACTSC Charges: Criminal History: imprisonment 93 i. Using a carriage service to None (reduced Christensen AJ procure a person under 16 from 24 years for sexual activity, 19 March 2025 months) contrary to s 474.25(1) of Rehabilitation: ii. 18 months the Criminal Code Act 1995 21 years old (18 years (Cth) imprisonment old at time of offending) ii. Using carriage service for (reduced child abuse material Nil risk of reoffending from 24 (transmit) contrary to s per the psychologist’s months) 474.22(1) of the Criminal opinion iii. 12 months Code Act 1995 (Cth) PG entered in the imprisonment iii. Using carriage service for Magistrates Court (reduced by child abuse material (cause to transmit to self), contrary 18 months) to s 474.22(1) of the Other: Immediate release Criminal Code 1995 (Cth) ordered upon s Raised in supportive Facts: 20(1)(b) Crimes Act family environment free The offender engaged in online from domestic violence (Cth) – Recognizance conversation a 13 year-old victim for a or substance abuse. Release Order with period of three to four weeks. On Psychological security of $1000 multiple occasions the offender assessment revealed a requested and received child abuse current major material. The offender also transmitted depression with suicidal child abuse material to the victim. ideations. Exceptional circumstances were established. Plea: 25 per cent discount R v Kember [2022] Charges: Criminal History: i. 16 months ACTSC 153 imprisonment i. Using carriage service for child None (reduced McCallum CJ pornography material, contrary Rehabilitation: from 18 to s 474.19(1) of Criminal Code months) 27 June 2022 Accomplished Act 1995 (Cth) ii. 10 months professional BMX rider ii. Using carriage service for child imprisonment Low to moderate risk of (reduced pornography material, contrary recidivism, good from 12 to s 474.19(1) of Criminal Code prospect of months) Act 1995 (Cth) rehabilitation iii. 6 months iii. Using carriage service to imprisonment Other: procure person under 16 years (reduced of age, contrary s 474.26(1) of Raised in dysfunctional from 9 the Criminal Code Act 1995 family - domestic months) violence between iv. 6 months (Cth) parents and neglect by imprisonment iv. Using a carriage service for his mother due to (reduced child abuse material, contrary to substance abuse from 7 s 474.22(1) of the Criminal months) Code Act 1995 (Cth) v. 3 months v. Using a carriage to transmit Hardship to the imprisonment offender’s father – (no discount) indecent material to a person Case Name Objective Features Subjective Features Sentence under the age of 16 years, diagnosed with vi. 6 months contrary to s 474.27A(1) of the Alzheimer’s Disease imprisonment (reduced Criminal Code 1995 (Cth) from 7 vi. Possessing, controlling, months) producing, supplying or Release after 8 obtaining child abuse material months of sentence for use through a carriage on a Recognizance service, contrary to s 474.22A of Release Order with the Criminal Code Act 1995 security of $2000 (Cth) Facts: The offender met the victim when she was 13 years old. At that time, he had a relationship with the victim’s older sister aged 21/22. The offending occurred over 17-month period. The second victim was 14/15 years old when she met the offender when they were on the same cheerleading team. Offending began when the victim was 16 years old. No attempted progression towards physical sexual activity and no dissemination of material. Plea: 10–15 per cent discount – entered on day of hearing R v Ardron [2021] Charges: Criminal History: i. 2 years ACTSC 91 imprisonment i. Committing an act of indecency Limited and no offence (reduced Murrell CJ on person under the age of 16 of a similar nature from 2 years years contrary to s 61(2) of the 13 May 2021 Rehabilitation: and 6 Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) months) ii. Committing an act of indecency At the time of offence, without consent the offender was under A period of 8 month a GBO deducted to Facts: recognised The offender was The victim was 15 years and 7 months residential assessed as medium to old and was mowing lawns in his rehabilitation. The low risk of reoffending, neighbour for cash. The offender remaining 16 months accepted and later kissing him on the Other: to be served by way lips put her tongue inside in his mouth, of intensive The offender’s mother ‘rubbed against him’ and kissed his correction order. was abusing alcohol, neck. The offender then removed her and her father shirt, bra and shorts when the victim introduced the offender said he is 15 years old and should not to illicit substances. be doing this. The offender apologised. The offender was 40 years old. An The offender reported isolated, impulsive and opportunistic mental health difficulties incident. and a history of abuse of alcohol and drugs. Plea: Case Name Objective Features Subjective Features Sentence 20 per cent discount – at the criminal case conference R v Naing [2023] Charges: Criminal History: i. 3 years’ ACTSC 210 imprisonment i. Five counts of act of indecency Limited criminal history Loukas-Karlson J on a person under 16 years, (driving offences and 18 months non contrary to s 61(2) of the theft) parole-period 3 August 2023 Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) Rehabilitation: Facts: Low risk of reoffending. Victims are two sisters (12 years old). Good prospects of Conduct involved touching chest, rehabilitation. buttocks, stomach and inside of vagina. Other: The offender was a family friend and was intoxicated at the time of the The offender was born offending. in Myanmar, a country with an unstable Plea: political situation and n/a ongoing civil war. The offender reported significant alcohol abuse. Married with five children – hardship to third parties taken into account – 50 per cent discount on non-parole period R v Kamara [2016] Charges: Criminal History: i. 7 months’ ACTSC 294 imprisonment i. Using carriage service to None ii. 10 months’ Elkaim J procure sexual activity with a Rehabilitation: imprisonment person under 16 years of age, 5 October 2016 iii. 7 months’ contrary to s 474.26 of the Low risk of general imprisonment Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) offending. ii. 3 x sexual intercourse with a Total – 1 year 1 Test results indicated a young person under the age of month medium to high risk 16, contrary to s 55(2) of the level for sexual Fully suspended Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) recidivism. upon entering into iii. Possessing child pornography Recognizance contrary to s 65 of the Crimes Lack of acceptance of Release Order and Act 1900 (ACT) his responsibility GBO – 18 months towards the victim. Facts: Other: Victim 15 years old. Offender told victim he was 18 when he was actually almost Offender born in 1995 in 20. Sierra Leone – a country with tribal Offender asked the complainant if she violence. was sleeping with anyone. She replied that she was a virgin. the offender When offender was asked for her mobile number which she eight years of age, his gave him, and gave his number to her. parents were murdered They began to communicate via by rebels. His uncle telephone. Offender continued to save the offender and suggest sexual activity. Complainant his sister by escaping resisted the idea of sexual intercourse through the fields as she was a virgin. behind their village. The offender and his sister Case Name Objective Features Subjective Features Sentence They met in person, when the were raised by a family complainant performed fellatio on the friend. offender and they engaged in sexual intercourse. Plea: 15 per cent – when arraigned