DPP v Hough [2025] VCC 1046

Sentence: On State offences: total effective sentence of imprisonment for 6 years and 5 months with a non-parole period of 4 years. On Federal offences: total effective sentence of imprisonment for 3 years and 1 month with a non-parole period of 2 years. Overall non-parole period of 6 years.

1. Matthew Bryan Hough, you have pleaded guilty to an indictment containing three charges of producing child abuse material for use through a carriage service (Charges 1, 7 and 11),[1] four charges of sexual penetration of a child under 16 years (Charges 2, 3, 5, and 6),[2] two charges of use a carriage service to solicit child abuse material (Charges 4 and 8),[3] two charges of use a carriage service to transmit child abuse material (Charges 9 and 10),[4] and one charge of use a carriage service to groom a person under 16 years for sexual act (Charge 12).[5]
2. The maximum penalties for these offences are as follows:

Producing child abuse material for use through a carriage service - 15 years' imprisonment.[6]

Sexual penetration of a child under 16 years - 15 years' imprisonment.[7]

Use a carriage service to solicit child abuse material- 15 years' imprisonment.[8]

Use a carriage service to transmit child abuse material - 15 years' imprisonment.[9]

Use a carriage service to groom a person under 16 years for sexual act - 15 years' imprisonment.[10]

1. You were born in December 1980, and are presently 44 years old. At the time of committing these offences, you were aged between 39 and 42 years and resided at an address in Bayswater North.
2. In committing the present offences, you used social media, as well as dating and communication applications to communicate with three child victims and one online covert operative.
3. Julian Porter,[11] the victim in relation to Charges 2, 3, 4 and 9, was aged 15 to 17 years at the time of your offending. Cory Pace,[12] the victim in relation to Charges 5, 6, 7, 8 and 10 was aged between 14 and 16 years at the relevant time. Colin Bishop,[13] the victim in relation to Charge 11, was aged 17 years at the time of your offending.
4. You groomed the child victims Porter and Pace online, then procured them to attend your residence where you sexually penetrated them. Thereafter, you produced and transmitted child abuse material throughout your offending.
5. Your offending came to light when you engaged in communication with an online covert operative through Snapchat.

1. In October 2019, you contacted Porter using the Grindr application. During your interaction, he informed you that he was 15 years old. The pair of you spoke on Grindr before moving to WhatsApp a few weeks later. The conversations became more sexualised and you told Porter you wanted to meet him in person. You sent him your address in Bayswater.
2. On 23 March 2020, you engaged in a text conversation with Porter about him blocking you on Grindr. During this conversation, Porter texted you, 'do you still have videos I'm sending you a photo of me with my dick out on grindr. I'm ready. That was an accident'. Following this, Porter sent you an image on Grindr. You took a screenshot of this image. This image is categorised as Category 2 child abuse material and depicts Porter's face whilst he is holding his erect penis (Charge 1 - produce child abuse material for use through a carriage service).
3. You continued to text Porter about him redownloading WhatsApp and making plans to meet him in person.
4. On 27 September 2020, Porter texted you the following, 'Hey daddy it's me, mum saw me texting you, so she made me block you on everything. I'm still coming today / I have to be very careful'. You stated, 'Well all up to u with what u do today' and 'Message when your [sic.] coming then. U should remover everything like tour [sic.] mother said'.
5. At around 12:09pm that day, Porter texted you, 'I'm walking down' after catching a bus to meet you at your residence. After Porter entered your house, you grabbed his bottom and told him to walk upstairs. Porter walked upstairs and went into your bedroom.
6. In the bedroom, you began to undress Porter. You laid on the bed with him whilst naked and cuddled. At this time, your penis was erect. You then grabbed Porter's head and pushed it down onto your penis and made him perform oral sex on you (Charge 2 - sexual penetration of a child under 16). Porter began to choke and so you removed your hands from his head.
7. Following this, you committed the following acts involving Porter which collectively comprise Charge 3 (sexual penetration of a child under 16), which is a rolled-up charge:[14]

(a) You put your finger into Porter's anus for a short period of time.

(b) You put on a condom and laid on your back. Porter sat on your groin area, with one leg on either side of your body. You moved your penis towards Porter's anus and penetrated his anus. This was painful for Porter as there was no lubricant. This act did not last long as Porter told you to stop because of the pain.

(c) When Porter laid down next to you again, you grabbed a black, mobile controlled vibrator from a bedside table drawer and suggested using the vibrator on him. You penetrated Porter's anus with the vibrator. You began increasing the level of vibration from gentle to high which made Porter feel like he was going to vomit. Porter asked you to stop, but you did not. Eventually, you stopped and removed the vibrator.

1. When you both left the bed, you asked Porter if he wanted to shower with you, an offer he declined. Porter got dressed and left your house to catch a bus home. At around 1:02pm, you texted him, 'I can drive you part way if you want', to which Porter replied, 'Nah I'm good'.
2. Following this incident, you maintained contact with Porter through WhatsApp. You exchanged sexual voice messages, videos and pictures.
3. On 29 May 2021, you sent Porter five voice recordings on WhatsApp. Porter was over 16 years old by this time. The content of those voice recordings include, but are not limited to, you saying: 'And now I want you to take a nice sexy picture of yourself, your face and your body, and I'd love to you see you bulging in your jocks as well'. (Charge 4 - use a carriage service to solicit child abuse material - part). This is a rolled-up charge. You sent a number of lurid messages throughout this text conversation with Porter.
4. You sent Porter two videos which comprised:

(a) An 18 second video of a black hook shaped vibrator sex toy.

(b) A video lasting 1 minute and 37 seconds depicting a gagged naked adult masturbating his penis with a remote-controlled sex toy inserted into his anus.

1. You then sent Porter a number of sexually explicit messages, including the following:

HOUGH: 'my mate wants a hung boy for us to play with together too.'

HOUGH: 'U have a face and cock pic of you so I can show him u.'

HOUGH: 'One of just ya cock as that's what he's interested in though'.

(Charge 4 - use a carriage service to solicit child abuse material - part).

I note these messages do not reflect the entirety of the messages sent by you that occasion.

1. On 27 June 2021, you sent Porter a 16 second video of yourself fondling your penis in your bedroom. You messaged him saying, 'I want to see you cumming in a video' and 'Video u now for me'.
2. Further to this, you sent Porter two videos and an image which comprised the following:

(a) A 12 second video depicting yourself fondling your penis in your bedroom.

(b) A 46 second video depicting yourself masturbating and ejaculating in your bedroom.

(c) An image depicting the exposed anus of a male with an erect adult penis next to the buttocks.

(Charge 4 - use a carriage service to solicit child abuse material - part).

1. On 2 November 2021, while messaging Porter, you sent him a video depicting the victim Pace. This was a video you created when Pace attended your address on 13 September 2021 (Charge 10 - use a carriage service to transmit child abuse material). This is a rolled-up charge.
2. On 26 May 2022, you were again conversing with Porter through WhatsApp messages. Amongst other messages, you sent Porter a message saying, 'Do u think about me fucking u often' and 'Send me a face video with cock and make me want to' (Charge 4 - use a carriage service to solicit child abuse material - part).
3. Following the interactions on this day, you had no further communication with the victim Porter.

1. In June 2021, Pace began communicating with you on Grindr. He was 14 years old at the time.
2. During your conversation with him, the following exchanges occurred which partially reflects the nature of the conversation:

(a) Pace told you that he was 16 years old and asked you if you were alright with it. You informed him that you were.

(b) You told Pace you wanted him to send you butt pictures and told him stuff you wanted to do. Pace sent you some pictures of his naked bottom.

(c) You sent photos of your penis to Pace. You told him not to tell anyone.

1. On 5 June 2021, you engaged in a conversation with Pace on WhatsApp. The following extracts from the conversation provide context to Charges 5 and 6 committed against Pace:

HOUGH: 'Usually yea. So you will need to lie to ya mum or can get you home in the to keep her all happy to if it difficult.'

PACE: 'I'll have to say that I'm staying at a friends but unless u want to talk to her you'll have to pick me up / sir / Is that right daddy?'

HOUGH: 'I don't want to talk to her. Don't tell her about me.'

1. During this conversation, you sent Pace a message saying:

Send me a video of you now slowly showing me all of you from face, body cock and arse. Removing clothes as you show you daddy his new boy toy / I want you to show me you cumming videos at least 2 times a week as I know young guys wank like daily.

1. In the same conversation, you sent Pace four videos which included:

(a) A 1 minute 37 second video depicting a gagged naked adult masturbating his penis with a remote controlled sex toy inserted into his anus.

(b) A 1 minute 23 second video depicting the same adult male, removing his clothing, and exposing his erect penis and his anus.

(c) A 44 second video depicting yourself and a young adult male engaging in oral sex.

(d) A 17 second video of the same adult male straddling you and masturbating both his and your penises together.

Night James my new youngest impressive boy yet. Remember that good obedient boys eventually get daddy's hung mates to join in.

1. While communicating on Grindr, you planned to meet with Pace by picking him up from Chirnside Park and taking him back to your house.
2. On 13 September 2021, you picked up Pace in your white van and took him back to your house. Once you both entered the house, you pushed Pace up against the wall and started to kiss him. You both then proceeded upstairs towards your bedroom.
3. Whilst in your bedroom, the following incidents occurred:

(a) Pace performed oral sex on you on the bed (Charge 5 - sexual penetration of a child under 16 - part). Your hand was on his head while this occurred. This is a rolled-up charge.

(b) You inserted Pace's finger into your own mouth (Charge 5 - sexual penetration of a child under 16 - part).

(c) You performed analingus on Pace and later put your penis inside his anus without using a condom. That penetration was estimated by the victim to have lasted for ten minutes (Charge 6 - sexual penetration of a child under 16 - part). This is a rolled-up charge.

(d) Pace then got off you and began performing oral sex on you again (Charge 5 - sexual penetration of a child under 16 - part).

(e) You penetrated his anus again with your penis. The victim estimated that penetration lasted for about 15 minutes (Charge 6 - sexual penetration of a child under 16 - part).

1. You told Pace you wanted to take videos and that you would not show anyone else. You recorded the videos using your mobile phone.
2. Two videos were found on your mobile phone which depict Pace's naked body and sexual acts you performed on each other (Charge 7 - produce child abuse material for use through carriage service - part). This is a rolled-up charge.
3. When the incident concluded, you dropped Pace back to Chirnside Park where he caught a bus home. He did not tell anyone about what had occurred.
4. Between 4 January 2022 and 5 January 2022, you engaged in a conversation with Pace on WhatsApp. In that conversation, you sent the following text message:

Make ya self cum and licking the cum off you fingers like a good boy for your daddy. Make it long so I can show my mate my boy I wanna share u with // Make your daddy proud of his boy properly / be sure to say that I am your boy as your doing it all.

(Charge 8 - use a carriage service to solicit child abuse material - part).

1. Between 27 January 2022 and 25 April 2022, you sent the following messages to Pace:

HOUGH: 'I hope you are keeping me private from your family and friends'.

HOUGH: 'Include ya face and strip naked. While you show that cock and arse'.

(Charge 8 - use a carriage service to solicit child abuse material - part).

1. On 25 April 2022, Pace sent you a video that has been classified as a Category 2 child abuse material (Charge 8 - use a carriage service to solicit child abuse material - part).

1. On 2 June 2021, you transmitted an image of Porter depicting his penis and face to a WhatsApp user. Porter was 15 years old at the time. This image was categorised as Category 2 child abuse material (Charge 9 - use a carriage service to transmit child abuse material).
2. On 26 September 2021, you transmitted a video of Pace produced on 13 September 2021 to another WhatsApp user. This video was categorised as Category 2 child abuse material (Charge 10 - use a carriage service to transmit child abuse material - part).
3. On 12 May 2022, you transmitted the same video of Pace to two other WhatsApp users (Charge 10 - use a carriage service to transmit child abuse material - part).

1. On 2 July 2023, you communicated with Bishop using the applications Sniffies and Snapchat. He was 17 years old at the time.
2. Bishop would tell people on Sniffies his actual age by stating, 'by [the] way I am 17, just so you know'. He would do this in the first conversation.
3. You and Bishop exchanged 'spicy photos' which you recorded without Bishop's knowledge. You first spoke on Sniffies before moving to Snapchat. In the Snapchat conversation, amongst other things, you messaged Bishop, 'Are you wanking off. Will u cum? / Let's see a video of u'.
4. You made three recordings on your mobile phone of your conversation with Bishop on Snapchat. In those videos, you were shown to have messaged Bishop saying, 'Let's see your cock / be a good boy'. He responded to you by sending an image of his grey pants where the bulge of his penis is visible. This was categorised as Category 2 child abuse material (Charge 11 - produce child abuse material for use through a carriage service - part).
5. You further messaged Bishop saying, 'Now with your cock out'. He responded to you saying, 'only this once' followed by an image of his exposed erect penis. This was categorised as Category 2 child abuse material (Charge 11 - produce child abuse material for use through a carriage service - part).

1. Between 2 July 2023 and 12 July 2023, you engaged in communication with an online covert operative on Snapchat, who at the time you had believed to be a person under the age of 16 years. In this conversation, you sent an image of yourself kneeling on a couch with your tracksuit pants pulled down, exposing your semi erect penis (Charge 12 - use a carriage to groom a person under 16 years for sexual act).

1. On 13 July 2023, you were interviewed by police at the Bayswater North police station. You provided the following information to police:

(a) You did not knowingly speak to someone under 18 years old on Grindr.

(b) Your Snapchat name is 'matthewhough21'.

(c) You did not recall having a conversation with a 14-year-old boy.

(d) You never met up with someone under the age of 18 years.

(e) You also told police that, 'We all know that people online can and will lie about their age'.

1. On 10 August 2023, you were interviewed at the Geelong police station. You answered 'no comment' to all allegations put to you, as was your right.

1. Victim impact statements ('VIS') were prepared by Pace and his family, including his mother Penelope Carrillo,[15] his father Patrick Pace,[16] his older brother James Pace,[17] his older sister Catherine Pace,[18] and his grandmother Jasmine Carrillo.[19] In so far as leave is required before those VISs can be received in relation to the Federal charges involving Pace,[20] I note leave is not opposed and I grant such leave.
2. No VIS was tendered in relation to Porter and/or Bishop. Nonetheless, the Victorian Court of Appeal has made clear there is a presumption of harm to children who are exposed to premature sexual activity and that long lasting physical and psychological harm is to be presumed.[21]

1. In his VIS, Pace describes the profound impact your offending has had on his mental health, his performance at school, his social interactions and his family relationships. He feels your violation has changed his whole world for the worse, so much so that he has ended up in ICU, has been admitted to a mental health facility, and needs to see a psychologist twice a month.
2. Pace's mental health deteriorated to the point where he experienced depression and anxiety, suicidal ideation and began engaging in self-harming behaviour. Your offending caused him to self-medicate on substances resulting in significant weight loss.
3. Before your offending, Pace aspired to become school captain and follow a career as a veterinarian after graduation. Now, he focuses solely on surviving the trauma and painful emotions you have caused him. It is extremely saddening to learn that Pace cannot picture a future for himself because in his view, he is not sure he wants one.
4. Your offending also has adversely affected his relationships with his friends and family given he was holding onto his pain in silence for so long. His family were devastated when they learnt of the crimes you perpetrated against Pace. They described him as a child who was once full of life, determined, caring, happy, sociable, and passionate about sports. Your crimes have changed his whole demeanour and attitude. His family witnessed him change into someone who was in pain and turned to self-harm, alcohol, drugs and lashing out behaviours.
5. Penelope Carrillo is angry and disturbed by the nature of your crimes committed against her son. Pace required so much additional support that she had to link him to a psychologist, and obtain prescription medication to help his sleeping difficulties.
6. She feels her family that was once loving and happy has now become broken and she struggles to deal with this, so much so she has needed to take time off work and seek support from a psychologist.
7. Since Patrick Pace learned of what you did to his son, his life has been consumed by fear, anger and helplessness. He struggled to see that his son was no longer the same carefree boy that he once was. This ultimately changed their relationship. He feels the crushing weight of helplessness and guilt, knowing that no matter what he does, he can never take away the pain that you inflicted on his son.
8. The impact of your crimes on Mr Pace has completed shattered his life. He feels he is no longer the person he once was. He suffers from stress-induced reflux, depression, and chest pain that has become a daily occurrence. He has isolated himself from friends and family, and withdrawn from the things that once brought him happiness. He acknowledges that your crimes have left a permanent mark on their lives, a mark they will have to carry forever.
9. Pace's brother, James, his sister Catherine, and grand-mother, Jasmine, have all expressed similar sentiments. Learning of your crimes shattered Jame's view of the world, and made him feel like he had failed as an older brother, unable to protect Pace from what you did to him. He feels your actions have had a lifelong impact on Pace and their entire family, especially since they were once inseparable as siblings and now must work together to rebuild trust.
10. Catherine describes her relationship with Pace extending beyond just being siblings. She expressed they were best friends who confided in each other and navigated life side by side. She knew her brother to be someone who was gentle and loving in nature, and deeply cared for everyone around him. However, she found that everything changed when Pace began self-harming and made attempts to end his life. The weight of it all became unbearable for her. Her family, desperate to save Pace, poured all their energy into him. She understood this was necessary, but in the process, she felt like she and her brother were left to navigate their pain alone. She believes what should have been the best years of her life have turned into a nightmare.
11. Jasmine Carrillo, much like the rest of the family, bears witness to Pace's sudden change in demeanour. She observed that he had given up on all his sporting activities and was no longer willing to take on the challenges he once showed so much promise in. She feels his education has been significantly impacted. The impact of your crime on Pace has robbed Jasmine of the future she once envisioned for her grandson. She no longer feels the same sense of safety and trust in the world.
12. I am mindful of the observations of the Victorian Court of Appeal in DPP v Dalgliesh (a pseudonym):[22]

... as this Court explained in Clarkson v The Queen,[23] the absolute prohibition on sexual activity with a child is 'founded on a presumption of harm'. The significance of the violence and harm which such conduct entails cannot be overstated.

1. Moreover, in Adamson v The Queen,[24] the Victorian Court of Appeal quoted with approval from the judgment of Baroness Hale in R v G[25] where Her Ladyship said:

More importantly, anyone who has practised in the family courts is only too well aware of the long term and serious harm, both physical and psychological, which premature sexual activity can do.

1. The Victorian Court of Appeal has also reaffirmed the important role restorative justice plays in the criminal justice system. In Talbot (a pseudonym) v The Queen[26] the Court approved the statement of Vincent JA in DPP v Toomey[27] concerning the notion of social rehabilitation, where his Honour said:

It is well to bear in mind that the rehabilitation of the victim of sexual abuse may often be more difficult to achieve than that of the perpetrator. Frequently the damage will be profound and a long time will pass before it can be addressed at all. In the meantime, childhood will be destroyed, self-esteem damaged, educational and career opportunities lost and the capacity to form and maintain relationships seriously impaired. The notion to which I have adverted underpins, I believe, such concepts as restorative justice, just punishment, the vindication of rights and the attribution of responsibility based on moral culpability. The vindication of the victim in cases of this kind, in particular, is profoundly important if the criminal justice system is to perform its role properly.[28]

1. The victim impact statements are deeply distressing and harrowing. On behalf of the Victorian community, I denounce your criminal offending against Porter, Pace and Bishop in the strongest terms and I take into account the impact of your crimes on them. Clearly, your offending has had a profoundly traumatic effect upon Pace and his family, in particular.

1. The seriousness of your offending conduct cannot be overstated. Sexual penetration of a child under the age of 16 years is a serious criminal offence carrying a maximum penalty of 15 years' imprisonment. This unequivocally indicates the seriousness with which the legislature, on behalf of the Victorian community, views this offence[29] and 'reflects the community's abhorrence of sexual crimes against children'.[30]
2. Sexual offending by adults against vulnerable children is a 'most serious blight on society'.[31] The Victorian Court of Appeal, and its predecessor, have emphasised on numerous occasions the harm sexual offending against children causes to the innocent victims and the community at large.[32] As Hedigan AJA, adopting an earlier statement of Marks J in R v Sposito,[33] put it in R v MJ:[34] 'A society which fails to protect its children from sexual abuse by adults, particularly those entrusted with their care, is degenerate.'[35] I accept there is no suggestion that any of the victims were under your care at the time you committed the present offences, however, in my view, this statement is nonetheless apposite in this case.
3. In Clarkson v The Queen,[36] the Victorian Court of Appeal held that under the legislative scheme, a child under 16 cannot consent to sexual penetration. This prohibition has two purposes: protecting the child from harm that can come from premature sexual activity; and deterring adults who would contemplate having sex with someone under the age of 16. The prohibition is founded on a presumption that premature sexual activity will cause long term physical and psychological harm and is unaffected by the presence of apparent consent.
4. Offending of this nature is regarded by the courts as extremely serious and usually calls for the imposition of condign punishment.[37] The courts have denounced offences of this nature as 'inherently evil and depraved'.[38] They violate 'the most basic norms of civilised behaviour, and [strike] at the heart of the value which our society places on the lives and wellbeing of each of its young persons.'[39]
5. Moreover, sexual penetration of a child under the age of 16 years is a standard sentence offence[40] and the standard sentence fixed by the legislature is imprisonment for 6 years.[41]
6. Accordingly, in sentencing you for these offences, I must have regard to the relevant standard sentence[42] which 'is the sentence for an offence that, taking into account only the objective factors affecting the relative seriousness of that offence, is in the middle of the range of seriousness.'[43] This is a matter I must have regard to as one of the factors relevant to the sentences I impose on you.[44] However, the standard sentence is just another factor to consider, it is not determinative and does not interrupt the operation of my instinctive synthesis.[45] In fact, the relevant legislation specifically approves the instinctive synthesis approach to sentencing.[46] The standard sentence is to be treated as a 'legislative guidepost', as is the maximum penalty.[47]
7. Recently, the Victorian Court of Appeal in McPherson v The Queen,[48] in the context of a charge of sexual penetration of a child aged under 12, observed:

Before concluding we should mention the difficult task with which sentencing judges are confronted when considering the standard sentence for this type of offending. The standard sentence is designed to represent a 'mid-range' example of this offence, however, the offence covers such a wide range of sexual misconduct as to make the notional 'mid-range' very difficult to identify. The misconduct can be penetration by finger, penis or tongue, or by an object. It can be momentary or protracted. It can be committed on all ages up to 12 [in this case 16]. The impact on the victim can be manageable or catastrophic. This is not to say the phrase is meaningless - it must be given its place in the sentencing calculus - but it is an intangible concept, and judges ought to be wary of affording it too much weight in the sentencing exercise. In particular, as this Court has said, judges must avoid engaging in 'two-stage' sentencing, whereby a vague, essentially intangible concept is used as a starting point from whence the sentence is adjusted upwards or downwards as the case dictates. It is a factor in the application of the intuitive synthesis, in the same way that the maximum sentence is. No more, no less.[49]

1. In determining an appropriate sentence, I must take into account the objective gravity of your offending conduct as well as your moral culpability for it. As Redlich JA, with whom Chernov and Vincent JJA agreed, observed in DPP v Bright:[50]

The objective gravity of the offence must be assessed otherwise other relevant sentencing considerations, and in particular subjective factors, may be given undue weight in arriving at the sentence, rendering it unlikely that the sentence will be commensurate with the seriousness of the crime.[51]

1. Your counsel described your offending conduct as predatory behaviour. Charges 2, 3, 5 and 6 are particularly heinous offences because they involved penetration of two of the child victims' mouths and anuses with your penis. Moreover, while sexual penetration of a child is in itself an act of violence, a degree of force was used during the acts of oral penetration that involved choking, and the acts of anal penetration which caused substantial pain because lubricant was not used. The pain caused Porter to feel like he was going to vomit. You initially did not desist when using the vibrator.
2. I accept the prosecution submissions in relation to your offending the subject of Charges 2, 3, 5 and 6. They are serious examples of a serious offence, being systematic, predatory and sustained offending that is designed to take advantage of emotionally vulnerable children. There was a large age gap, of about 26 years, between you and the youngest child victim, being Pace.
3. You were informed by Pace and Porter they were 15 years old, albeit Pace's real age was 14 at the time. Bishop had informed you he was 17 years old. You attempted to groom and isolate the victims, in particular by telling Pace he would need to lie to his mum about meeting with you, and encouraging Porter to deceive his mother by deleting the messages shared between the two of you.
4. Your offending is aggravated by the fact it was deliberate and premeditated. You sent sexualised messages to the victims and encouraged them over the course of a number of months to meet you for sex. I accept the offending against Pace in relation to Charge 6 occurred for a significant time, being in total approximately 25 minutes.
5. The Commonwealth charges, Charges 1, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12, are offences that involve producing, soliciting and transmitting child abuse material and grooming. They are inherently serious and are considered especially grave in nature.[52]
6. Charges 4, 8, 11 and 12 relate to separate images. Charges 7 and 10 relate to the same material, being the video of Pace, and Charges 1 and 9 relate to the same material, being the image of Porter.
7. Although marking separate criminality, you produced the material for your own use and gratification as well as in order to transmit the material to others. This meant that the distribution of the image could no longer be controlled by you.
8. I further accept prosecution counsel's submission that your offences involving child abuse material were depraved, persistent, demeaning and protracted.
9. The other general sentencing principles applicable to offending of this nature have been summarised as follows:
   1. Limited weight is to be given to an offender's prior good character.
   2. Offending involving child abuse material occurs on an international level and is becoming increasingly prevalent.
   3. Offending of this nature is difficult to detect given the degree of anonymity afforded by the internet.
   4. Possession of child abuse material creates a market for the continued corruption and exploitation of children.
   5. There is a paramount public interest objective in promoting the protection of children as possession of child abuse material is not a victimless crime.
   6. The fact an offender does not pay to access or was not involved in the distribution or sale of child pornography does not mitigate the offending.[53]
10. In R v Hutchinson,[54] R A Hulme J, with whom Meagher JA and Button J agreed, set out a revision of 'the list of factors that may bear upon the assessment of the objective seriousness of offences concerning child pornography and child abuse material provided in Minehan v R.'[55] This revised list is as follows:
    1. Whether actual children were used in the creation of the material.
    2. The nature and content of the material, including the age of the children and the gravity of the sexual activity portrayed.
    3. The extent of any cruelty or physical harm occasioned to the children that may be discernible from the material.
    4. The number of images or items of material - in a case of possession, the significance lying more in the number of different children depicted.
    5. In a case of possession, the offender's purpose, whether for his/her own use or for sale or dissemination.
    6. In a case of dissemination or transmission, the number of persons to whom the material was disseminated or transmitted.
    7. Whether any payment or other material benefit (including the exchange of child pornographic material) was made, provided or received for the acquisition or dissemination or transmission.
    8. The proximity of the offender's activities to those responsible for bringing the material into existence.
    9. The degree of planning, organisation, sophistication and/or deception employed by the offender in acquiring, storing, disseminating or transmitting the material.
    10. The age of any person with whom the offender was in communication in connection with the acquisition or dissemination of the material relative to the age of the offender.
    11. Whether the offender acted alone or in a collaborative network of like-minded persons.
    12. Any risk of the material being seen or acquired by vulnerable persons, particularly children.
    13. Any risk of the material being seen or acquired by persons susceptible to act in the manner described or depicted.
    14. Any other matter in s 21A(2) or (3) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act (for State offences) or s 16A of the Crimes Act 1914 (for Commonwealth offences) bearing upon the objective seriousness of the offence.[56]
11. Your offending conduct in relation to Charges 1, 4, and 7 to 12 is objectively serious and the extreme moral depravity of your offending conduct cannot be overstated.
12. I consider your offending conduct in relation to Charges 2, 3, 5 and 6 falls in the upper mid-range of offence seriousness. Charge 6 is the most serious.
13. Overall, I assess your moral culpability as very high. Clearly, denunciation, general deterrence and just punishment must be given significant weight in sentencing you.

1. A psychological report and treatment letter were provided to the Court, which I have had regard to in sentencing you.
2. You were assessed on 20 February 2025 and 26 March 2025 by Dr Matthew Barth, a psychologist engaged by your legal representatives. Dr Barth prepared a psychological report dated 4 April 2025, which summarises your personal circumstances.

1. You were raised in the southern suburbs of Melbourne. You have a twin brother and a younger sister. Your parents are both retired. Prior to retirement, your mother worked as a nurse and your father worked as an electrician.
2. You told Dr Barth there was some instability during your childhood in the sense that your family struggled financially which required them to move homes on a regular basis. Nonetheless, you have enjoyed positive relationships with all members of your family. Your family are aware of your offending, and despite their shock, they continue to provide you with support.

1. You attended Oakleigh Primary School and Marlborough Primary School during the early years of your education. You recalled that you were 'a bit slow' to attain basic literacy skills, although your academic ability gradually improved. You were required to repeat Grade 4 because your brother was not doing too well with his schooling and your parents did not want to separate you.
2. You told Dr Barth that during these early years, you experienced difficulty in developing social connections with your peers. This was socially isolating for you and you had only a small circle of friends.
3. You completed your secondary schooling at Heathmont College. You completed Year 12, but your results were below average. During your school years you worked some casual jobs. You worked as a paperboy for a local newsagency for about a year and worked as a dishwasher at a restaurant for about six months.
4. Following school, you completed an apprenticeship as a chef and obtained a Certificate III in Commercial Cookery. You worked in several restaurants for a number of years before moving to London for about three years. Whilst in London, you were employed as a chef catering for high-end functions. Upon your return to Australia, you continued work as a chef until you were about 36 years old.
5. You then completed an Advanced Diploma in Event Management and obtained employment planning weddings, funerals and other functions. You performed this role for about three years, after which you decided to work with your twin brother as a data technician. You attained a Certificate III as a data technician and worked for your brother's company for about four years until you were remanded in custody in relation to the present offending.

1. You first became sexually active when you were 16 years old. You experienced considerable ambivalence regarding your sexual orientation, on the one hand experiencing homosexual fantasises from an early age, but on the other dating age appropriate females throughout your teenage years and early twenties.
2. Your first sexual relationship with a male was shortly after you moved to England. You told Dr Barth that you concluded at this time that you were homosexual. You were in a relationship with a male for three years. This ended when the man returned to South Africa. You recalled that you felt very upset when the relationship ended and you have not engaged in any other long-term relationships since this time.
3. You told Dr Barth that you participated in a large number of casual sexual encounters with men, and on a few occasions, with women. You frequently met up with men whom you encountered on social media applications such as 'Grindr', 'WhatsApp', and 'Skout'. There were periods where you were having sex with up to 20 men per month. These men would either attend your home or you would meet them in a park or public area. You admitted to Dr Barth that within your friendship group, there was a 'competition to see who could hook-up the most'. You expressed that you had no desire to establish an ongoing relationship with any of the men and that 'it was just about the sex'.

1. You told Dr Barth that you rarely utilised pornography. You said that 'it has never been a big thing for me' and that you preferred to use online social media to engage in sex chat and meet men for sex. You became particularly dependant on internet sex chat from 2021 onwards due to an ankle injury and social isolation. You reported 'there were a lot of young guys on there' and the ages of the males you were communicating with became lower. You eventually began chatting with underage male children and this culminated in your contact sexual offending. It was in this context that your present offending conduct occurred.

1. You have a history of heavy drinking. Your alcohol consumption steadily increased during your twenties and thirties. You observed that you drank more heavily when you were feeling stressed. You became dependent on alcohol and were consuming approximately 'a bottle of champagne a day' for significant periods of time during your adult years. You reduced your alcohol consumption immediately prior to your arrest for the present matters. Nonetheless, you sporadically continued to binge drink.
2. Since completing an alcohol dependency course during your time on remand, you now feel motivated to contain your alcohol use when you are released into the community.

1. You denied to Dr Barth having any history of major mental health issues, although you did describe a history of experiencing feelings of low self-esteem. You felt your experience with social isolation and ostracism during your school years contributed to your anxiety levels and feelings of worthlessness. You often felt rejected and unwanted and suffered periods of low moods owing to feeling lonely and disconnected from people.
2. You told Dr Barth about a distressing incident which occurred during your late twenties when you were assaulted and suffered from a broken collarbone. You also recalled feeling distressed when a friend of yours committed suicide about three years ago. You did not seek any psychological assistance in regard to this.
3. In September 2024, you began consulting Mr Kyle Miller for psychological treatment that focused on offence-specific interventions. Owing to circumstances beyond your control, you completed your sixth and final consultation with Mr Miller on 12 November 2024.
4. Dr Barth notes that it is evident you are still in the very initial stages of treatment and your insight into your offending is limited. I accept this is the case, and that more extensive intervention is needed if you are to achieve any long-term benefits from treatment and obtain appropriate insight into the reasons for your offending conduct.
5. Your counsel fairly conceded Verdins principles[57] are not engaged in your case. I agree. Likewise he conceded the principles espoused by the High Court in Bugmy v The Queen[58] do not apply to you. I also agree.

1. You have no prior criminal history, subsequent convictions or matters pending. Thus, you fall to be sentenced as a person of otherwise good character, although, this is not an uncommon feature in cases such as the present.

1. Dr Barth conducted a comprehensive review of your risk of reoffending and concluded that your risk of sexual recidivism using the RSVP-V2 is likely to fall in the moderate to high risk category. Your risk could be reduced with the completion of a specialised sex-offender treatment program.
2. Dr Barth opines that the highly relevant risk factors in your assessment are the chronic nature of your offending conduct, the diversity in your behaviour, the use of psychological coercion and the escalation of the severity of your offending conduct. Other highly relevant factors are your deviant sexual cognitions and arousal patterns involving male children and your intimacy deficits.
3. In light of your moderate to high risk of sexual recidivism, I must give significant weight to specific deterrence and protection of community in sentencing you for these offences.

1. You first indicated your intention to plead guilty to the present charges soon after a sentence indication hearing held before me on 30 October 2024. You were initially arraigned on 8 November 2024 and pleaded guilty to all 12 charges. You were re-arraigned on Charge 6 at the plea hearing held on 23 April 2025, following an amendment to that charge reflecting the fact it is a rolled-up charge. You were rearraigned again today, prior to sentence, on Charge 8 following an amendment to that charge reflecting the fact it is a rolled-up charge, and Charge 10 where the commencement date was amended to 26 September 2021.
2. Discussions commenced between the parties soon after your committal to this Court. As a result of this process what were originally 50 charges laid against you have been reduced to the current 12, by rolling-up charges and as a result of the prosecution not proceeding with others, including all charges relating to allegations involving two further complaints.
3. Accordingly, I accept your pleas of guilty were entered at the earliest forensically reasonable opportunity.[59] The prosecutor accepted these are early pleas. Your pleas have significant utilitarian benefits. Significantly, you have saved the victims of your crimes the further trauma of having to give evidence in court. Your pleas also indicate your acceptance of responsibility for your offending conduct and a willingness to facilitate the course of justice.

1. Your counsel submitted your plea of guilty should be seen as reflecting genuine contrition and remorse.
2. I accept you are undoubtedly regretful for the situation in which you find yourself and the effect this has had on you. However, I must decide whether you demonstrate true contrition and remorse for your offending conduct. As Winneke P observed in R v Cooper:[60]

[a] distinction must always be carefully drawn between true regret for wrongdoing and regret engendered by concern for the position in which the offender finds [himself].[61]

1. True remorse is a question of fact and is determined on the balance of probabilities.[62] An offender must satisfy the court that there is 'genuine penitence and contrition and a desire to atone'.[63] In many cases the most compelling evidence of remorse comes from the offender's testimony.[64]
2. In CD v The Queen,[65] Harper JA, with whom Buchanan JA agreed, quoted his earlier observations in Phillips v The Queen,[66] where his Honour said:

[Genuine remorse] indicates realistic prospects of rehabilitation and a reduced need for specific deterrence. An offender who pleads guilty because he or she has an accurate appreciation of the wrongfulness of his or her offending, and of its impact upon its victim or victims, and who desires to do what reasonably can be done to repair the damage and to clear his or her conscience, is someone to whom mercy - in the form of a very substantial reduction in what would otherwise be an appropriate sentence - is very likely due.[67]

1. You expressed some remorse to Dr Barth when you said:

I made really bad choices. I was very indiscriminate with who I was having sex with. I didn't care how old they were. When I look back on it, it's not right. I feel horrible.[68]

1. On the evidence as it currently stands, I cannot make a finding in your favour that you are genuinely remorseful for your offending conduct and fully appreciate, and desire to atone for, the deleterious effects it has had on your innocent victims. You have limited insight into the wrongfulness of your conduct. You are in the very early stages of treatment and have some way to go before gaining valuable insight into the impact your conduct has had.

1. Your counsel did not rely on delay as a mitigating circumstance in your case. Nonetheless, I have had regard to the effects of delay in sentencing you, particularly the delay arising since you were first arraigned before me on 8 November 2024.
2. There will always be some delay in prosecuting cases of this kind, but here there has been more than the usual delay, which was beyond your control. You were interviewed by police in relation to these offences in July and August 2023 and you were charged on 10 August 2023. You have remained in custody on remand since that date. You were committed for trial in this Court by way of the straight hand-up brief procedure on 9 February 2024. The matter has proceeded expeditiously through this Court's processes, with a sentence indication hearing being conducted before me on 30 October 2024. Nonetheless, you have had this matter hanging over you now for nearly two years.
3. The law recognises 'delay is more likely to be a major mitigatory factor where the prosecution or the justice system is responsible for the delay'.[69] As the Victorian Court of Appeal observed in Rodriguez v DPP (Cth):[70]

Delay is normally relevant in two ways. First, it is relevant to rehabilitation that has occurred during the delay and the effect that has in turn on specific deterrence. Secondly, delay is relevant in the sense that the anxiety and uncertainty of having the prospect of a sentence hanging over one's head during the period of delay is akin to punishment in itself.[71]

1. So far as your rehabilitation during the period of delay is concerned, I note that you have used your time in custody to great advantage as is evidenced by the bundle of certificates, letters and a prisoner education summary report tendered at the plea hearing.[72] Since about 3 June 2024, you have been a peer listener in your unit, which accommodates about 150 prisoners. This is a trusted role that requires you to support others in custody. You have completed a peer support worker training in suicide and self-harm prevention program provided by Forensicare. As noted earlier, you have commenced a sex offender treatment program and you expressed to Dr Bart a desire to continue to improve your work skills.
2. So far as delay akin to punishment is concerned, since you were arrested and charged in relation to these offences you have had the prospect of a very significant sentence of imprisonment hanging over your head. Undoubtedly, this would have caused you significant stress and anxiety. I take these effects of delay into account in your favour.

1. Given the nature and seriousness of your offending conduct, your risk of sexual reoffending, and your lack of insight, I can only adopt a guarded approach to your prospects of rehabilitation at this time. Much will depend on your successful completion of offence-specific programs whilst you are in custody. It is noteworthy that you have family support which should provide a protective factor in the future.

1. In sentencing you on Charges 1, 4 and 7 to 12 (inclusive), I have had regard to the provisions of Part 1B, Division 2 of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) ('the Commonwealth Act'), aspects of State sentencing laws as applied by the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) and common law principles where they continue to apply. I have had particular regard to ss 16A(1), 16A(2) and 19(5) to 19(7) of the Commonwealth Act. In sentencing you on Charges 2, 3, 5 and 6, I have had regard to the provisions of the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) ('the State Act') and common law principles where they continue to apply.
2. As the Victorian Court of Appeal observed in Heels v The King:[73]

... sentencing an offender on an indictment containing multiple charges for State and Federal offences is made unduly difficult by the Commonwealth statutory scheme that applies to the sentencing of federal offenders.[74]

1. In structuring the sentences I impose on you, I have had regard to the three possible approaches to sentencing on a joint Commonwealth-State indictment as identified by the Victorian Court of Appeal in DPP v Swingler.[75] I have determined to adopt the second approach as recommended in that case.[76]
2. I have also had regard to current sentencing practice in relation to these offences as informed by the decisions of the High Court of Australia in R v Kilic,[77] DPP (Vic) v Dalgliesh (a pseudonym)[78] and Hili v The Queen,[79] and the Victorian Court of Appeal decisions in DPP v Zhuang[80] and DPP (Cth) v Thomas.[81]
3. While current sentencing practice is relevant to the sentences I impose on you, it is only one of a number of sentencing considerations I must take into account in imposing just sentences in your case.[82]
4. Moreover, it is always difficult to gauge more than a general yardstick from so-called 'comparable cases', given the wide range of offending conduct that can constitute these offences and the myriad of personal circumstances pertaining to individual offenders. Nonetheless, to the extent I have been able to gain assistance from comparable cases, I have sought to do so in your case.
5. The basic purposes for which a court may impose a sentence are just punishment, denunciation, deterrence, both specific and general, protection of the community and rehabilitation. In sentencing you, I must have regard to a range of factors, such as the seriousness of the offences, your culpability for them and your personal circumstances.
6. In sentencing you for these crimes, I am required to balance the interests of the community in denouncing your criminal conduct with the interests of the community in seeking to ensure that, so far as is possible, you are rehabilitated and reintegrated into society.
7. Denunciation, general deterrence and just punishment must be given significant weight in sentencing you for these offences. I also consider I need to give some real weight to specific deterrence. Moreover, for the reasons adumbrated below, I must consider protection of the community as the principal purpose in sentencing you on the State charges.
8. As I observed earlier, I assess your prospects for rehabilitation as being guarded. Until you are fully treated, I consider you pose a significant risk to community safety. Accordingly, I have had regard to s 16(2AAA) of the Commonwealth Act and s 5(1)(c) of the State Act in fixing the sentences I impose in this case and in formulating my orders for cumulation.
9. Each of these offences is a 'sexual offence'[83] for the purposes of the serious offender provisions of the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic).[84] Accordingly, upon receiving sentences of imprisonment for Charge 1 and Charge 2, you will fall to be sentenced as a 'serious sexual offender' on the remaining charges.[85]
10. By reason of your status as a 'serious offender', in sentencing you for Charges 3 to 12 (inclusive), I must regard the protection of the community from you as the principal purpose for which each sentence is imposed[86] and a presumption of cumulation applies.[87] The prosecution is not seeking an objectively disproportionate sentence on any charge in this case,[88] and I accept proportionate sentences are appropriate. I have also had regard to the totality principle and taken into account the overlapping nature of many of the charges.
11. In the present circumstances, Charges 2, 3, 5 and 6 are Class 1 offences for the purposes of the Sex Offenders Registration Act 2004 ('SORA')[89] and the remaining charges are Class 2 offences.[90] Given you will be convicted of four Class 1 offences, you will become a 'registerable offender'[91] and you will be required to continue to comply with the reporting obligations imposed by that Act for the remainder of your life.[92]

Following the process recommended in DPP v Swingler, I will sentence you on the State offences first.

On Charge 2 (sexual penetration of a child under 16 years - Julian Porter) you are convicted and sentenced to be imprisoned for two years.

On Charge 3 (sexual penetration of a child under 16 years - Julian Porter) you are convicted and sentenced to be imprisoned for three years and three months.

On Charge 5 (sexual penetration of a child under 16 years - Cory Pace) you are convicted and sentenced to be imprisoned for two years and three months.

On Charge 6 (sexual penetration of a child under 16 years - Cory Pace) you are convicted and sentenced to be imprisoned for three years and six months.

I order that eight months of the sentence imposed on Charge 2, two years of the sentence imposed on Charge 3 and three months of the sentence imposed on Charge 5 be served cumulatively on the sentence imposed on Charge 6 and on each other. This makes a State total effective sentence of six years' and five months' imprisonment.

In relation to the State sentence, I fix a period of 4 years during which you are not eligible to be released on parole.

I am required to state the reasons for imposing these sentences.[93] They are contained in these reasons for sentence.

I am also required to explain how these sentences relate to the standard sentence of 6 years' imprisonment which applies to Charges 2, 3, 5 and 6.[94] The sentence I have imposed on Charge 2 is 4 years less than the standard sentence. The sentence I have imposed on Charge 3 is 2 years and 9 months less than the standard sentence. The sentence I have imposed on Charge 5 is 3 years and 9 months less than the standard sentence. The sentence I have imposed on Charge 6 is 2 years and 6 months less than the standard sentence.

I declare that on State Charges 3, 5 and 6 you have been sentenced as a serious offender and I direct that declaration be entered in the records of the court.

On Charge 1 (produce child abuse material for use through a carriage service) you are convicted and sentenced to be imprisoned for two months to commence at the expiration of the State non-parole period.

On Charge 4 (use a carriage service to solicit child abuse material) you are convicted and sentenced to be imprisoned for six months to commence at the expiration of the State non-parole period.

On Charge 7 (produce child abuse material for use through a carriage service) you are convicted and sentenced to be imprisoned for six months to commence at the expiration of the State non-parole period.

On Charge 8 (use a carriage service to solicit child abuse material) you are convicted and sentenced to be imprisoned for six months to commence at the expiration of the State non-parole period.

On Charge 9 (use a carriage service to transmit child abuse material) you are convicted and sentenced to be imprisoned for nine months to commence one month after the expiration of the State non-parole period.

On Charge 10 (use a carriage service to transmit child abuse material) you are convicted and sentenced to be imprisoned for eighteen months to commence seven months after the expiration of the State non-parole period.

On Charge 11 (produce child abuse material for use through a carriage service) you are convicted and sentenced to be imprisoned for six months to commence at the expiration of the State non-parole period.

On Charge 12 (use a carriage service to groom a person under 16 years for sexual act) you are convicted and sentenced to be imprisoned for twelve months to commence from twenty-five months after the expiration of the State non-parole period.

That makes a total effective Federal sentence of three years' and one month's imprisonment.

In relation to the Federal sentence, I fix a period of 2 years from the expiration of the State non-parole period during which you are not eligible to be released on parole.

**In addition to my previous declaration, I declare you have been sentenced as a serious offender on Federal Charges 4, and 7 to 12 (inclusive) and I direct that declaration be entered in the records of the court.

These being 'Commonwealth child sex offences', I state that I am satisfied the orders I have made regarding the partial cumulation of the sentences I have imposed on the Federal charges results in sentences that are of a severity appropriate in all the circumstances. My reasons for imposing these sentences in the manner I have are stated in these reasons for sentence, which I direct be entered in the records of the Court.

I declare 715 days (not including this day) as the period of pre-sentence detention to be reckoned as already served under this sentence and I direct the fact that declaration was made, and its details, be noted in the records of the court.**

In accordance with s 6AAA of the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic), I declare that but for your pleas of guilty, I would have sentenced you to an overall total effective sentence of 11 years' imprisonment with an overall non-parole period of 7 years and 6 months.

[1] Contrary to s 474.23.1(a)(ii) of the Criminal Code (Cth) ('CC').

[2] Contrary to s 49B(1) of the Crimes Act 1958 ('CA'), as amended by the Crimes Amendment (Sexual Offences) Act 2016.

[3] Contrary to s 474.22(1)(a) of the CC.

[4] Contrary to s 474.22(1) of the CC.

[5] Contrary to s 474.27(1) of the CC.

[6] Pursuant to s 474.23(1)(a)(ii) of the CC.

[8] Pursuant to s 474.22(1)(iv) of the CC.

[9] Pursuant to s 474.22(1)(a)(iii) of the CC.

[10] Pursuant to s 474.27(1) of the CC.

[11] A pseudonym has been used to protect the victim's identity.

[12] A pseudonym has been used to protect the victim's identity.

[13] A pseudonym has been used to protect the victim's identity.

[14] See R v Jones [2004] VSCA 68 [13] (Charles JA, Phillips JA and Bongiorno AJA agreeing); McCray (a pseudonym) v The Queen [2017] VSCA 340 [17]-[18], [29]-[30] (Maxwell P and Croucher AJA); Crawford v The Queen [2018] VSCA 113 [43]-[44] (Maxwell P and Kyrou JA); R v Richard [2011] NSWSC 866 [102]-[109] (Garling J).

[15] A pseudonym has been used to protect the victim's mothers identity.

[16] A pseudonym has been used to protect the victim's fathers identity.

[17] A pseudonym has been used to protect the victim's brothers identity.

[18] A pseudonym has been used to protect the victim's sisters identity.

[19] A pseudonym has been used to protect the victim's grandmothers identity.

[20] See s 16AAAA(1)(a)(ii) Crimes Act 1914 (Cth).

[21] Clarkson v The Queen [2011] VSCA 157; (2011) 32 VR 361, 371 [33] (Maxwell ACJ, Nettle, Neave, Redlich and Harper JJA) ('Clarkson').

[22] [2016] VSCA 148 [47] (Maxwell ACJ, Redlich and Beach JJA) ('Dalgliesh [No. 1]').

[24] [2015] VSCA 194; (2015) 47 VR 268, 280 [18] (Warren CJ, Redlich and Weinberg JJA).

[25] [2008] UKHL 37; [2009] 1 AC 92, 108-109 [48]‑-[49]. See also Clarkson 370‑-371 [32].

[26] [2016] VSCA 218 [39] (Weinberg and Osborn JJA).

[27] [2006] VSCA 90.

[28] Ibid [22]. See also DPP v DDJ [2009] VSCA 115; (2009) 22 VR 444, 454 [40] (Maxwell P, Vincent and Neave JJA) and Pitt (a pseudonym) v The Queen [2020] VSCA 73 [52] (Priest and Weinberg JJA).

[29] See eg Nguyen v The Queen [2016] VSCA 198; (2016) 311 FLR 289, 332 [146] (Redlich JA, Tate and Whelan JJA agreeing); Dalgliesh No.1 [126].

[30] Dalgliesh No.1 [78], [123], [126]; DPP v Charlie Dalgliesh (a pseudonym) [2017] VSCA 360; (2017) 271 A Crim R 1, 16 [75] (Ferguson CJ, Weinberg and Whelan JJA) ('Dalgliesh No. 2').

[31] DPP (Vic) v Dalgliesh (a pseudonym) [2017] HCA 41; (2017) 262 CLR 428, 447 [57] (Kiefel CJ, Bell and Keane JJ) ('Dalgliesh HCA').

[32] See eg R v Wayland (unreported, Supreme Court of Victoria, Court of Criminal Appeal, Crockett, Southwell and Hampel JJ, 14 September 1992) 3-4 (Crockett J, Southwell and Hampel JJ agreeing); R v Sposito (unreported, Supreme Court of Victoria, Court of Criminal Appeal, Marks, Hampel and McDonald JJ, 8 June 1993) ('Sposito') 4-5 (Marks J, Hampel and McDonald JJ agreeing); R v Ware [1997] 1 VR 647, 653 (Hedigan AJA, Winneke P and Hayne JA agreeing); R v Wakime [1997] 1 VR 242, 244 (Winneke P, Hayne JA and Hedigan AJA agreeing) ('Wakime'); R v WEF [1998] 2 VR 385, 387 (Winneke P, Charles JA and Hedigan AJA); DPP v VH [2004] VSCA 180; (2004) 10 VR 234, 237-238 [11], (Callaway JA, Buchanan JA agreeing), 241 [23] (Eames JA); DPP (Vic) v OJA [2007] VSCA 129; (2007) 172 A Crim R 181, 196-7 [33] (Nettle JA, Ashley and Redlich JJA agreeing) ('OJA'); DPP v CPD [2009] VSCA 114; (2009) 22 VR 533, 546-547[54]-[56] (Maxwell P, Redlich JA and Robson AJA); DDJ 453-54 [36]-[40] (Maxwell P, Vincent and Neave JJA); DPP v TDJ [2009] VSCA 317, [14]-[19] (Maxwell P and Neave JA); Reid (a pseudonym) v The Queen [2014] VSCA 145; (2014) 42 VR 295, 310 [83] (Priest JA, Maxwell P and Whelan JA agreeing); Sutton (a pseudonym) v The Queen [2015] VSCA 251, [25]-[28] (Maxwell P and Redlich JA).

[34] [2000] VSCA 66.

[35] Ibid [17]. See also DPP v Toomey [2006] VSCA 90 [18]-[19] (Vincent JA).

[36] [2011] VSCA 157; [2011] 32 VR 361.

[37] See eg Wakime 244; OJA 196-197 [33].

[38] Fichtner v The Queen [2019] VSCA 297 [67] (Maxwell P and Kaye JA).

[40] Sentencing Act 1991 ('SA') s 5A(1); CA s 49B(3), CA s 49D(1) and CA s 49F .

[45] Brown v The Queen [2019] VSCA 286; (2019) 59 VR 462, 464 [4], (Maxwell P, Priest, Kaye, T Forrest and Emerton JJA) ('Brown').

[47] Brown 464 [4], 479 [55]-[57] (applying Muldrock v The Queen [2011] HCA 39; (2011) 244 CLR 120, 132 [27] ((French CJ, Gummow, Hayne, Heydon, Crennan, Kiefel and Bell JJ).

[48] [2021] VSCA 53.

[49] Ibid [31] (Priest and T Forrest JJA).

[50] [2006] VSCA 147; (2006) 163 A Crim R 538.

[52] See eg DPP(Cth) v Garside [2016] VSCA 74; (2016) 50 VR 800, 808 [19] (Redlich and Beach JJA).

[53] See R v De Leeuw [2015] NSWCCA 183 [72] (Johnson J, Ward JA and Garling J agreeing) (citations omitted).

[54] [2018] NSWCCA 152.

[55] [2010] NSWCCA 140; (2010) 201 A Crim R 243.

[56] [2018] NSWCCA 152 [45]. See also DPP v Smith [2010] VSCA 215 [23] (Nettle JA, Harper and Hansen JJA agreeing) ('Smith'), approved and extended to offences of accessing and transmitting child abuse material in Zarb 842 [27] (Neave and Kyrou JJA).

[57] See R v Verdins [2007] VSCA 102; (2007) 16 VR 269, 276 [32] (Maxwell P, Buchanan and Vincent JJA).

[59] See Atholwood v The Queen (1999) 109 A Crim 465, 468 (Ipp J); Cameron v The Queen (2002) 209 CLR 339, 345-6 [20]-[22] (Gaudron, Gummow and Callinan JJ).

[60] [1998] VSCA 39; (1998) 103 A Crim R 51 ('Cooper').

[61] Cooper 55 (Tadgell JA agreeing). See also Raptis v The Queen (1988) 36 A Crim R 362, 366 (Young CJ , O'Bryan & Tadgell JJ).

[62] Cooper 55; R v Gillick [2000] VSCA 127 [20] (Callaway JA, Chernov JA agreeing) .

[63] Barbaro v The Queen [2012] VSCA 288; (2012) 226 A Crim R 354, 365 [38] (Maxwell P, Harper JA and T Forrest AJA) ('Barbaro').

[64] Barbaro 365-66 [38], [40]; Bonacci v The Queen (2012) 224 A Crim R 194, 202 [44] (Neave, Mandie and Harper JJA).

[65] [2013] VSCA 95 [36].

[66] [2012] VSCA 140; (2012) 37 VR 594.

[69] Judicial College of Victoria, Victorian Sentencing Manual, online, page 142 [7.5.3.2].

[70] [2013] VSCA 216; (2013) 40 VR 436.

[71] Ibid 445-6 [36] (Warren CJ and Redlich JA) (citations omitted).

[73] [2024] VSCA 133.

[74] Ibid [34] (Priest and Niall JJA).

[75] [2017] VSCA 305; (2017) 269 A Crim R 526, 543-44 [78] (Ferguson CJ, Maxwell P and Weinberg JA).

[77] [2016] HCA 48; (2016) 259 CLR 256, 266-8 [21]-[25] (Bell, Gageler, Keane, Nettle and Gordon JJ).

[79] [2010] HCA 45; (2010) 242 CLR 520, 537 [54] (French CJ, Gummow, Hayne, Crennan, Kiefel and Bell JJ), quoting Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1, 71 [304].

[80] [2015] VSCA 96; (2015) 250 A Crim R 282, 292 [30]-[31] (Redlich, Priest and Beach JJA). See also Williams (a pseudonym) v The Queen [2021] VSCA 35 [21]-[[25] (Priest and Kyrou JJA) ('Williams').

[81] [2016] VSCA 237; (2016) 53 VR 546, 606-609 [173]-[183] (Redlich, Santamaria and McLeish JJA). See also Williams (a pseudonym) v The Queen [2021] VSCA 35 [21]-[25] (Priest and Kyrou JJA); Russo v The Queen [2021] VSCA 244 [53]-[56] (Emerton JA, Priest JA agreeing).

[82] See DPP (Vic) v Dalgliesh (a Pseudonym) [2017] HCA 41; (2017) 262 CLR 428.

[83] See SA s 6B(1) and Schedule 1, clauses 1(a)(va), 1(df)(iv), 1(df)(v) and 1(df)(vii).

[89] Sex Offenders Registration Act 2004 ('SORA') s 3 and Schedule 1, clause 1.

[90] SORA s 3 and Schedule 2, clause 28A.