procedural. Total effective sentence: imprisonment for 4 years and 10 months with a non-parole period of 2 years and 11 months; declaration under s 6AAA that but for guilty pleas the sentence would have been...
Key principles
In assessing the objective gravity of stalking under s 21A Crimes Act 1958 (Vic), a sentencing court must consider the nature of the conduct, the period over which it occurred,...
The objective gravity of offences producing child pornography is assessed by reference to the De Leeuw factors (nature/content, victims' ages, number of items,...
A diagnosed mental disorder (here, Voyeuristic Disorder) will only reduce moral culpability under Verdins limb 1 if the evidence establishes, on the balance of probabilities, a...
Where Part 2A of the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) applies to 'serious offences', community protection becomes the principal sentencing purpose, and certain consequences follow...
Issues before the court
How should the objective gravity of stalking by voyeurism be assessed for sentencing?
How are offences producing child pornography to be assessed for objective gravity?
Plain English Summary
Ted Isle pleaded guilty to multiple counts of stalking (voyeuristic secret filming), producing child pornography and related surveillance offences spanning 2008–2021 against 11 victims, including girls aged as young as 11. The County Court (Judge Rozen) found the stalking of the child victims to be particularly serious, rejected that a diagnosis of Voyeuristic Disorder reduced moral blameworthiness, and sentenced Isle to an aggregate 4 years 10 months imprisonment (non-parole 2 years 11 months), declared certain offences 'serious' under the Sentencing Act, registered him as a sex offender for life, and recorded that, absent his pleas, the sentence would have been 6 years 3 months (non-parole 4 years 5 months).
AI-generated legal information, not legal advice. Zoe can make mistakes. Check the cited source, and for advice about your situation consult a qualified Australian lawyer.
Deep Dive
1,916 words · generated 10/07/2026
What happened
Ted Isle pleaded guilty in the County Court of Victoria to a series of offences arising from prolonged voyeuristic conduct recorded between 11 April 2008 and 23 January 2021 (reasons for sentence, passim). His offending comprised: 14 charges of stalking contrary to s 21A of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic); eight charges of producing child pornography (s 68 Crimes Act); one charge of producing child abuse material (s 51C(1)); and a number of related summary offences under the Summary Offences Act and Surveillance Devices Act (reasons: opening paragraphs describing charges). Isle covertly filmed and photographed eleven victims, including several girls aged 11–16, through perimeter windows, holes in walls and in at least one supermarket incident (the supermarket event of 23 January 2021 led to his identification) (factual narrative under 'The Offending' and 'Arrest and Charge').
Does the diagnosis of Voyeuristic Disorder reduce moral culpability or the need for general deterrence under Verdins?
How should concurrent and cumulative sentences be structured where the same recordings give rise to stalking and production charges?
Cited legislation
4 cited instruments linked from this judgment.
Police executed a search warrant at his Port Melbourne residence on 11 March 2021 and seized an external hard drive. Forensic examination revealed a folder labelled 'The Collection' containing hundreds of video and photo files documenting the secret recordings (see 'Arrest and Charge'). Isle was charged, pleaded guilty at an early stage, and was sentenced on 3 October 2023 by His Honour Judge Rozen who viewed material and considered extensive victim impact statements and psychological reports tendered by the defence (see 'Victim Impact' and 'Mental Health' sections).
The court sentenced Isle to a total effective term of imprisonment of 4 years and 10 months with a non-parole period of 2 years and 11 months, declared multiple offences 'serious' under Part 2A of the Sentencing Act, recorded that but for his guilty pleas the appropriate sentence would have been 6 years and 3 months (non-parole 4 years 5 months) under s 6AAA, and ordered sex-offender registration for life (disposition and sentencing tables).
Why the court decided this way
The court's reasoning rests on a series of interlinked assessments:
Objective gravity of the offending. The court evaluated the stalking and production charges against established sentencing criteria. For the stalking offences it relied on ordinary sentinel factors: the nature of the conduct, duration, repetition, breach of trust and particular vulnerability of victims (the judge emphasised these factors when assessing the stalking against Lisa, Ellen and Elize as particularly serious). The secret filming of naked children in their homes, repeated across years, and the catalogue of images were held to demonstrate high objective gravity (see the 'Consideration' section where the judge lists factors (a)–(e)).
Child pornography factors. For the production charges the court applied the De Leeuw factors (adopted from R v De Leeuw [2015] NSWCCA 183), the age of the children, gravity of sexual activity depicted, number of items and the length of time for which material was possessed, and concluded the production offences were serious due principally to the age of victims and large numbers of images and videos (see the De Leeuw discussion).
Mental impairment (Verdins). Defence relied on a diagnosis of Voyeuristic Disorder and argued that Verdins principles should reduce moral culpability (limb 1) and possibly moderate general deterrence (limb 3). The court carefully reviewed the psychological evidence. While Dr Barth diagnosed Voyeuristic Disorder, he himself told the court that Verdins principles did not apply to reduce culpability in this case. The court found no causal connection established between any impairment and the offending sufficient to reduce moral blameworthiness. Isle had planned much of the conduct, maintained employment and relationships while offending and did not seek treatment until after arrest. For these reasons the judge concluded moral culpability was high and general deterrence remained an important sentencing objective (see 'Moral Culpability, Verdins' and related paragraphs).
Sentencing structure and Part 2A consequences. Because many of the charges were 'serious offences' under Part 2A of the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic), the court treated community protection as the principal sentencing purpose in relation to those counts, and noted the statutory consequences (declaration as serious offender, the presumption of cumulation, and the requirement to note the status on the court record). Nevertheless the judge also applied the principle of totality and the rule against double punishment to avoid unjust cumulative sentences where the same conduct underlay multiple offences; accordingly, production charges were made largely concurrent with stalking sentences in the 'unusual circumstances' of this case where production was a by-product of stalking (see 'Sentences to be Imposed', especially the approach to cumulation and totality).
Mitigation and plea. The offender's early guilty plea, expressions of remorse, lack of prior convictions and engagement with treatment in custody were accepted as mitigating. The court quantified the effect of the plea by a declaration under s 6AAA: absent the plea the effective total sentence would have been 6 years 3 months (non-parole 4 years 5 months) (see declaration).
Totality and calculation. The judge imposed individual head sentences for each charge, identified a base sentence (stalking relating to the youngest victim, Lisa) and then structured cumulation to achieve an overall sentence that reflected the aggregate criminality without double punishment. The court carefully explained the application of s 6E presumption of cumulation and the continuing relevance of the Mill v R principle of totality (reasons under 'Sentences to be Imposed').
Before and after state of the law
Before this decision: sentencing law for stalking and voyeuristic filming in Victoria already recognised a spectrum of gravity. Authorities like DPP v Fitzgerald illustrated lower-range stalking (threatening messages), while Salvaggio and Snodgrass illustrated more serious voyeuristic filming leading to substantial custodial sentences. Verdins principles are established to assess mental impairment mitigation. De Leeuw is the recognised analytical source for assessing the objective gravity of child abuse material offences.
After this decision: DPP v Isle reinforces several points in the Victorian sentencing landscape:
It confirms that prolonged, secret filming of underage victims in private premises is an objectively high-gravity form of stalking that attracts significant custodial sentences.
It applies De Leeuw factors to production charges in the local context and emphasises the catalogue and editing of images as aggravating.
It demonstrates a careful application of Verdins, a DSM diagnosis does not automatically reduce moral culpability; causation must be made out, and planning/knowingly-wrong conduct will defeat mitigation.
It exemplifies the interaction between Part 2A consequences (community protection as principal purpose, presumption of cumulation) and the ongoing necessity to apply totality and avoid double punishment when the same conduct underpins multiple offences.
In short, the decision is consistent with existing authorities but provides a detailed, contemporary exposition of how these doctrines interact where extensive voyeuristic offending coexists with production of child pornography.
Key passages with plain-English translation
"I consider that you not only knew what you were doing but also that it was wrong." (Judge Rozen), Plain English: The offender understood his actions and their wrongness; the court therefore declines to reduce blame on mental-health grounds.
"The duration and nature of the stalking conduct here is also entirely different to that engaged in by the accused in Fitzgerald.", Plain English: This case is much more serious than low-end stalking cases where messages or single incidents occurred; Isle's prolonged secret filming is on the severe end.
"You cannot be punished twice for the same conduct.", Plain English: If one recorded act gives rise to multiple charges (stalking and production), the court must avoid duplicative punishment for the same physical act; this justifies concurrent sentencing on closely overlapping counts.
"I must regard community protection as the principal sentencing purpose.", Plain English: Because Part 2A applies to several offences, protecting the public is the main objective for those sentences.
"Provided you can continue to participate in the treatment you require in a timely manner, your prospects of rehabilitation are positive.", Plain English: Psychological evidence indicates treatment can reduce risk, but access and the depth of the disorder may limit prospects.
When reading the reasons, these statements explain the court's balancing: seriousness and need to protect versus recognition of mitigation and rehabilitation potential.
What fact patterns trigger this precedent
This decision is most directly engaged where:
An offender embedded a pattern of secret filming or photographing victims in their private spaces (bedrooms, bathrooms) over an extended period;
The recordings depict nudity or sexualised imagery of underage victims (children aged 11–16);
The offender stored, catalogued and edited large numbers of files (a 'collection' of images and videos);
There is planning and repeated behaviour rather than a one-off spontaneous act;
Psychological reports diagnose a paraphilic condition (e.g. Voyeuristic Disorder) but lack persuasive evidence of a causal connection to the offending that would diminish moral blameworthiness;
The factual question of overlap between stalking and production/possession charges exists (same recordings underpinning multiple offences), prompting careful application of the rule against double punishment and totality.
Practitioners should recognise the court treats such patterns as high gravity and will prioritise community protection and general deterrence, while still permitting measured concurrency where the same conduct underwrites multiple offences.
How later courts have treated it
As of this decision date (3 October 2023), this judgment sits in a line of County and appellate decisions grappling with voyeuristic stalking and child-abuse-material sentencing. The judge expressly distinguished Fitzgerald as a low-end stalking case and cited Salvaggio and Snodgrass as analogous examples that justified heavier sentences (reasons). Later courts will treat DPP v Isle as another illustration that prolonged, secret filming of children in private spaces attracts substantial custody and that a mere psychiatric diagnosis will not suffice to reduce moral culpability without causal proof. The decision is particularly notable for its transparent explanation of cumulation choices when the same material generates both stalking and production charges, and for the quantified s 6AAA declaration. Practitioners citing Isle should emphasise its factual proximity: multiple underage victims, long duration, catalogue of material and planning.
Still-open questions
Causal link evidence under Verdins. Isle shows courts will require positive evidence of causation between impairment and offending before reducing moral culpability. But the precise quality and quantity of expert evidence sufficient to prove such causal connection remains underdeveloped. Future cases will clarify what level of etiological linkage expert opinion must establish.
Treatment access in custody and its sentencing weight. Judge Rozen expressed concern about timely access to specialist sex-offender treatment in custody affecting rehabilitation prospects. The extent to which custodial-treatment availability should influence sentence length or parole decisions remains an open policy issue intersecting sentencing.
The boundary between production and stalking for cumulation. Isle took the approach of using stalking as the base and making production largely concurrent because production was a by-product. Future appeals or cases with different factual emphases may refine when and how much concurrency is appropriate, particularly where the production charge involves separate acts or further distribution/profit motives.
Part 2A and proportionality. The judge noted Part 2A permits disproportionate sentences but declined to impose one. How appellate courts will treat instances where sentencing judges exercise Part 2A powers to produce markedly disproportionate outcomes is a developing area.
Sentencing ranges for voyeuristic filming of adults versus children. Isle distinguishes mid-range adult-victim voyeurism from high-range child-victim cases. Quantifying precise ranges and how they fit into existing grids remains a practical area for development.
For practitioners: DPP v Isle is a detailed sentencing exposition for prolonged voyeuristic offending involving children. It is a cautionary precedent that psychiatric diagnosis alone is unlikely to blunt culpability without causal demonstration, and it provides practical guidance on building and resisting mitigation in such fact patterns.
Judgment (86 paragraphs)
[1]
Sentence: Imprisonment for 4 years and 10 months with a non-parole period of 2 years and 11 months - s 6AAA declaration - Imprisonment for 6 years and 3 months with a non-parole period of 4 years and 5 months - Registration as a sex offender for life
[2]
Ted Isle, you have pleaded guilty to the follow offences:
Both of these offences carry a maximum penalty of 2 years' imprisonment or, in the case of using an optical surveillance device, the alternative or addition of a maximum fine of 240 penalty units.[1]
You are to be sentenced on the basis of:
[7]
(a) the Summary of Prosecution Opening for Plea dated 12 April 2023[2] (the Opening), which I note is an agreed document; and
(b) a further document provided to the court by the prosecution on 22 September 2023.[3]
[8]
I also viewed certain images provided to the court by the prosecution.[4]
[9]
Your offending occurred between 11 April 2008 and 23 January 2021 and involved 11 girls and women. The first victim in time was Lisa Faith[5].
[10]
In 2010 you were working as a real estate agent at Ray White. You attended Lisa's family home in relation to its proposed sale in 2010. You met Lisa at this time. She was 11 years old. It was this professional meeting that led to your offending at her family home in subsequent years.
Between 2 October 2010 and 13 August 2011, you secretly filmed Lisa in her bedroom or the bathroom or kitchen of her family home on seven occasions. She was generally unaware that you were doing this although on one occasion she saw a human arm through the window.
When you made the recordings, you were outside the house filming through perimeter windows. The briefest of your recordings was 13 seconds; the longest was 1 minute and 48 seconds. In a number of these recordings, Lisa's naked breasts and buttocks are visible. In one of the recordings, her vagina is visible. During this period, Lisa was between 11 and 12 years of age. In addition, during the period of this charge, you took 36 still images of Lisa which depict her naked body including her breasts, buttocks and vagina. That is the conduct constituting Charge 5 - Stalking.
The creation of 4 videos and 36 images of Lisa between 2 October 2010 and 15 November 2010, as described in paragraph 10 above, is the conduct constituting Charge 6 - Production of Child Pornography.
Between 10 February 2013 and 30 September 2013, you secretly filmed Lisa in her bedroom or the bathroom of her family home on two occasions. You also captured 109 photographs of Lisa's naked body during this time, including her naked breasts, vagina, and buttocks. She was unaware that you were doing this. When you made the recordings and captured the images, you were outside of the house filming through perimeter windows.
The briefest of these recordings was 11 seconds; the longest was 4 minutes and 29 seconds. In a number of these recordings, Lisa's breasts, naked and covered by a bra, are visible. In three of the recordings, Lisa is pictured showering with her naked breasts and vagina visible. During this period, Lisa was 14 years of age. That is the conduct constituting Charge 13 - Stalking.
The creation of 5 videos and 109 images of Lisa between 30 September 2013 and 1 October 2013, as described in paragraph 13 above, is the conduct constituting . In the hard drive on which these files were found, a number of images of Lisa had been edited, or were in the process of being edited together, apparently to compare her body at various times.
Ellen is Lisa's older sister and was 13 when you met her at her family home.
Between 24 October 2010 and 7 December 2010, you surreptitiously filmed Ellen in her bedroom or the bathroom or kitchen of her family home on six occasions. When you made the recordings, you were outside of the house filming through perimeter windows. The briefest of your recordings was 8 seconds; the longest was 2 minutes and 33 seconds.
In a number of these recordings, Ellen is visible fully-clothed cleaning or cooking. In five of the recordings, Ellen's naked breasts are visible. During this period, Ellen was 14 years of age. In addition, you took 33 sexually explicit photographs of Ellen during this time, while filming the videos described above. That is the conduct constituting Charge 7 - Stalking.
The creation of 4 of the videos and the 33 images between 24 October 2010 and 7 December 2010, described above, is the conduct constituting Charge 8 - Production of Child Pornography.
Between 23 January 2011 and 21 December 2011, you secretly filmed Ellen in her bedroom or the bathroom or kitchen of her family home on four occasions. When you made the recordings, you were outside of the house filming through perimeter windows. It appears that you were standing in the garden. The recordings range from 9 seconds to 2 minutes and 26 seconds in duration.
In two of the recordings, Ellen is naked and in a number her naked breasts alone are visible, either in underwear or a bath robe. At the time, Ellen was 15 years of age. In addition, during this period you took 50 photographs of Ellen, one of which is an edited combination of two images of Ellen, apparently as a comparison. That is the conduct constituting Charge 9 - Stalking.
The creation of 5 of the videos and 42 of the photographs between 10 February 2011 and 21 December 2011, as described above, is the conduct constituting Charge 10 - Production of Child Pornography.
Between 10 February 2013 and 30 September 2013, you secretly filmed or photographed Ellen on three occasions. When you made the recordings, you were outside of the house filming through perimeter windows. The recordings are between 26 seconds and 1 minute and 48 seconds. In one of the recordings, Ellen is having a shower, with her naked breasts, vagina, and buttocks available. In addition, during this period you produced 13 photographs of Ellen. Again, one of these images is of Ellen standing naked in her bedroom alongside an image of Ellen drawn from her social media. During this time, Ellen was 17 years of age. That is the conduct constituting .
[13]
You were in an intimate relationship with Anita for approximately two years, commencing in 2012. You met when Ms Button was 20 years old. During your relationship Anita would spend time at your home in Mill Park.
Between 6 November 2011 and 21 December 2011, you made 4 recordings and took 3 photographs of Anita's naked breasts, buttocks, and vagina without her knowledge. The recordings range from 22 seconds to 1 minute and 24 seconds in duration. Anita is depicted in bed in the photographs and it is apparent that she is asleep in most of them. In one of the recordings, you are depicted having sex with Anita and at no point does she acknowledge the camera or appear aware of the recording. In any event, Anita had no knowledge of the videos and photographs found on your hard drive and Anita did not send you any intimate images or videos during your relationship. That is the conduct constituting Summary Charge 235 - Visually Capturing Genital or Anal Region.
Anita states in her victim impact statement[10] that finding out about how you abused her privacy has completely turned her world upside down. She says that there is not a single day when she has not cried or felt uncomfortable in her own skin. Ms Button explains that her quality of life has been reduced and has twice attempted to take her own life. She considers that she will never have a normal life again.
[14]
You met Tara when she commenced working at Harcourts, where you worked. Tara was 21 years old at the time. You worked closely with Tara throughout your time together at Harcourts and you took time to teach Tara about her role.
Between 4 and 15 January 2018, you secretly took 3 recordings and 1 photograph of Tara. The recordings and photograph are all of Tara's genital region and in the photograph she does not appear to be wearing underwear. The briefest of the recordings is 1 minute and 35 seconds; and the longest is 2 minutes and 6 seconds. Tara had no knowledge of the videos and photograph on your hard drive. That is the conduct constituting Summary Charge 236 - Visually Capturing Genital or Anal Region.
In her victim impact statement,[12] Tara explains that she feels betrayed by you as she trusted you and thought you respected her. As a result of your offending, Tara does not trust men in a work setting. She finds your crimes a 'disgusting betrayal of friendship and trust'.
[15]
You met Jenny when she moved into a share house with you at Mill Park between 2007 and 2008. Jenny moved out of the house after an incident following a conversation in which you expressed feelings for her, which were unreciprocated.
After the conversation but before she moved out, Jenny, who had to travel a significant distance by car that night, decided to take a shower to wake herself up for the drive. While in the shower she felt like she was being watched. Jenny looked at the door and saw that it was open slightly and observed you laying on the ground, watching her shower. Jenny screamed and closed the door. You then entered the room and approached the shower, saying, "Give me a hug". Jenny called her friend Peggy[14] and asked her to pick her up from the house.
Between 26 August 2008 and 7 October 2008, you surreptitiously filmed Jenny on 2 occasions. The recordings are made through a small hole in a wall, leading to a bathroom. Jenny had no knowledge of the camera and recordings being made.
In the recordings, Jenny's naked breasts, buttocks, and vagina are variously depicted, with the shortest of the recordings being 28 seconds; and the longest 2 minutes and 42 seconds. In addition, during this time you took 61 screenshots of photographs uploaded to Jenny's social media accounts. This is the conduct constituting Charge 2 - Stalking.
Between 20 February 2009 and 28 June 2009, you secretly filmed and photographed Jenny on eight occasions. In doing so, you again deployed a camera pointing through a small hole in the wall, leading to a bathroom (the bathroom camera). Jenny had no knowledge of the camera and recordings being made. You made a total of 40 recordings in this manner, ranging in duration from 7 seconds to 2 minutes and 43 seconds. Jenny is depicted in various states of nudity, with her naked breasts, buttocks, and vagina showing, as she uses the bathroom to shower, shave, and use the toilet. In addition, you also captured 38 photographs that appear to be screenshots from the above-described videos of Jenny. This is the conduct constituting Charge 3 - Stalking.
You met Peggy through your then housemate, Jenny. Peggy is a close friend of Jenny and visited the home approximately a dozen times during the time you and Jenny lived together. You and Peggy did not have any meaningful interactions in this period.
On 10 May 2009, you deployed the bathroom camera to secretly capture 8 photographs and 2 recordings of Peggy while she was in the bathroom. Peggy had no knowledge of the camera and recordings and photographs. In the two videos, of 21 and 22 seconds duration, and seven of the photographs, Peggy's naked breasts are visible. This is the conduct constituting Summary Charge 237 - Using Optical Surveillance Device.
[18]
You met Jennifer in 2009 when she moved into the house you were living in in Mill Park. Jennifer was 18 years of age at the time and was commencing her first semester at La Trobe University. Jennifer moved out in May of that year after learning of the incident involving Jenny, and during her time living at the home she didn't interact with you much.
When Jennifer was packing her bedroom to leave, she found a red digital camera under her doona cover. She recognised the camera as belonging to you.
Between 26 February 2009 and 15 June 2009, you secretly filmed Jennifer on three occasions using the bathroom camera. Jennifer had no knowledge of the camera or recordings on your hard drive. In the recordings, Jennifer is depicted in various states of nudity, with her naked breasts, buttocks, and vagina showing, as she uses the bathroom to shower, shave, and use the toilet. The shortest of the recordings is 31 seconds; and the longest 1 minute and 9 seconds. This is the conduct constituting Charge 4 - Stalking.
In her victim impact statement, Jennifer explains that she feels anxious and is unable to sleep when she is away from home for work.[17] Since finding out about the offending, she states that she is anxious and unable to sleep when she has to stay away from home for work. She is hurt and angry and has a lack of trust in other people.
You met Gianna in 2011 when she commenced working at Ray White, where you worked. You worked with Gianna throughout your time together at Ray White but you did not have a relationship outside of work, other than being connected on social media.
Between 19 October 2011 and 11 December 2011, you secretly took a 2 second recording of Gianna's genital area by pointing a camera up her skirt as well as taking two photographs in the same manner, capturing Gianna's buttocks. Gianna had no knowledge of the video or photos on your hard drive. The is the conduct constituting Summary Charge 238 - Visually Capturing Genital or Anal Region.
Elize lived next door to you with her father in Mill Park. Elize remembers you giving her a Ray White money box and asking her to walk your dog. Elize also remembers several incidents involving you, including in 2012 when she was in grade 5, when she observed you watching her changing through her bedroom window at night. These incidents have now assumed a sinister complexion in light of your pleas.
Between 11 September 2013 and 1 January 2013, you secretly filmed and photographed Elize on three occasions in a bathroom of her home. She was unaware that you were doing this. The recordings and photographs were taken through a perimeter window. In the recordings and photographs, Elize is in pyjamas and appears to be getting ready for bed. In one of the photographs, Elize is wearing a bikini and is walking outside a house. The two recordings are 35 seconds and 2 minutes and 7 seconds. During this period, Elize is between 11 and 12 years of age. That is the conduct constituting Charge 12 - Stalking.
Between 18 and 27 November 2014, you secretly filmed and photographed Elize on two occasions in her bedroom, capturing 11 photos and a video. She was unaware that you were doing this. The recordings and photographs were taken through a perimeter window. In the 30-second video, Elize is depicted removing her bra and underwear, exposing her naked breasts, vagina, and buttocks. In nine of the photographs, Elize's naked buttocks are visible, and in two her naked breasts are also visible. During this period, Elize is 13 years of age. This is the conduct constituting Charge 19 - Stalking.
The creation of the video and 11 photographs between 18 and 27 November 2014, as described above, is the conduct constituting Charge 20 - Production of Child Pornography.
Elize is now a young woman and completed a victim impact statement. In that statement,[20] Elize explains that she has suffered from anxiety for several years since she was about 13. She was unable to work for several weeks after being told by police about your crimes in June 2022. She considers that her younger self had her innocence stripped from her. She feels that, as her neighbour, you betrayed her trust 'in the most vile way possible'.
[23]
Alicia has no memory of ever meeting you. However, Alicia, like Elize, recalls certain incidents she now sees in a different light.
The three incidents occurred when she was 19 or 20 years old and living with her mother at a unit in Bundoora. One of these incidents occurred when Alicia was in her bedroom, watching TV with a friend. Her roller blind was up and it was late at night. Alicia and her friend both saw a hand, holding a camera phone appear in the bottom right of her bedroom window. Alicia and her friend screamed and the hand moved away. Alicia later spoke to her mother who reported the incident to police but on their arrival, she was too flustered to explain what happened and was eventually admonished by her mother for laughing at the time.
On 11 April 2008, you covertly recorded Alicia, creating two videos. She was unaware that you were doing this. The recordings were taken through a perimeter window with the blinds almost closed. One video depicts Alicia's naked breasts and the other, her naked breasts and vagina. The recordings are 8 and 32 seconds long. This is the conduct constituting Charge 1 - Stalking.
On 19 October 2011, you secretly photographed Alicia seven times. The photographs were taken through a perimeter window with the blinds almost closed and depict Alicia's naked breasts. This is the conduct constituting Charge 11 - Stalking.
In addition, the folder on which the material depicting Alicia was found, contains 92 screenshots from Alicia's social media accounts.
Alicia explains in her victim impact statement that she has been left perpetually anxious and afraid to be alone.[22] She finds herself questioning any man she has ever known. She states that your conduct has affected how she grew up and her relationships with males.
She says that she is concerned that she does not 'know where my body is on the internet or who has seen it without my consent' and that she 'will live with this forever'.
On 23 January 2021, June Bolt and Vivian Rey, 11 and 12 years of age, were shopping at the Coles supermarket in Port Melbourne. The pair were accompanied by an older sister.
You observed the girls selecting goods from a shelf in an aisle which you then entered. You walked past the girls and looked at an item on the shelf next to them. You then placed your shopping basket on the ground and accessed your mobile phone. You opened the camera and started recording a video, crouched down next to the girls and reached under their skirts, capturing a video of the genital area of Vivian.[25] This is the conduct constituting Charge 23 - Producing Child Abuse Material.
[26]
The offending in the supermarket was reported to police by the manager who passed on your banking details from the register's records. Police checked with the ANZ Bank and identified you as the shopper concerned.
Police then obtained a search warrant authorising a search of your residence in Port Melbourne which they searched on 11 March 2021. In the course of executing the warrant police seized a number of items of your property. During that time, you identified for police an item of clothing you had worn earlier in the day. While picking up that item, you attempted to hide an external hard drive which the police also seized.
On 1 April 2021, police used the password you had given them to access this device and a forensic analysis was conducted of the drive.
That analysis revealed a folder path of files entitled 'The Collection'. The Collection contained hundreds of video and photo files and that is the evidence that gives rise to the charges to which you have pleaded guilty.
[27]
As noted earlier in these reasons, seven of your eleven victims made Victim Impact Statements. Those statements were tendered in evidence by the prosecution. A number were read in open court.
The Statements make for very disturbing reading and paint a clear picture of the devastation you have caused to the lives of these young women. In these reasons for sentence it is only possible to provide brief summaries of the statements.
While the court has not received Victim Impact Statements from the remaining four complainants, I proceed on the basis that the revelation to them of your conduct has also been traumatic for them.
As I am required to do by law, I have had regard to the impact of your offending on the eleven complainants in determining the appropriate sentence to impose.[26]
[28]
At the time of the offending you were between 27 and 39 years of age; you are now 42. You have no prior criminal history; nor have you offended since the last of your offending.
The court had the benefit of a detailed submission about your biographical details from your counsel Mr Dunn KC.
You were born in Adelaide, the oldest of a sibship of two. You had an unremarkable childhood. You were raised by two parents in a loving environment, and you were not exposed to any mistreatment. I note the continuing presence and ongoing support of your parents in court.
You were a good student and, owing to your sporting ability, became popular with other children. After primary school, you attended Urrbrae Agricultural High School to pursue a future career as a veterinarian. Your friendship group attended another high school and you became isolated hereafter.
Further, during this time you developed a severe case of acne, causing you to become sensitive about your physical appearance. This coincided with a time when other male students began having girlfriends and you perceived yourself as precluded from such relationships because of your appearance.
After transferring to Unley High School at the end of year 10, you ultimately left school at beginning of year 12. From here, you obtained employment in various hospitality roles in Adelaide and Mount Buller, Victoria, as well as a six-month stint as a welder and machine operator.
You moved to Melbourne at 23 years of age and commenced working in real estate after obtaining your licence through the Real Estate Institute of Victoria. You enjoyed a successful career in this industry, including being involved in a number of your own property development projects.
You have no history of sexual abuse and have never been subjected to unwanted sexual advances, or coercive or abusive sexual experiences. Your first sexual experience occurred when you were 17 years of age and you had a number of casual sexual encounters during your late teens.
Your only long-term relationship has been with your ex-wife Ms Lorraine Hennig[27]. You married in 2018 and have one son together who is now two years of age. Your marriage came under considerable strain once you were charged. Ms Hennig asked you to leave the family home and you separated. Before you were remanded, you assisted with your son's care and you are hopeful that you may be able to reconcile in the future.
[29]
Three detailed psychological reports were tendered on your behalf:
[30]
(a) A report dated 10 April 2023 prepared by Geoffrey Burrows, Provisional Psychologist and Dr Philip Greenway, Clinical Psychologist;[28]
(b) A report dated 14 July 2023 prepared by Geoffrey Burrows, Provisional Psychologist and Dr Philip Greenway, Clinical Psychologist;[29] and
(c) A report dated 5 July 2023 prepared by Dr Mathew Barth, Psychologist.[30]
[31]
In addition, the court heard oral evidence from Dr Barth at the resumed hearing on 22 September 2023.
Dr Burrows reports that he has been your treating counsellor since 16 March 2021. He has treated you in the Sex-Offender Treatment Program at your expense on 42 occasions. He reports that you have engaged in a productive manner and are developing a degree of insight into your offending behaviour.
Mr Burrows states that you previously considered the sexual objectification of female teenagers as harmless and he considers that you require ongoing intervention 'given the long-standing nature of these issues'.
Dr Barth saw you on two occasions in March of 2023 and took a detailed family relationship and sexual history from you. Dr Barth was aware of the counselling you have been receiving from Mr Burrows.
You told Dr Barth that you first developed voyeuristic fantasies in 2008 after being rejected by Ms Woods. You felt 'emasculated' when she had other men over to the house you shared with her and felt lonely at the time. You developed a curiosity to see her naked and viewed her through holes in the bathroom wall.
Your behaviour escalated in the following years but largely ceased in 2014.
Dr Barth quotes you as apologising for your behaviour and the trust you have victims' dignity.[31]
Dr Barth opines that the medium of recording your victims 'allowed him to gain access into their "private world". This helped to assuage your sense of isolation.[32] Your offending against children resulted from 'distorted cognitions' about there sexuality.[33]
By way of diagnosis, Dr Barth concludes that you present with 'significant psychosexual pathology' which is sufficiently severe to warrant a diagnosis of 'Voyeuristic Disorder' by DSM-5-TR criteria. You have a 'clear need' for continued specialised assistance to address this condition'.[34]
By way of future risk, Dr Barth applied the Risk of Sexual Violence Protocol -Version 2 and assessed you as 'no less than a Moderate-Risk of re-offending'.[35] The particular risk factors emphasised by Dr Barth are the chronic nature of your offending spanning several years and multiple complainants; the diversity of your conduct; the escalation in frequency; the previous propensity to minimise the seriousness of the offending; and the 'entrenched voyeuristic fantasies that involved the underaged complainants...'.
[32]
In helpful written submissions filed on your behalf,[38] and oral submissions in court, your counsel, Mr Dunn KC argued that your offending is an example of 'stalking by voyeurism'. Such cases, he submitted, 'may result in relatively inconsequential harm for the victim'. Further, Mr Dunn submitted that a court sentencing in such a case should craft a sentence that 'acts as an appropriate intervention to help the offender change their behaviour'.[39]
Mr Dunn submits that 'the gravity of the stalking offending is low'. In support of that submission, reference is made to paragraph 2.17 of a report about sentencing in stalking cases published in 2022 by the Sentencing Advisory Council.[40] That paragraph in turn references the case of DPP v Fitzgerald.[41] In that case, the accused had on one night sent a series of threatening text messages to, and left a series of threatening voicemail messages for, a man he suspected of sleeping with his ex-girlfriend. The court assessed the offending as being at the lower end of the range.[42] The accused was sentenced to a combination sentence of imprisonment for 12 months and a two-year CCO for the stalking offence and other offending.
[33]
Ms Moran submitted that the stalking charges are serious examples of the offence for which your moral culpability is considerable. She referred to the age of the three child victims, the duration of the offending and the fact that most of the victims were in their own homes at the time of the offending.
[34]
In my view, the present case bears little resemblance to that of Fitzgerald. Far from the harm being 'relatively inconsequential', the harm caused by your stalking is profound, as evidenced by the Victim Impact Statements to which I have earlier referred. The duration and nature of the stalking conduct here is also entirely different to that engaged in by the accused in Fitzgerald.
DPP v Salvaggio[43] is an example of a case with facts somewhat similar to yours. While executing a search warrant in respect of other offending, police located a video file on the accused's computer which contained recordings made by the accused of his 47-year-old female neighbour. She had been filmed in the nude through her bedroom window on five occasions over a four-month period. After pleading guilty,[44] the accused was sentenced to three years' imprisonment in respect of one charge of stalking.[45]
A further example of a 'stalking by voyeurism' case is the South Australian case of Snodgrass v R.[46] Over a 10 year-period, a chiropractor secretly filmed over 200 of his female patients aged between 11 and 60 while they were changing prior to being examined by him. The films, which he stored with titles that described features of the bodies of the patients, showed the bare breasts and underwear of the patients. He did not distribute the recordings.
The accused, who had no prior convictions, was not charged with stalking but faced a range of charges including 'indecent filming' of adults and minors as well as production of child exploitation material. His sentence of 10 years and three months' imprisonment was upheld on appeal.
Ms Moran referred the court to DPP v Burke[47]. The accused pleaded guilty to eight charges of stalking and a number of other charges relating to accessing, making and possessing child pornography. The offender was on bail and a registered sex offender at the time of the offending. He had an extensive and concerning criminal history. His rehabilitation prospects were assessed by the sentencing Judge as 'bleak'.[48]
[35]
(a) The lengthy periods of time over which the stalking occurred particularly in relation to Lisa and Ellen;
(b) The nature of the stalking - filming and photographing the girls while they were naked or near naked;
(c) The repeated offending against multiple victims;
(d) The particular vulnerability of the young victims; and
(e) The harm caused to each of the victims.
[36]
In light of these considerations, I reject your counsel's submission and assess the objective gravity of the stalking offending of these complainants as high.
The other stalking charges (Charges 1, 2, 3, 4 and 11), while clearly involving profound invasions of privacy, are less serious examples of the offence than those involving the three victims who were children at the time of your offending. I make this assessment because the victims in these cases were adults at the time of the offending and the offending generally occurred over a shorter duration. For example, you stalked Alicia on two separate occasions in April 2008 (Charge 1) and October 2011 (Charge 11).
I therefore consider the remaining stalking charges to be mid-range examples of the offence.
Turning to the charges of making child pornography, the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal, in the oft-cited case of R v De Leeuw,[50] summarised the factors that have consistently applied in determining the objective gravity of child abuse material offences:
[37]
(i) the nature and content of the material, in particular the age of the children and the gravity of the sexual activity depicted;
[38]
(iii) whether the material is for the purpose of sale or further distribution;
[39]
(iv) whether the offender will profit from the offence;
[40]
(v) in the case of possession or access of child pornography for personal use, the number of children depicted and thereby victimised; and
[41]
(vi) the length of time for which the pornographic material was possessed[51]
[42]
Although that case concerned federal offences, the factors are of general application to a case such as yours.
Applying these factors, I consider the making child pornography charges to be serious examples of that offence. This is principally because of the age of the three victims and the number of images you created, catalogued and stored. I note you have not been charged with accessing the material and there is no evidence before the court that you distributed the images to anyone else.
[43]
In his written submissions, your counsel submitted that your moral culpability for your offending is reduced by reason of your mental impairment being 'Voyeuristic Disorder'. It was submitted on your behalf that 'limb 1 of the Verdins principles is enlivened in your case'.[52] Reliance was also placed on limb 3.
The case of Verdins stands for the proposition that an accused's mental health may be relevant to sentencing in six different ways which are commonly referred to as the 6 'limbs' of Verdins.[53] Limb 1 states that the moral culpability of an accused person (as distinct from their legal responsibility) may be reduced by reason of their mental impairment. If that is so, the condition affects the punishment that is just and denunciation is less likely to be a relevant sentencing objective.
Limb 3 holds that general deterrence should be moderated or even eliminated as a sentencing consideration in such a case.
Your counsel referred the court to the cases involving Jason Carroll.[54] In the first of these, the Court of Appeal explained that, where reliance is placed on limb 1 of Verdins, 'the question for the Court is whether the evidence establishes - on the balance of probabilities - that the impairment of mental functioning did contribute to the offending in such a way as to render the offender less blameworthy for the offending than he/she would otherwise have been'.[55]
As the Court of Appeal went on to explain, very often this will require a consideration of whether the evidence establishes a 'causal connection between impairment of mental functioning and the offending for which sentence is to be imposed'.[56]
The facts in Carroll bear some resemblance to your case. The accused pleaded guilty to 34 charges involving 13 female victims. Over a six-year period he had stalked his victims in an obscene manner and had stolen their underwear and other property. He was diagnosed with a range of conditions including voyeurism which a psychiatrist considered had 'made a contribution to his offending'.[57]
[44]
The principal consideration that mitigates sentence in your case are your pleas of guilty to all of the charges on the indictment. The plea was made at the committal mention - i.e. at an early stage of the proceedings. Your guilty plea saves the many victims the ordeal of giving evidence at a lengthy trial.
It is also a demonstration of your acceptance of your responsibility for your offending.
Finally, a plea in a case such as this saves the court resources and those of the prosecution. This so-called utilitarian benefit is especially important given the ongoing backlog in this court due to the pandemic.[62]
I accept that you are remorseful. This is demonstrated not only by what you told both Dr Barth and Mr Burrows but especially by the letter of apology that you provided to the court part of which was read aloud by your counsel. In that letter, you acknowledge the ongoing trauma of your victims as well as the impact of your offending on your family.
I also take into account that you are to be sentenced as a first time offender.
[45]
Dr Barth considers that, provided you can continue to participate in the treatment you require in a timely manner, your prospects of rehabilitation are positive. This is based on your past approach to the treatment, continued family support, your intelligence and employment history and that you have found your experience of the criminal justice system to be 'profoundly aversive'.[63]
While I generally accept this assessment, I am a little less sanguine about your prospects based on the risk assessment made by Dr Barth and the entrenched and deep seated nature of your disorder. I am also uncertain about your ability to access treatment in custody in a timely manner. I would therefore assess your prospects as no more than reasonable.
[46]
The main sentencing considerations in your case are deterrence, both general and specific and community protection. I accept the submission of Mr Dunn that your rehabilitation plays a part in the latter. I must also express the community's denunciation of your offending.
While specific deterrence is relevant, the steps you have taken by way of treatment and your completion of a number of courses in custody combined with your lack of prior convictions make it less relevant than other cases discussed earlier such as Carroll and Burke.
I consider that it is appropriate to impose an aggregate sentence of imprisonment in respect of the victims where there are multiple stalking charges. Each 'course of conduct' is an offence of a similar character.[64]
Because the producing child pornography charges are 'serious offences' within the meaning of Part 2A of the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic), this approach is not permissible in relation to those charges.[65] Charge 23, producing child abuse material, is also a charge for an offence to which Part 2A applies.
This has a number of consequences:
[47]
(a) As I am imposing terms of imprisonment for each of the nine 'serious offences', you will be declared a serious sex offender in respect of each of the 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th of those offences;
(b) I must regard community protection as the principal sentencing purpose;[66]
(c) I may impose a disproportionate sentence but note that I have not been asked to in this case and will not;[67]
(d) Each of those terms of imprisonment is to be served cumulatively on the other sentences unless I otherwise direct;[68] and
(e) Your status as a serious offender is to be noted on the court record.[69]
[48]
I consider the stalking charges to be the most serious of your offending. This assessment is informed by the features of your stalking and, in particular, by the descriptions in the various victim impact statements of the effect of the breach of the victims' privacy as what has caused them the greatest distress.
I have made the stalking charge in relation to the youngest of your victims (Lisa) the base sentence.
In determining the appropriate periods to cumulate, I have taken into account that the conduct which is relied upon for the stalking charges (filming and photographing) is broadly the same conduct relied upon for the producing child pornography charges. You cannot be punished twice for the same conduct.[70] As conceded by the prosecution, even though you retained the images on your hard drive, you are not to be sentenced for possessing the pornography which was, at the relevant time, a separate offence.[71]
I have therefore made the sentences that I impose on the child pornography charges largely concurrent. This is despite the presumption of cumulation in s 6E of the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic). In the unusual circumstances of this case, where I have taken the view that the most egregious offending is the stalking and the production of child pornography was a 'by-product' of that offending, I have approached the question of cumulation in this way. I also note that s 6E of the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) does not displace the principle of totality which must still be applied.[72]
Totality is an important sentencing consideration in your case. The application of that principle requires me first to impose what I consider to be appropriate sentences in respect of each of the charges having regard to all of the relevant circumstances. I have then determined the extent to which each individual sentence should be served cumulatively on the sentence that I have identified as the base sentence. Finally, I have taken a last look and determined if the total sentence appropriately reflects the totality of your criminal behaviour.
[49]
The total effective sentence is imprisonment for 4 years and 10 months.
The minimum period that you must spend in custody before you are eligible for parole is 2 years and 11 Months.
Pursuant to section 6AAA of the Sentencing Act1991 (Vic), but for your pleas of guilty, I would have imposed a total effective sentence of 6 years and 3 months with a non-parole period of 4 years and 5 months.
Pursuant to section 18 of the Sentencing Act1991 (Vic), I declare the period you have spent on remand, being 64 days, is to be reckoned as time served in respect of the sentence I impose today.
Total effective sentence: imprisonment for 4 years and 10 months with a non-parole period of 2 years and 11 months; declaration under s 6AAA that but for guilty pleas the sentence would have been 6 years 3 months with non-parole 4 years 5 months; offender declared a serious offender in respect of multiple charges and registered as a sex offender for life.
Charge 16 - Production of Child Pornography
Between 13 February 2014 and 4 June 2014, you created 11 images and a video of Lisa. In the video, of 1 minute and 10 seconds duration, you captured Lisa through a perimeter window having a shower. Lisa's naked breasts and vagina are visible. The images capture Lisa's naked breasts, vagina and buttocks and appear to have been taken at the same time as you filmed Lisa in the shower. One of the images is a screenshot of a photograph you have taken of Lisa combined with a photograph of Lisa drawn from social media. The screenshot appears to be a comparison photograph. During this period, Lisa was 14 years of age. That is the conduct constituting Charge 17 - Production of Child Pornography.
On 5 March 2015, the final date on which you offended against Lisa, you took a video of her in her bedroom from outside her home. In the video, Lisa's naked breasts and vagina are captured. The recording is 1 minute and 46 seconds duration. Lisa was 16 years of age. That is the conduct constituting Charge 21 - Production of Child Pornography.
Between 2019 and 2020, Lisa spoke with you about her wish to work in real estate. You were at Harcourts real estate agency and interviewed her for a job but ultimately told her there were no positions available. Lisa was connected to you via 'LinkedIn' and had a mobile phone number for you.
Lisa is now 24 years old and has prepared a victim impact statement in which she describes the profound emotional, physical and social impact of your offending on her life.[6] In brief summary, Lisa explains that she is in a 'constant state of paranoia, anxiety, depression and fear'. She fears that she is being watched, followed and that her 'body and human dignity are being accessed against my will at the disposal of another human'. She explains that she struggles with daily life activities and struggles to trust others especially males. She feels 'completely hopeless most days, completely scared and completely defeated'.
Charge 14 - Stalking
The creation of 2 of the videos and 12 images of Ellen between 10 February 2013 and 30 September 2013, as described above, is the conduct constituting Charge 15 - Production of Child Pornography.
On 20 July 2014, you secretly filmed Ellen in her bedroom through perimeter windows. The three recordings range from 13 seconds to 2 minutes and 42 seconds and in one of the videos, Ellen is depicted removing her clothing, exposing her naked breasts. At the time, Ellen was 18 years of age. That is the conduct constituting Charge 18 - Stalking.
On 5 November 2015, you secretly filmed Ellen through perimeter windows in her bedroom or the bathroom of her family home. The 22 recordings range from 1 second to 3 minutes and 23 seconds in duration. In several of the recordings, Ellen is depicted in her underwear and in others Ellen's naked breasts, buttocks, and vagina are visible. In two of the videos, the recording zooms in to capture Ellen's buttocks and underwear more clearly. On this day, you also captured 7 photographs of Ellen. At the time, Ellen was 19 years of age. That is the conduct constituting Charge 22 - Stalking.
In her victim impact statement,[8] Ellen explains that she distrusts men and can be overwhelmed around older males. She is anxious and depressed. She was recently looking to buy a home and found being around real estate agents 'extremely overwhelming'. Ellen's relationship with her mother and sister broke down shortly after she was informed of your conduct. She feels abandoned by them and does not speak to them. She feels paranoid at home when she is near windows.
Mr Dunn informed the court that the State government department responsible for child welfare has prevented you from seeing your son and you have even been prevented from having a photograph of him in prison.
Mr Dunn submitted and I accept that you have suffered and will continue to suffer from extra-curial punishment. Your marriage is over; your career as a real estate agent is over and it is unclear when you will be able to see your son again. These are all matters to be taken into account by the court.
Dr Barth clarifies that the extant risk is 'almost entirely related to non-contact sexual offending' and 'with the continuation of specialist sex-offender treatment, this risk is expected to reduce'.[37]
In answer to questions by Ms Moran who appeared for the prosecution, Dr Barth agreed that he had assessed the risk relative to other sex offenders and that it could be higher than moderate.
The stalking involved filming young women while they were in various states of undress in their own homes. In one case the victim was a 15 year old girl.
His Honour Judge Ryan imposed a total effective sentence of eight years' imprisonment. On each of the stalking charges the accused received a sentence of 1 year's imprisonment of which three months on each was to be served cumulatively upon the head sentence of 2 years' imprisonment for knowingly possessing child pornography.
Such cases are of course not precedents. As has been explained by the High Court, they merely provide some guidance to a sentencing court about the range of applicable sentences.[49] A determination of the appropriate sentence in a particular case requires a consideration of a range of factors involving both the offending and the offender.
The offence of stalking covers a wide range of behaviour and occurs in a wide range of circumstances. In assessing the objective gravity of a particular instance of stalking, a court will consider all of the circumstances including the nature of the conduct, the period of time over which it occurred, whether there was a breach of trust and whether the victim was particularly vulnerable.
Considering these aspects, I conclude that the charges of stalking by you against Lisa, Ellen and Elize are particularly serious examples of the offence against s 21A of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic). I make this assessment in light of:
In sentencing the offender to 12 years' imprisonment (including a base sentence of five years for a roiled up count of stalking) with a non-parole period of 10 years, the sentencing judge rejected the argument that the accused's moral culpability was reduced by his psychological profile. The Court of Appeal found no error in that assessment. That Court emphasised the finding of the sentencing judge that the accused knew what he was doing and had 'no difficulty maintaining skilled employment and personal relationships while continuing to offend'.[58]
Nor did an appeal ground of manifest excess succeed. The Court of Appeal considered the sentences, including the sentence of 50% of the maximum for the stalking count, as within range. Reference was made to the profound effect of the stalking on the victims.[59] Specific deterrence was particularly important as the offender had prior convictions for similar behaviour.
Returning to the Verdins question in your case, as noted earlier, you were diagnosed by Dr Barth in 2023 with 'Voyeuristic Disorder'. Dr Barth opines that the 'major psychological motivations' for your offending were primarily 'a grossly dysfunctional attempt to assuage his sense of disconnection from others and his frustration by providing him with "special access" to the private worlds of the complainants'.[60]
In answer to a direct question from the Court, Dr Barth was of the view that the Verdins principles had no application to your case so as to reduce your moral culpability or to moderate the need for general deterrence.
I consider that you not only knew what you were doing but also that it was wrong. The evidence before the court is that you are an intelligent man. With the exception of the most recent charges which involved spontaneous conduct, there was extensive and sophisticated planning and calculation associated with much of your offending. During the period of your offending, you held down a demanding, responsible and well-paid job.[61] While you may well have been aware of your voyeurism disorder, you did nothing to seek help for it until after your arrest in 2021. You had ample opportunity to desist from offending but chose to continue.
On the evidence before the Court, I do not accept that there is evidence of a causal relationship between any mental impairment from which you may have suffered from 2008 onwards and your offending. Limb 1 of Verdins is not enlivened in your case. I consider your moral culpability for your offending to be high.
For similar reasons, I do not consider that it is necessary to moderate general deterrence as a sentencing objective in your case under limb 3 of Verdins. As I explain later in these reason, general deterrence is an important aspect of sentencing in cases involving sexual offending directed at children.