DPP v Willis

1. Benjamin Maddox-Yates,[2] you have pleaded guilty to the following offences:

(a) Distribution of child abuse material contrary to s 51D(1) of the Crimes Act which carries a maximum penalty of 10 years' imprisonment; and

(b) Bestiality contrary to s 54A(1) of the Crimes Act which carries a maximum penalty of 5 years' imprisonment.

1. The factual basis upon which the two offenders are to be sentenced is set out in a Summary of Prosecution Opening for Plea Hearing dated 19 January 2026. The following brief summary draws on that document.
2. David Willis was born in August 1977 and is currently 48 years old. At the time of the offending, he was aged between 40 and 45 and lived in Tarneit.
3. Benjamin Maddox-Yates was born in December 1996 and is currently 29 years old. At the time of the offending, Mr Maddox-Yates was aged between 21 and 26 and also lived in Tarneit.
4. During the offending period, Mr Willis and Mr Maddox-Yates were in an intimate personal relationship and resided at separate addresses.
5. The conduct engaged in by the offenders included the distribution of Child Abuse Material ("CAM"), some of which included children to whom they were related.
6. One of those children was Austin Willis,[3] the nephew of Mr Willis, and the son of Mr Willis's brother, Gale Willis.[4]
7. Austin was born in July 2018 and was 4 years' old at the time of the conduct engaged in for Charge 4.
8. Mr Willis would have regular contact with Austin and his niece Charlotte Willis[5] including visits and sleepovers.
9. Two further children the subject of shared CAM media files and discussion were two nephews of Mr Maddox-Yates: Leroy Yates[6] (born January 2016) and Tyler Yates[7] (born May 2018).
10. Leroy and Tyler are the children of Mr Maddox-Yates' brother, Jonah Maddox-Yates[8] and his partner Kerry Salinas.[9]

1. On 16 August 2024, Brimbank Sexual Offences and Child Abuse Investigation Team ("SOCIT") received a report forwarded by Victoria Police from the National Centre for Missing and Exploited Children. The report disclosed peer-to-peer sharing of CAM from Mr Willis to a male known to him, via the Instagram social media platform under the alias "davey_willy".3
2. On 20 September 2024, members from Brimbank SOCIT executed a search warrant pursuant to s 465 of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) at the residence of Mr Willis in Tarneit.
3. During the course of the search warrant, a number of exhibits were seized. Among these items was a mobile telephone, being an iPhone 14 ProMax belonging to Mr Willis.
4. Immediately following the completion of the search warrant on 20 September 2024, Victoria Police officers conducted a preliminary review of the contents of the seized mobile telephone of Mr Willis.
5. Examination of the stored images on the phone revealed apparent CAM, including videos of a child naked in what appeared to be a portable shower where the video was zoomed in onto the child's genitals with Mr Willis instructing the child to apply soap to his body and assisting the child to do so.
6. The child bore a resemblance to Austin Willis, based on photographs of Austin observed by police officers during the search warrant at Mr Willis's residence (see Charge 4 below).
7. Other videos depicted an unknown child urinating and a prepubescent child being orally penetrated by an unknown male.
8. Utilising the Interpose Baseline Categorisation system which sorts CAM into certain categories, the video observed would be categorised as Category 1 CAM. Content categorised as Category 1 depicts a real prepubescent child (under the age of 13 years approximately) who is involved in a sex act, witnessing a sex act or the material is focused / concentrated on the anal or genital region of the child.
9. Content categorised as Category 2 depicts other child abuse material not fitting within Category 1 and describes, generally, a person who is or appears to be a child engaging in or witnessing sexual activity or physical or sexual abuse which a reasonable person would regard as being offensive.
10. Further analysis of Mr Willis's iPhone 14 ProMax revealed that he used the WhatsApp messaging platform, where he operated under the name 'Davey' utilising mobile phone number ending in 415.
11. It was determined that Mr Maddox-Yates also used the WhatsApp messaging platform, where he operated under the name 'Benjamin. Hottie' utilising phone number ending in 652
12. A review of the chat log between Mr Willis and Mr Maddox-Yates revealed the sharing of graphic CAM images and videos between 2017 and 2023. It was also revealed that the video of Austin Willis had been shared between the two offenders, as well as CAM media files of Leroy Yates and Tyler Yates.
13. Turning to the charges before the court.

1. Charge 1 concerns material located on Mr Willis's phone. There were a total of 1,610 files possessed by Mr Willis of which 1,475 were categorised as Category 1 CAM. That is they depicted real prepubescent children (under the age of 13 approximately) who were involved in a sex act or witnessed a sex act. The remaining files were categorised as Category 2.
2. The material was possessed by Mr Willis over a period of 6 years and 9 months between 14 December 2017 and 20 September 2024.

1. Charge 2 is concerned with CAM that was shared by Mr Willis with Mr Maddox-Yates. Mr Willis shared a total of 1,131 files between December 2017 and June 2023 via WhatsApp Chat.
2. All of the files were categorised as Category 1 CAM. The files shared included videos of prepubescent male children being anally penetrated by adult males; children anally penetrating other children; a prepubescent female child penetrating her vagina; and an infant performing oral sex on an adult male.
3. While exchanging a message on 12 March 2018, which attached a video depicting a male infant being anally penetrated by an adult male, the following conversation took place:

Maddox-Yates: I wish he fucked him longer... Also unless the family knows, how havnt they noticed their babys hole is stretched ... lol [sic]

1. On 11 October 2019, while sharing eight files which included a video of a male infant being anally penetrated by an adult male, the following conversation took place:

Maddox-Yates: Any more vids of baby's getting fucked? ... Can you send me everything from that group?

Maddox-Yates: No, it's more. I'm going away for 5 days and need something to wank to.

1. The final video shared by Mr Willis with Mr Maddox-Yates on 15 June 2023 was of Mr Willis's nephew, Austin Willis, aged 4. As noted earlier, the video showed Austin showering in a portable shower as Mr Willis instructs him to wash himself and Mr Willis assists with washing him. The camera is zoomed in on Austin's genitals.
2. Between September 2018 and April 2020, Mr Willis also shared CAM with a person known as 'Dirty Point Cook'. The materials shared consisted of 22 files which consisted of category one CAM of a nature similar to that shared by Mr Willis with Mr Maddox-Yates.
3. There were conversations between Mr Willis and 'Dirty Point Cook' in the course of the sharing of the files which were of a similar nature to the conversations between Mr Willis and Mr Gersen-Yates.[10] I will not repeat them here.
4. Between February 2017 and March 2018, Mr Willis participated in six WhatsApp chats with another male. Mr Willis distributed 7 media files which were videos of a similar nature to those described earlier. There was also a conversation between Mr Willis and the other male on 15 November 2018 along the lines of those discussed earlier.

1. Between December 2017 and March 2022, Mr Willis and Mr Maddox-Yates participated in six WhatsApp chats with 'J90', which was a group chat entitled 'The Pervs'. They distributed 143 media files which were images and videos of a similar nature to those described earlier.
2. There were also conversations between Mr Willis, Mr Maddox-Yates and 'The Pervs' along the lines of those discussed earlier. One such conversation took place on 24 February 2018:

J90: So David and Benjamin pleased to make your acquaintances. Tell me a little more about your ... preferences.. Or perhaps a fantasy/fantasies you'd love to occur...?

Willis: We like any age boys. We like being on knees and pleasing. Don't mind nude beaches. Wouldn't mind sliding our cocks into a young boy as he screams and cries.

1. Charge 5 concerns materials that were shared by Mr Maddox-Yates with Mr Willis between February 2017 and June 2023.
2. There were 279 files shared all of which are categorised as category 1 CAM. A number of the files contained images of two prepubescent children who have been identified as Leroy Yates and Tyler Yates, Mr Maddox-Yates's nephews.
3. When Mr Maddox-Yates shared five pornographic images of his nephews on 22 May 2022 with Mr Willis, the following conversation took place:

Maddox-Yates: Tyler. He's 2 I believe... No 3.

Willis: He can fuck me... Bring him home for a holiday

Maddox-Yates: I can fuck austin [sic.] as you get fucked [by] Tyler

1. Between December 2017 and March 2018, Mr Maddox-Yates sent 'The Pervs' group chat 5 videos, each of which is categorised as Category 1 CAM. This is also part of the charge 5 conduct.

1. On 29 September 2019, Mr Maddox-Yates shared a 31 second video with Mr Willis depicting Mr Maddox-Yates being anally penetrated by Mr Willis's yellow Labrador dog. The conduct occurred in Mr Willis's bedroom.

1. Between December 2019 and February 2024, Mr Willis participated in a WhatsApp chat with 'Puppy Boi'. The phone number used by 'Puppy Boi' was registered to another male.
2. On 22 December 2019, Mr Willis sent 'Puppy Boi' a 15 second video depicting himself performing oral sex on his yellow labrador dog.
3. The following day, Mr Willis sent 'Puppy Boi' a 21 second video depicting the same dog anally penetrating Mr Maddox-Yates.
4. The communications were accompanied by depraved conversations, which I will not repeat.

1. The objective seriousness of this type of offending is ordinarily determined by reference to the following factors:

(i) the nature and content of the material, in particular the age of the children and the gravity of the sexual activity depicted;

(iii) whether the material is for the purpose of sale or further distribution;

(iv) whether the offender will profit from the offence;

(v) in the case of possession or access of child pornography for personal use, the number of children depicted and thereby victimised; and

(vi) the length of time for which the pornographic material was possessed.[11]

1. Applying those general principles to the present case, and starting with the offending by David Willis, it is clear that this was very serious offending.
2. Charge 1 is a mid-range example of the possession offence considering the number of files, the lengthy period of the possession and the depraved nature of the material.
3. Charge 1 is a rolled up charge as each file possessed is technically a separate offence against s 51G(1) of the Crimes Act.
4. Special rules apply when sentencing a rolled up charge. While the maximum penalty does not change in such a case, the sentence imposed by the court must reflect the total criminality. All else being equal, a rolled up charge will attract a greater sentence than a single instance of offending.[12]
5. Charge 2 is at least mid-range. It too is a rolled up charge and the same principles apply.
6. The vile videos and images were distributed to three different people each of whom was encouraged to watch the material. The conduct occurred over a period of more than five years.
7. Each of the videos depicted the sexual abuse of a real child. They are all victims. It is aggravating that one of the videos shared by Mr Willis depicted his four year old nephew Austin. As noted earlier, Mr Willis was entrusted by his own brother to look after Austin and he betrayed that trust by filming Austin and distributing the footage. However, it is only the distribution of the footage that is the conduct that is subject of charge 2.
8. Charge 3 is a low to mid-range example of the offence of bestiality. Unlike the first two charges, it concerns conduct on a single date.
9. Finally, charge 4 is also concerned with conduct on one day. It is significantly aggravating that the production of the CAM involved a four year old child whom Mr Willis had been trusted by his own brother to look after.
10. Mr Willis's moral culpability for this offending is very high indeed. For reasons which I explain later, I reject the argument that his moral culpability is reduced to any significant extent on the basis of the application of the Bugmy[13] principle.
11. Turning to the offending by Mr Maddox-Yates.
12. Charge 5 is a serious rolled up instance of the distribution offence involving 278 files with seriously depraved content over more than 6 years accompanied by conversations of a highly vile nature.
13. Charge 6 is a single date bestiality charge.

1. You were raised in Melbourne by parents who were always employed. You have two brothers, Matthew[14] and Andrew,[15] and a sister Sienna.[16] Your counsel informed the court that you remain supported by all of your family members.
2. You told Dr Gee that you grew up in an intact family unit without exposure to domestic violence, drug and alcohol abuse, mental health concerns, or contact with the criminal justice system'. The environment was 'nurturing and supportive'.[17]
3. Your sister Sienna wrote to the court and explained that you have lived with her and her son for several years. Sienna describes you as 'the fun Uncle all the kids gravitated to'.
4. Sienna has spoken to you about the charges before the court. She describes you as having been an outgoing and active member in the lives of family and friends and a person who has contributed positively to the community
5. You told a psychologist, Dr Gee, that from the age of five you and your brother were sexually abused by a friend of your father's. You said that the abuse continued over several years and the offender was prosecuted and gaoled.
6. You were educated at a primary school north-west of Melbourne, and then attended a Technical School where you were socially withdrawn and isolated. You completed year ten and since then you have been in constant employment working in warehouses, managing events, working in construction and for a car sale auction house.
7. Drugs and alcohol have been a constant in your life. More recently, you have used Cocaine quite regularly.
8. You have no prior convictions.

1. You were referred to Mr Peter Hanley, psychologist, in early 2025 for psychological treatment in the Sex Offender Treatment Program ('SOTP'). You have attended 12 60 minute sessions between 1 April 2025 and 13 January 2026.
2. According to Mr Hanley, you have made 'mixed progress'.[18] While you have developed 'some insight' into your behaviour and are motivated to change, you continue to discuss your offending 'in a guarded, minimised manner that lacks the emotional vulnerability and exploration needed to expect longstanding changes in attitudes, habits, preferences and paraphilic interests that were present at the time of [your] offending'.[19]
3. Your lawyers also had you assessed by Dr Dion Gee, Forensic Psychologist whose detailed report dated 6 February 2026 is before the court.
4. Dr Gee opines that you meet diagnostic criteria for a 'Moderate Personality Disorder'. While your conduct 'shares features consistent with 'Paedophilic Disorder', at the time of assessment Dr Gee considered it "difficult to assert such actions constitute 'a sustained, focused, and intense pattern of sexual arousal' on which to reliably diagnose such a disorder; especially given this is [your] first and only known occasion of sexual offending'.[20]
5. Dr Gee reports that, 'saliently', you 'did not make comment on requiring intervention for [your] aberrant sexual behaviour until it was raised by [Dr Gee]'.[21]
6. Dr Gee describes your treatment progress as 'less than optimal'.[22] You demonstrate a 'compromised appreciation of the nature of [your] sexually aberrant conduct, and the potential harms emanating from such actions'.[23]
7. When asked by Dr Gee to reflect on the index offending 'through the lens of [your] own experiences of childhood sexual victimisation, you 'seemingly struggled to generalise those potential consequences of [your] own abuse onto '[your] aberrant conduct'.[24]
8. Dr Gee assessed you as a low-moderate risk of sexual re-offending.

1. You were born in 1996 and grew up in Melbourne. Your father displayed homophobic attitudes and after your parents separated you have lived with your mother. You have a brother from whom you are estranged as a result of your offending.
2. You completed year 11 at school and have worked in a variety of roles most recently as a customer service officer for a car lease company.
3. You have been in a relationship with the much older Mr Willis since you were about 18. Prior to that, between the ages of 15 and 18, you were in another relationship with a man in his 40's.
4. You were exposed to methamphetamine as a teenager but have no current drug or alcohol dependencies.

1. You were referred by your lawyers to Dr Michael Davis, consultant forensic clinical psychologist. A detailed report by Dr Davis dated 30 January 2026 was provided to the court.
2. Dr Davis diagnoses you with Autism Spectrum Disorder and a number of maladaptive personality features.[25] He considers that you 'clearly have some sexual interest in both pre-pubescent and pubescent children given the period of time over which this offending behaviour has occurred'.[26]
3. Dr Davis notes that, at age 15 you were 'reportedly seduced and groomed by a man in his 40's who introduced [you] to methamphetamine and would force [you] to engage in often degrading chem-sex activities with both him and other men'. While you were able to extricate yourself from this relationship with the assistance of your current partner Mr Willis, you are 'clearly quite dependent' on him.[27]
4. Based on this history, Dr Davis opines that your current offending 'can be seen as an interaction between [your] prominent dependent personality features, autism spectrum disorder, and anxiety'. He considers that your offending behaviours 'had been essentially normalised during [your] abusive teenage relationship with an older man', and this 'likely played a role in [you] continuing to engage in the viewing of child abuse material with [your] partner for several years'.[28]
5. In relation to having sex with the dog, Dr Davis asked you if you were the ringleader to which you responded, 'no ... it would have been David'.[29] Dr Davis considers that you engaged in this reprehensible conduct to please your partner/co-offender'.[30]
6. Dr Davis assesses you as currently posing a moderate risk for child abuse material offending.[31]
7. Finally, Dr Davis expresses concerns about your ability to cope with prison life and thinks that your already fragile mental state is likely to deteriorate.[32]

1. The Court of Appeal has recently explained that:

The offences of access to and possession of child pornography are regarded as very serious, involving morally depraved conduct that is extremely harmful to children. Those who are inclined to exploit children, by involving them in the production of child pornography, are encouraged by the fact that there is a market for that material. In other words, the possession of child pornography material creates a market for the continued corruption and exploitation of children by fuelling demand for that material. In that way, it normalises behaviour, which is depraved and exploitive of children. > > In that context, it is relevant that offending involving accessing or possession of child pornography occurs on an international level and is becoming increasingly prevalent, with the advent and proliferation of the Internet as a means of enabling people to access and retain child pornography.[33]

2. It is well established that 'the purpose of general deterrence is accorded primacy in sentencing offending involving child pornography'.
3. Appellate Courts have repeatedly reminded that:

'... it is necessary that the sentences imposed by the courts are such that those persons, who might contemplate being involved in the depraved and pernicious reception of child pornography, well understand that if their offending is detected, they will lose their right to be at liberty within society for a substantial period of time. It is only in that way that the courts can perform the vital function of providing protection to vulnerable children'.[34]

1. All of the charges before the court are 'serious sexual offences' for the purposes of the serious offender regime established by Part 2A of the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic).
2. This has a significant practical effect for Mr Willis. As he will be sentenced to terms of imprisonment on charges 1 and 2, the regime will apply to charges 3 and 4. Therefore, any term of imprisonment imposed by the court must be served cumulatively upon any uncompleted sentences imposed on him unless the court otherwise directs.[35] However, the regime must be applied having regard to the principle of totality.
3. Further, in sentencing Mr Willis as a serious sexual offender, community protection is the foremost sentencing consideration.[36]
4. Finally, the records of the court must reflect that Mr Willis has been sentenced as a 'serious sexual offender'.[37]

1. This was clearly very serious offending for the reasons explained in detail earlier in these reasons. There was no dispute that both offenders must be incarcerated.

1. Where two or more offenders are sentenced in a case such as this, the principle of parity is an important one.
2. Where a court is sentencing co-offenders, like should be treated alike. However, if there are relevant differences, due allowance should be made for them.[38]
3. Here there are three significant distinguishing features that result in the sentences imposed on Mr Willis being significantly more onerous than those imposed on Mr Maddox-Yates.
4. First, there is the number of charges and the gravity of the offending itself.
5. Secondly, Mr Maddox-Yates is able to call in aid a number of mitigatory matters that are not made out on the evidence in respect of Mr Willis.
6. Finally, but of lesser significance, I consider that, at least in relation to the bestiality offending and possible the remaining offending, Mr Willis was the primary instigator. This is supported by the significant age gap between the two men and, as Dr Davis puts it, the clear dependency by Mr Maddox-Yates on Mr Willis.

1. Counsel for both offenders submitted that the principles expounded by the High Court in the case of Bugmy[39] are relevant to the court's sentencing task.
2. In the case of Bugmy, the High Court explained that the moral culpability (but not the legal responsibility) of a violent offender whose formative years have been marred by childhood exposure to extreme violence and alcohol abuse may be reduced. While 'full weight' must be given by a sentencing judge to an offender's deprived background, that background will not have the same mitigatory relevance for all purposes of punishment.[40]
3. A deprived background may reduce the moral culpability of an offender due to their inability to control their violent responses to frustration but may also increase the importance of protecting the community from the offender.
4. In the more recent case of DPP v Hermann,[41] the Court of Appeal expressed different ways in which childhood deprivation caused by exposure to 'extreme violence and alcohol abuse' may potentially be relevant to the assessment of moral culpability.
5. The first, general expression was:

The circumstance that an offender has been raised in a community surrounded by alcohol abuse and violence may mitigate the sentence because his or her moral culpability is likely to be less than the culpability of an offender whose formative years have not been marred in that way.

6. The second - more specific - expression was in these terms:

An offender's childhood exposure to extreme violence and alcohol abuse may explain the offender's recourse to violence when frustrated such that the offender's moral culpability for the inability to control that impulse may be substantially reduced. However, the inability to control the violent response to frustration may increase the importance of protecting the community from the offender.[42]

7. Significantly, while the 'specific' approach requires a causal nexus to be established, when applying the general approach, 'it is unnecessary to prove a direct nexus between the disadvantage and the offending'.[43]
8. Applying these principles to the offenders before the court, I am not persuaded that Mr Willis can rely on the specific limb but I accept that he is entitled to a modest reduction in his sentence based on the general principle in light of his childhood experience of sexual abuse.
9. The situation with Mr Maddox-Yates is different. Based on the opinion of Dr Davis, I am satisfied that there is same causal nexus between the abusive relationship to which he was exposed in his sexually formative teenage years, and his offending behaviour. This has the effect of reducing his moral culpability for the offending and must be reflected in a moderation of the sentence to be imposed. Whether this is properly seen as an application of the Bugmy principles or just the impact of his personal circumstances, the result is the same. Mr Maddox-Yates is a less suitable vehicle for the principle of general deterrence.

1. I accept that limb 5 of the Verdins principles applies to both of the offenders before the court and I have moderated their sentences to a modest extent as a result. Further, limb 6 can be called in aid by Mr Maddox-Yates.

1. Both offenders pleaded guilty at a very early stage. Their pleas are an acceptance by them of their responsibility for their offending and some evidence of remorse.
2. The guilty pleas save the community the expense of a trial and the witnesses the anxiety of giving evidence.
3. Both Mr Willis and Mr Maddox-Yates are entitled to significant sentencing discounts as a result.

1. David Willis, you are convicted and sentenced as follows:

(a) On charge 1, possession of child abuse material contrary to s 51G(1) of the Crimes Act - three years' imprisonment;

(b) On charge 2, distribution of child abuse material contrary to s 51D(1) of the Crimes Act - 3 years and 6 months' imprisonment;

(c) On charge 3, bestiality contrary to s 54A(1) of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic.) - 18 months' imprisonment; and

(d) On charge 4, intentionally involving a child in the production of child abuse material contrary to s 51B(1) of the Crimes Act - 2 years' imprisonment.

1. The base sentence is that imposed in respect of charge 2. I order that 9 months of the charge 1 sentence; 5 months of the charge 3 sentence and 9 months of the charge 4 sentence be served cumulatively on the base sentence and on each other.
2. The total effective sentence for David Willis is therefore 5 years and 7 months.
3. David Willis will be eligible for parole after serving 3 years and 2 months.
4. I declare pursuant to section 18 of the Sentencing Act that the period of 23 days not including today, be reckoned as having been served under the sentence the court imposes today.
5. Pursuant to s 6AAA of the Sentencing Act, had Mr Willis been found guilty by a jury, the total effective sentence would have been 7 years with a non parole period of 4 years and 6 months.
6. David Willis has been sentenced as a serious sexual offender in relation to charges 3 and 4.
7. Mr Willis is a registerable sex offender. He must comply with the reporting obligations for the remainder of his life.[44]
8. Benjamin Maddox-Yates, you are convicted and sentenced as follows:

(a) On the charge of distribution of child abuse material contrary to s 51D(1) of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) - 2 years' imprisonment; and

(b) On the charge of bestiality contrary to s 54A(1) of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic.) - 16 months' imprisonment.

1. Three months of the sentence imposed on charge 6 is to be served cumulatively on the charge 5 sentence.
2. The total effective sentence for Benjamin Maddox-Yates is 2 years and 3 months.
3. Benjamin Maddox-Yates will be eligible for parole after serving 1 year and 4 months.
4. Pursuant to s 6AAA of the Sentencing Act, had Mr Maddox-Yates been found guilty by a jury, the total effective sentence would have been 3 years with a non parole period of 2 years.
5. Mr Maddox-Yates is a registerable sex offender. He must comply with the reporting obligations for 15 years.[45]

[10] Summary of Prosecution Opening for Plea Hearing dated 19 January 2026, 12 [34].

[11] R v De Leeuw [2015] NSWCCA 183, [72], (references omitted).

[12] Bruce v R [2022] VSCA 100, [31].

[13] Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571 ('Bugmy').

[17] Psychological Report by Dr Dion Gee dated 6 February 2026, 12 [31] ('Gee Report').

[18] Psychological Report by Mr Peter Hanley dated 5 February 2026, 4 [16]

[25] Psychological Report by Dr Michael Davis dated 30 January 2026, [238] ('Davis Report').

[33] Crowder v The King [2024] VSCA 211, [40]-[41] (references omitted)

[35] Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) s 6E ('Sentencing Act').

[36] Ibid s 6D(a).

[38] Postiglione v The Queen [1997] HCA 26; (1997) 189 CLR 295.

[41] [2021] VSCA 160 ('Hermann').

[43] Kellway (a pseudonym) v The King [2023] VSCA 109, [91]; Hermann (n 29) [45].

[44] Sex Offender Registration Act 2004 (Vic), s 34(1)(c)(iii).

[45] Sex Offender Registration Act 2004 (Vic), s 34(1)(b)(ii).