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

1. On 11 December 2025, Stewart Victor Bone (the offender) pleaded guilty to three contraventions of s 474.22(1) of the Criminal Code (Cth), one contravention of s 474.22A(1) of the Criminal Code and one contravention of s 3LA(6) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth).

2. The charges, a brief description of them, and the relevant minimum and maximum penalties are as follows:

Charge Description Minimum Penalty Maximum Penalty CAN 6678/2025 s 474.22(1) of the Imprisonment for 4 Imprisonment for Criminal Code: years 15 years between about 18 June 2022 and 2 January 2025, the offender accessed child abuse material CAN 1918/2025 s 474.22A(1) of the Imprisonment for 4 Imprisonment for Criminal Code: on years 15 years 30 January 2025, the offender possessed child abuse material CAN 6673/2025 s 474.22(1) of the Imprisonment for 4 Imprisonment for Criminal Code: years 15 years between 6 October 2024 and 7 October 2024, the offender used a carriage service to cause child abuse material to be transmitted to himself and to transmit and solicit it CAN 6676/2025 s 474.22(1) of the Imprisonment for 4 Imprisonment for Criminal Code: on years 15 years about 13 November 2024, the offender used a carriage service to cause child abuse material to be transmitted to himself CAN 1919/2025 s 3LA(6) of the No minimum Imprisonment for Crimes Act: on penalty 10 years 30 January 2025, the offender failed to comply with an order under s 3LA of the Crimes Act

3. For ease of reference, the charges will be referred to by their distinctive four-digit numbers.

4. The references to minimum terms of imprisonment arise because of the operation of s 16AAB of the Crimes Act in the context of this case. That section identifies the offences under ss 474.22(1) and 474.22A(1) of the Criminal Code as offences to which a mandatory minimum sentence of imprisonment must apply in the case of a person who has been convicted previously of a child sexual abuse offence. A child sexual abuse offence includes a “State or Territory registrable child sex offence” and that, as the name suggests, includes an offence that may lead to a person being on a child protection offender register where the offence had a child as a victim or involved child abuse material: s 3 of the Crimes Act. For reasons which will be explained later, the offender’s previous offending meets these criteria.

5. In relation to charge 1918, the date specified in relation to the charge in the Crown tender bundle is a single date, rather than the range specified on the charge sheet. Similarly, the description of charge 6673 differs from that on the charge sheet. I have taken these changes to reflect an agreement between the parties as to the basis upon which the offender should be sentenced.

Facts

6. The facts upon which the offender is to be sentenced were agreed and are contained within the Statement of Facts that formed part of the Crown tender bundle.

7. The offender is 31 years old and was between 28 and 30 years old during the offending. He was identified following a referral from the Australian Centre to Counter Child Exploitation.

8. During the entirety of the offending, the offender used an account in the Kik software application associated with an identified email address. Charge 6678: Use of a carriage service for child abuse material

9. Between 18 June 2022 and 2 January 2025, the offender accessed and downloaded from Kik 288 images and videos containing child abuse material. A table setting out the files, and dates of access and download, is included in the Statement of Facts. The files were categorised as follows: (a) 189 files (151 videos and 38 images) of “Category 1 child abuse material”, meaning material that depicts “a real prepubescent child under 13 years, involved in a sex act, witnessing a sex act or the material is focused/concentrated on the anal or genital region of the child”; and (b) 99 files (69 videos and 30 images) of “Category 2 child abuse material”, meaning “material that is not included within Category 1 and such material includes a child who is a victim of torture, cruelty or physical abuse, or engaged in a sexual pose or sexual activity (alone or in the presence of others), or in the presence of another person who is engaged in a sexual pose or sexual activity, or is exposing the genital area or anal area or the breasts of a female child”.

10. The 220 video files totalled 4 hours, 11 minutes and 40 seconds in duration.

11. The material contained male and female children between the ages of about 12 months and 17 years. They were predominantly Caucasian female children. Some children were depicted exposing their genitalia, many were naked and posing in a sexually suggestive manner or manipulating their genitalia. A significant portion of the material was comprised of videos involving prepubescent female children between 7 and 13 years of age engaging in sexual intercourse with, and performing sexual acts on, other children or adult males. Often the focus of this material was on the genitalia of the child or the adult.

12. A table with descriptions of a sample of the files is contained in the Statement of Facts. It is not necessary to recite them in these reasons, although I have had regard to the nature of the content in determining the objective seriousness of the offending. Some of the file names indicated the content depicted within those files. Examples are given in the Statement of Facts. It is not necessary to recite those examples.

Charge 1918: Possession of child abuse material

13. On 30 January 2025, the offender possessed the 288 files the subject of charge 6678 in a “Secure Folder” on his phone. To undertake any action in the “Secure Folder” — including saving files and using certain applications — the passcode for the folder was required. The Kik application could not be accessed except via the “Secure Folder”. Charge 6673: Use of a carriage service for child abuse material

14. Commencing on 6 October 2024, the offender, using his Kik account, engaged in a text conversation with a person using the display name “psychic”.

15. This charge is a rolled-up charge as different contraventions occurred in different parts of the conversation which occurred on 6 and 7 October 2024. The different components of the conversation included: (a) causing child abuse material to be transmitted; (b) transmitting child abuse material; and (c) soliciting child abuse material.

16. The other party to the conversation identified herself as being 13 years old and from India. The offender directed the conversation to sexual topics, suggesting that he would engage in oral sex with her and seeking that she describe sexual activity or imagined sexual activity. A description of the conversation and extracts of the exchanges are set out in the Statement of Facts.

Charge 6676: Use of a carriage service for child abuse material

17. Commencing on 13 November 2024, the offender, using his Kik account, engaged in a text conversation with a person whose name displayed as “Kola”. The offender and Kola established that they were aged 30 (the offender) and 19 (Kola). They then discussed being bisexual and provided personal details set out in the Statement of Facts. At Kola’s request, the offender added him as a friend, and the real account and display name of Kola were disclosed, the display name being “jach933”.

18. Now Kik friends, the offender and jach933 each shared images, the content of which is no longer available. The offender and jach933 immediately began discussing sexual intercourse, ejaculation and different sexual positions. Jach933 commented that he had a sexual interest in incest and told the offender that he had a “hot [pic]” of his “sisters ass”. Jach933 sent an image, the content of which is no longer available, and a conversation occurred in which jach933 stated that his sister was 17 years old.

19. After being informed that the sister of jach933 was 17 years old, the offender launched into graphic description of the sexual intercourse in which he would engage with her. This constitutes written child abuse material. The offender asked jach933 a variety of explicit questions, causing him to respond with his own detailed descriptions of sexual intercourse with his sister. The offender continued suggesting different sexual activities that jach933 could engage in with his sister, prompting jach933 to continue providing written descriptions of sexual intercourse with a child. The conversation is set out in the Statement of Facts.

Charge 1919: failure to comply with an order under s 3LA of the Crimes Act

20. At about 5:10am on 30 January 2025, police attended the offender’s address in Bonner and executed a search warrant.

21. During the course of the execution of the search warrant, the offender made some admissions about matters relevant to the use of the Kik account. He also made statements in which he failed to admit his recent viewing of child abuse material.

22. On 29 January 2025, a magistrate had made an order under s 3LA of the Crimes Act requiring the offender to provide reasonable and necessary assistance to access and copy data on a computer or data storage device. During the execution of the search warrant on 30 January 2025, police asked the offender to provide the passcode to the “Secure Folder” on his phone. He failed to do so, having a conversation which is set out in the Statement of Facts in which he said that he had last logged into the “Secure Folder” four years earlier and could not recall the passcode.

23. Subsequent forensic examination of the “Secure Folder” disclosed items specific to the offender, which are set out in the Statement of Facts and which included the Kik application itself, and indicated that he had accessed the folder on 23 April 2024, 7 December 2024, 28 January 2025 and 29 January 2025.

24. By his plea of guilty, the offender has accepted that he was capable of providing the passcode at the time that he was asked to but did not do so.

Objective seriousness

Charges 6678 and 1918: use of a carriage service for child abuse material and possession of child abuse material

25. Charges 6678 (use carriage service for child abuse material) and 1918 (possess child abuse material) are closely related because they involve the same images and videos. Those images and videos were accessed and downloaded in the period 18 June 2022 to 2 January 2025 and hence the charge is a rolled-up one. Factors relevant to the assessment of objective seriousness, based on those identified in R v Hutchinson [2018] NSWCCA 152 at [45]-[46], include: (a) whether the images or videos depict real children; (b) the nature and content of the pornographic material, including the age of the children, the relative depravity of the sexual activity portrayed, and the extent of any cruelty or physical harm to the children that may be discernible; (c) the number of images and videos possessed or accessed; (d) the purpose of the offender’s access and/or possession of the child abuse material; (e) the degree of planning, organisation, sophistication and/or deception employed by the offender in acquiring, storing, disseminating or transmitting the material; and (f) whether the offending forms part of a wider and systemic network of paedophiles.

26. With respect to this matter, it is necessary to note the following: (a) the files depict multiple different real children; (b) the ages of the children range from infants through to teenagers; (c) the files include material of significant depravity, including the anal rape of prepubescent female children and videos in which the children are reduced to crying by the sexual acts performed upon them; (d) the number of images and videos is 288, which is significant, but, in the context of this type of offending, at the lower end of the range; (e) the material was accessed and possessed for personal use; (f) there was a modest degree of planning and forethought insofar as the files were contained in a passcode-protected “Secure Folder”; and (g) there is no evidence that the material was possessed for sale or further dissemination even though, having regard to their titles and the comments printed on some of the videos, they were produced and distributed as part of a wider network of child abuse.

27. Each of these charges can be characterised as at the lower end of the mid-range of objective seriousness for this offence, bearing in mind the potential scope for this offence having regard to the various factors involved in the assessment of objective seriousness.

Charge 6673: offending involving psychic

28. This charge relates to the offending involving psychic. In this conversation, the offender persisted in sexualised conversation even though the child did not indicate an interest in doing so. The conversation extended from 9:52pm on 6 October 2024 to 3:08am on 7 October 2024. The conversation occurred in the context of an understanding that the other party was a 13-year-old girl and involved a willingness to pursue sexualised conversation even though the other party was providing limited responses.

29. While this offending took place over a limited period and was confined to text message communications, it occurred with a real person who was identified as being only 13 years of age. Having regard to the scope of this provision, it is at the low end of objective seriousness but not in the least serious category of case.

Charge 6676: conversation with jach933

30. This charge involved the offender engaging in online chats with another adult user. The charge relates only to the transmission of the content (written by both the offender and the other user) to the offender, not to the other user. The content solicited from that other adult user was child abuse material. The graphic description by the offender of the sexual acts that he would like to perform with the other user’s sister and similar descriptions by the other user were also child abuse material. Such content is within the definition of child abuse material because the definition of that term includes material that describes a person who is, or is implied to be, under 18 years of age and who is engaged in, or is implied to be engaged in, sexual activity and does this in a way that reasonable persons would regard as being, in all the circumstances, offensive: s 473.1 of the Criminal Code.

31. The other user was an eager participant in the conversation. This charge is less serious than the charge involving psychic as no child was a participant in the conversation. Further, because the content was derived by the participants themselves, there was no harm to a child as might exist with the possession or distribution of images or videos.

32. This offending is in the least serious category of case for this offence.

Charge 1919: contravention of s 3LA order

33. This charge involved a refusal to provide access to the “Secure Folder” on the offender’s phone. By his plea of guilty, he admitted that, contrary to what he told police, he could remember the passcode and failed to provide it. An inference may be drawn beyond reasonable doubt that he did so in order to attempt to avoid detection of the material within the “Secure Folder”. It is a typical or mid-range example of this offence.

Subjective circumstances

34. The subjective circumstances of the offender are described in an intensive correction order assessment report dated 20 May 2026 and in a psychologist’s report prepared for the purposes of sentencing for earlier offending in 2016. There is also a letter from the offender and one from his partner.

35. The offender grew up in rural New South Wales and had a good childhood without any domestic violence or substance use issues at home. His childhood and adolescence were characterised by his shy and introverted personality. He has good relationships with his mother, father and brother, with whom he has been residing. He has been in a relationship for approximately three years and has two children from a previous relationship. He is unable to see his children or the children of his current partner due to his bail conditions.

36. He completed Year 9 at school and then Year 10 at TAFE NSW. He has worked since he was 17 years old in a wide range of different jobs. He is currently in full-time employment and undertakes what is described as “plant fitting, mechanic and operator work” for a company where he has been employed for several years. He spends a lot of time at work. This involves a lot of travel for work, typically in the areas around Canberra. He does not have a problem with illicit drugs or with alcohol, although he regularly drank alcohol to excess in the past.

37. In the lead up to his sentencing in 2016, he was diagnosed as suffering from adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood. The psychologist that assessed him at that stage recommended that, if he received a non-custodial sentence, he be required to undergo therapy and suggested that it was likely that the therapy would extend for three to six months. There is no evidence that the offender did receive any treatment following his earlier conviction.

38. So far as the current offending is concerned, he expressed regret for his offending, recognising its impacts upon the children involved. He indicated a desire to avoid similar circumstances in the future and was happy to accept any help offered.

39. He is assessed as suitable for an intensive correction order and suitable for a community service work condition.

40. The letter from the offender accepts that what he did was wrong. He says he does not know why he did the offending but has not been thinking too deeply about that because he feels numb and depressed over losing access to his children and his partner. He says that he has enrolled in a program called Revive and he is trying to obtain a therapist that he is comfortable with. Consistent with what is said in the intensive correction order assessment report, he indicates that he has been working as a mobile plant fitter and operator, working an average of 76 hours per week, and is an integral part of the business he works for. He pays $700 a week in child support to his previous partner and also supports his current partner, even though he has not been able to live with her for more than a year.

41. The letter from his partner describes their relationship and says that the offender is a hard-working, kind person who has supported her. It describes the mental toll that the court process has taken on both of them and states that she will struggle financially if the offender is incarcerated.

42. I accept that the offender’s current partner will be significantly financially and emotionally affected by the imprisonment of the offender. It is likely to be a tragedy for her. I also accept that his former partner and children will be affected financially by his incarceration. These are both regrettable consequences of his conduct.

43. I do not accept the submission of the prosecution that the offender has a low prospect of rehabilitation. Notwithstanding that he is a repeat offender, I consider that it is not possible to reach that conclusion. Rather, he has indicated a willingness to engage with rehabilitation and the other factors present in his life (a capacity to work hard and to engage in supportive relationships) tend to suggest that there would be reasonable prospects for rehabilitation.

Criminal history

44. Unfortunately, the offender has a criminal record in New South Wales for possessing child abuse material. On 3 March 2016, police executed a search warrant at the house in Young where the offender was living. Police had identified that an internet protocol (IP) address subscribed in the offender’s father’s name had downloaded over 80 files suspected of being child pornography. Police found photographs on his computer in a folder titled “kids” which included a number of photographs which were categorised as Category 1 child abuse material. In a subsequent interview with police, he agreed that “amongst the child abuse material that [he] had downloaded to his computer there was adult to child sexual intercourse as well as children tied up in sexual positions”. There were a relatively small number of images and a single video referred to in the Statement of Facts for the New South Wales offending. The largest number of images in a folder was “approximately 30 to 35”. The offender was placed upon a bond under s 9 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) for a period of two years.

45. As a result of that offending, he was placed on the Child Protection Register under the Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Act 2000 (NSW). He then got into trouble arising from a failure to comply with the requirements associated with being on that register: (a) In January 2017, he failed to comply with his reporting obligations and as a result was fined $500. (b) In August 2017, he failed to comply with his reporting obligations and was fined $800. (c) In November 2018, he was charged with failing to comply with his reporting obligations as a result of having attended TAFE NSW for two weeks for a vocational course without notifying police, failing to disclose his current employer and failing to identify a particular email address that he used. He was given a community corrections order for 12 months for each of the two offences.

Pleas of guilty

46. The offender pleaded guilty to each of the offences in the Magistrates Court on 11 December 2025, after a brief of evidence had been prepared. Notwithstanding the preparation of a brief of evidence, the plea of guilty at that stage had significant utilitarian value. Having regard to the relatively early pleas of guilty, it is appropriate that he receive a 20% reduction in his sentences pursuant to s 16A(2)(g) of the Crimes Act.

Time in custody

47. The offender has spent 15 days in custody in relation to the offending. This will be taken into account by backdating the first sentence.

Consideration

48. This case involves offending with a direct impact on children, in particular the charge relating to psychic, as well as indirect impacts through the consumption of child abuse material, which is a driving force for its production and hence the exploitation of children. The gravity with which the Commonwealth Parliament has viewed this type of offending is illustrated by the regime of minimum penalties, as well as the very significant maximum penalties for the offences in question.

49. In the circumstances of this case, while all the purposes of sentencing are relevant, both general and specific deterrence are of particular significance.

50. I have taken into account the comparative cases summarised in the written submissions of the prosecution. The utility of such cases is somewhat reduced in circumstances where the dominating feature of the sentence must be the mandatory minimum specified by the Parliament and the yardstick provided thereby.

51. In relation to the general possession and use of a carriage service for child abuse material charges (6678 and 1918), I accept the prosecution submission that no penalty other than a penalty of full-time imprisonment is appropriate. I reach that conclusion having regard to the objective seriousness of the offences and the fact that the offender has previous convictions for similar offending. Further, I accept the prosecution submission that the offending is above the least serious category of case for which a sentence of imprisonment is required. That has the consequence that the starting point must be above the mandatory minimum of four years. Having regard to the maximum period of imprisonment available, 15 years, I consider that the appropriate starting point is a sentence of imprisonment of five years.

52. In relation to charge 6673, I consider that, because of the previous offending, there is no sentence other than a sentence of imprisonment that is appropriate. However, it is in the least serious category of case for which a sentence of imprisonment is required. Therefore, the relevant starting point is the mandatory minimum of four years’ imprisonment.

53. So far as charge 6676, the communications with jach933, is concerned, the offending is of a very limited nature, being the use of a carriage service to have text generated either by the offender himself or by another adult volunteer transmitted to himself. Notwithstanding the obiter dicta in Hurt v The King [2024] HCA 8; 281 CLR 286 indicating the possibility of an alternative disposition (at [35], [100]), given the offender will be convicted, s 16AAB, on its face, obliges the court to impose at least the mandatory minimum sentence of imprisonment of four years and, because of that command, that is the sentence that will be the starting point.

54. The final charge is the contravention of s 3LA of the Crimes Act, for which there is a maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment with no mandatory minimum. There is no previous similar offending. However, general deterrence is a very important sentencing consideration in relation to this type of offence so as to ensure that there is no distorting incentive to refuse access to a device in order to conceal other offending. Notwithstanding the need for general deterrence, I do not consider that the penalty for this offence should be adjusted upwards, having regard to the imposition of mandatory minimum sentences on the charges that might be disclosed by compliance with a s 3LA order. I consider that a sentence of imprisonment is clearly required and, having regard to the maximum penalty, a sentence of imprisonment of two years is the appropriate starting point.

55. The sentences that I will impose include a significant degree of concurrency between Commonwealth child sex offences. I am satisfied pursuant to s 19(6) of the Crimes Act that the imposition of a degree of concurrency will still result in sentences that are of a severity appropriate in all the circumstances. In my view, there is no doubt that the sentences imposed do not lack appropriate severity. The degree of concurrency is, in my view, appropriate in order to achieve a sentence which complies with the mandatory minimum sentence requirements of the Crimes Act but is not crushing upon the offender in his particular circumstances.

56. The sentences that will be imposed are summarised as follows:

Charge Starting point Sentence Cumulation 6678 5 years 4 years 4 years 1918 5 years 4 years Nil 6673 4 years 3 years and 2 7 months months 6676 4 years 3 years and 2 2 months months 1919 2 years 1 year and 7 months 9 months Total 5 years and 6 months

57. The total sentence means that the imposition of an intensive correction order is either not an available sentencing option (because the overall sentence exceeds four years) or would be inappropriate (in circumstances where it would involve multiple orders operating beyond even the outer limit specified by the Territory legislature): McBride v The King [2025] ACTCA 16; 22 ACTLR 119 at [158]-[163].

58. In my view, a non-parole period of two years and nine months is the minimum period the offender is required to spend in custody. This is at the low end of the usual range. Such a non-parole period gives appropriate recognition to the severity of the sentencing regime required by the Commonwealth Parliament on the one hand and the reasonable prospects of rehabilitation of the offender on the other. It allows a significant period of supervision on parole.

Forfeiture order

59. The prosecution sought a forfeiture order under s 23ZD of the Crimes Act in relation to the mobile phone on which the child abuse material was found. No submissions were made against the making of such an order and I will make it.

Orders

60. The orders of the Court are: (1) On charge CAN 6678/2025 the offender is convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for four years commencing on 18 May 2026 and ending on 17 May 2030. (2) On charge CAN 1918/2025 the offender is convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for four years commencing on 18 May 2026 and ending on 17 May 2030. (3) On charge CAN 6673/2025 the offender is convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for three years and two months commencing on 18 October 2027 ending on 17 December 2030. (4) On charge CAN6676/2025 the offender is convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for three years and two months commencing on 18 December 2027 and ending on 17 February 2031 (5) On charge CAN 1919/2025 the offender is convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for one year and seven months commencing on 18 April 2030 and ending on 17 November 2031. (6) The non-parole period is two years and nine months commencing on 18 May 2026 and ending on 17 February 2029. (7) Pursuant to s 23ZD of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) and upon the application of the Director of Public Prosecutions the following item is forfeited to the Commonwealth: Samsung Galaxy S23 Ultra.

I certify that the preceding sixty [60] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Sentence of his Honour Justice Mossop. Associate: Date: