R v Dorsett

District Court of NSW|2024-09-03|Before: Mr J

Solicitors: Crown: Ms I Brooks, CDPP Defence: Mr M Dampney, Michael Dampney Law File Number(s): 2023/00244233

JUDGMENT

HIS HONOUR: Rickie Dorsett appears for sentence in respect of three offences, the first being an offence of use carriage service to access child abuse material contrary to s 474.22(1) of the Criminal Code (Cth).
The second is an offence of possess child abuse material obtained using a carriage service contrary to s 474.22A(1) of the Criminal Code (Cth). Each of those offences has a maximum penalty provided of 15 years' imprisonment.
The third is an offence of possess bestiality material contrary to s 547E(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). The maximum penalty is three years' imprisonment.
Each of the two Commonwealth offences occurred between 23 June 2020 and 1 August 2023, and the Crimes Act (NSW) offence of possess bestiality material was between 2 May 2022 and 1 August 2023.
The offender was committed for sentence on 15 May 2024 from Port Macquarie Local Court. Accordingly, in relation to the State offence, he is entitled to a 25% discount for the utility of the plea, and in relation to each of the two Commonwealth offences, he is entitled to a 25% discount to reflect both the utility and the facilitation of the course of justice. Such discounts will be provided.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

On 1 August 2023, police executed a search warrant at the residence of the offender in connection with an investigation in relation to his suspected access to electronic files comprising child abuse material stored in user accounts held with MEGA.NZ, a cloud-based storage website which I note, although not referred to in the facts, stores files in an encrypted fashion.
Police seized a mobile phone and conducted other investigations, ascertaining as follows: (a) Between 23 June 2020 and 1 August 2023, the offender used a carriage service to access child abuse material within two MEGA accounts held under usernames rickie.dorsett@hotmail.com and howdoyaspellit@hotmail.com. (b) Between about 23 June 2020 and 1 August 2023, the offender used a carriage service to possess or control child abuse material within the MEGA accounts held under the rickie.dorsett and howdoyaspellit Hotmail accounts.
At the time of arrest, the account rickie.dorsett@hotmail.com contained 36 video files comprising child abuse material of which 15 were unique non-duplicate files. The account howdoyaspellit@hotmail.com contained thousands of files comprising child abuse material. (c) Further, in relation to the second MEGA account held under the username howdoyaspellit@hotmail.com, it also contained two video files comprising bestiality material possessed by the offender between about 2 May 2022 and 1 August 2023.

SEARCH WARRANT AND ARREST 3. On 1 August 2023, members of the New South Wales Police attended the offender's residential address in Mahogany Crescent, Yarravel, for the purpose of executing search warrants issued under s 3E of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) authorising a search of the offender's person and premises. The search was audio and video recorded. 4. The offender was cautioned by investigators who explained their purpose of being at the premises as being to conduct an investigation in relation to his suspected access of child abuse material stored in MEGA accounts. 5. The offender stated the following: (a) He had not had MEGA since he was 18, and (b) That he had gone onto MEGA and downloaded videos, but denied watching any child abuse material, and (c) He denied knowledge of downloading any child abuse material. 6. During a search of the offender's person police located and seized a Realme brand mobile phone. The subscriber details for the number attached to the phone confirmed that it was registered to Rickie Dorsett, date of birth 30 August 1989. 7. Police had previously obtained an order issued under s 3LA of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) requiring the offender to provide information assisting police officers in accessing any device owned or used by him. 8. Complying with that order, the offender provided the PIN number to access the phone. 9. Accessing the phone, police identified two MEGA user accounts held in the usernames rickie.dorsett@hotmail.com and howdoyaspellit@hotmail.com which had been used in connection with the device and which contained files comprising child abuse material. 10. The offender was asked what he knew of the accounts, and he advised the following: (a) They were his email accounts and he believed he made each of those accounts. (b) He used those accounts for MEGA, and (c) He used the account rickie.dorsett@hotmail.com, being the one presently logged in on his phone, to store videos, and he also used howdoyaspellit@hotmail.com, probably in the last two years. 11. The offender was arrested and conveyed to Kempsey Police Station. 12. Police subsequently forensically examined the offender's mobile phone and the two MEGA accounts, locating evidence of the following offending by the offender.

Sequence 5: Possess/control child abuse material obtained/accessed using a carriage service

MEGA user account under the username rickie.dorsett@hotmail.com 13. Police investigations ascertained that the MEGA user account held in that username had been created on 17 August 2017. 14. A digital examination of the MEGA account revealed it contained a total of 36 video files comprising child abuse material of which 15 were unique non-duplicate files. 15. A sample of the child abuse material located in the offender's MEGA account is described as follows: (1) A six-second video depicting a female child approximately 14 years of age having a male child approximately six years of age perform oral sex on her. (2) A 22-second video depicting a female child approximately 14 years old performing oral sex on a male child approximately six years of age. (3) A video of one second depicting two female children approximately 14 years of age briefly exposing their breasts.

MEGA user account in the username howdoyaspellit@hotmail.com 16. Police ascertained the MEGA user account held under username "howdoyaspellit" had been created on 1 March 2022, and confirmed the offender's mobile number was recorded as being associated with the user of that MEGA account. 17. A digital examination of the MEGA account revealed it contained a total of 35,339 media files of which 27,627 were non-duplicate files. To protect the investigators' welfare, a sample of 1,000 files was examined. Of the 1,000 files in the sample, 665 were found to be unique non-duplicate video files of child abuse material with the files almost entirely depicting prepubescent children. The longest of those files was one hour and 36 minutes in duration. 18. A sample of the child abuse material files located in the offender's MEGA account is described as follows:

A video of five minutes and 43 seconds depicting a naked adult female tying a naked female infant less than one year old to a wooden plank by her ankles. The infant is tied up and tape is put over her mouth. Clamps are attached to the infant's nipples and vagina causing the infant obvious pain and distress. Whilst tied up, gagged and held upside down, a naked flame is held to the infant's skin and genitals causing obvious pain and distress.
A video of 45 seconds depicting two adults, one a naked adult female and the other adult out of frame, holding a female infant less than one year of age upside down by her feet over a toilet. The infant's head is put in the toilet bowl and then taken back out. The naked adult female pushes her genitals into the infant's face. The infant's head is then placed back into the toilet bowl and whilst upside down, jugs of water are poured over the infant's face.
A video of one minute, 59 seconds, depicting a female child approximately five years of age performing oral sex on an adult male penis. The adult male then ejaculates onto the child's face.
A video of four minutes, five seconds' duration depicting a naked male child approximately two years of age and a naked female child approximately four years of age in the bath. An adult male causes the female child to perform oral sex on him. He then puts an object in her genitals before having penile-anal and penile-vaginal intercourse with her and ejaculating in her vagina.

Sequence 4: Possess Bestiality Material 19. Within the MEGA user account held under the name howdoyaspellit@hotmail.com police located two videos comprising bestiality material. The bestiality material is described as follows:

File name "Teen Fuck Dog" video one minute, 10 seconds, a female teenager having vaginal sexual intercourse with a male dog.
A further video 18 minutes and 16 seconds in length, two adult females having oral sex and penetrative vaginal sex with a male horse.

Sequence 1: Access child abuse material including that stored in MEGA user accounts under the usernames rickie.dorsett@hotmail and howdoyaspellit@hotmail 20. Forensic extractions from the offender's mobile phone ascertained that it contained many hundreds of temporary cache files comprising child abuse material depicting prepubescent children. 21. Further, within the Notes application on the offender's mobile phone, the offender had created a note entitled "keep" with URL web addresses listed under various headings including "teen" and "CP". The note had been created on 24 May 2023 and was last modified on 12 June 2023. "CP" is a commonly used abbreviation for "child porn." Two MEGA URL web addresses were listed under the head "CP" and police ascertained that each corresponded with a MEGA account which had been suspended by MEGA for breaching its terms of service by containing child sexual exploitation material and/or offensive material. 22. The offender's web history indicated he had accessed MEGA web pages on the following dates: 20, 26 and 28 May 2023, 12 June 2023 and 31 August 2023. 23. Further, subscriber information for the offender's MEGA account in the username rickie.dorsett@hotmail.com revealed that Google payments had been made to MEGA to maintain that account on the following dates: 20 May 2023 and 16 July 2023. 24. Subscriber information for the offender's MEGA account in the username "howdoyaspellit" revealed that Google payments had been made to MEGA to maintain that account on the following dates: 2 March 2022, 4 April 2022, 4 May 2022, 5 June 2022, 6 July 2022, 9 August 2022, 12 September 2022, 11 October 2022, 15 November 2022, 20 December 2022, 20 January '23 and 21 February 2023; that is, approximately each month from 2 March 2022 to 21 February 2023.

INTERVIEW 25. Following his arrest, the offender participated in an ERISP, during which, after being cautioned, he stated the following: (a) The mobile found in his possession was his. (b) The email address rickie.dorsett@hotmail.com was his email and he had used that email address to sign up to MEGA. (c) The email address howdoyaspellit@hotmail.com was his email, and he used that email account to sign up to MEGA. (d) He had traded pornographic material via Reddit, a social media website. This involved him clicking on a link that was shared with him which would then take him via the internet browser to a MEGA account. He would either not do anything with the material available in that MEGA account and exit or he would copy the material to store it in his own MEGA accounts. (e) He did not review every single video he accessed, but predominantly watched videos depicting 15 to 16-year-old children, though that description of age was ambiguous. If he saw any children that looked "too young," he would stop watching the videos and delete the material. (f) There was a mixture of adult and child pornography stored in the howdoyaspellit MEGA account, but the longer videos ought not be child abuse material as he sorted through the material, he accessed by watching the longer videos first. (g) He denied having viewed any torture material. (h) He had viewed files containing child abuse material, but he did not continue watching and enjoying such material. (i) He classified the howdoyaspellit MEGA account as a "mad dog off the chain" - in that it was his first account. He stated that there was child abuse material in that account but that he was not looking for it. Rather, it was being offered for free so he would "whack" it into his account. He had not reviewed the entirety of the material stored in the account. (j) In relation to the rickie.dorsett account, that account contained only the things he was originally looking for, and as such, he had "run more of a fine-toothed comb through it." (k) He denied being attracted to children but stated that "at around the age of 16 if they have a nice set of boobs, he might look but that's it". (l) He admitted to having at least 10 to 15 videos comprising bestiality material but was unaware it was an offence.

CHILD ABUSE MATERIAL

A number of appellate authorities have recognised the serious nature of offences involving child abuse material and the need to address the widespread nature of that type of offending. In particular, it is recognised by the authorities that the offending occurs on an international level and is increasingly prevalent with the advent of the internet as an accessible means of allowing people to access and obtain child abuse material. The offending is difficult to detect, given the anonymity provided by the internet. The evolution of the capacity to share and store material means that images may be published and stored for many years. The victims are thus faced with the impact of having their images being swapped, traded and accessed on an indefinite basis.
The possession of child abuse material creates a market for the continued corruption and exploitation of children. There is a paramount public interest objective in promoting the protection of children as the possession of child abuse material is not a victimless crime. Children are sexually abused in order to supply the market and indeed they are further abused each time that child abuse material is provided to others or viewed by others.
It has been held that in the light of those matters it is ordinarily to be expected that a term of imprisonment will be imposed and that the primary consideration on sentence is general deterrence.
A number of matters were set out in R v Hutchinson [2018] NSWCCA 152 outlining matters relevant to the assessment of objective seriousness which include whether actual children were used in its creation, the nature and content of the material, the age of the children and the gravity of the sexual activity portrayed, as well as the extent of any cruelty or physical harm discernible from the material, the number of images or items of material and the number of different children depicted, the degree of planning, organisation, sophistication and/or deception employed by the offender in acquiring and storing, disseminating or transmitting the material, and whether the offender acted alone or in a collaborative network of likeminded persons.
There are other relevant factors listed in Hutchinson but the ones that I have referred to appear to be the most relevant to this matter. There is no evidence that he paid for any of the material or that he provided it to anyone else. He is simply charged with accessing it and possessing it.
As to objective seriousness, in relation to Sequence 1 and Sequence 4, each occurred over a period of approximately three years. He was utilising by way of payment or storage two separate MEGA accounts which provided encrypted storage. The rickie.dorsett account had been created by the offender on 17 August 2017 and the howdoyaspellit account on 1 March 2022.
Sequence 4 concerns two videos possessed by the offender containing bestiality material. It involves both oral and penetrative intercourse with animals, being a dog and a horse. The one involving the horse is of 18 minutes and 16 seconds duration. While the material is highly offensive, there are only the two files and there is no suggestion that any of the humans participating are children. I would assess it as falling towards the lower end of objective seriousness, despite its highly offensive nature.
As to Sequences 1 and 5, Sequence 1 relates to the offender using his phone to access child abuse material using each of the MEGA accounts and his temporary cache files confirm that he was able to access "many hundreds" of files containing CAM depicting prepubescent children. Examination of the offender's phone also indicated that he maintained a record in his Notes application of particular web addresses containing child abuse material from which it can be beyond reasonable doubt inferred that he kept them in order to be able to return to them. Sequence 1 was a significant quantity of the images accessed and in respect of prepubescent children, and relevant is the fact that he returned or sought to return to the source of that material more than once in the period of three years.
Sequence 5 concerned the possession by the offender of 36 (15 non-duplicate) videos of child abuse material on MEGA account rickie.dorsett and 35,339 (27,627 non-duplicate) video files on MEGA account howdoyaspellit. The police sampling suggests that 66.5% of this material was child abuse material; the material was overall of a high degree of depravity, and that it variously involved real children from infancy, and was on the whole almost entirely prepubescent. They were involved in a range of sexual activities that included oral, digital and penile penetration. I have previously described the two videos describing infants of less than one year of age being subjected to various acts of physical torture including the use of flame and waterboarding. The first video was 5 minutes and 43 seconds in length. I accept that these examples in particular demonstrate that some of the material which the offender possessed falls into the highest category of depravity.
The quantity of the child abuse material was voluminous, and it is understandable why the investigators, for welfare reasons, did not examine each of the 35,339 files on MEGA account howdoyaspellit. Applying the ratio obtained from the sampling size, being in relation to non-duplicate video files, it produces an amount of approximately 23,500 files which would be non-duplicate child abuse video files. When combined with the amount from MEGA account Rickie Dorsett, this produces a total of 23,515 non-duplicate child abuse files covered by Sequence 5. It is an agreed fact that that account had thousands of child abuse imagery files, at least as a matter of statistical logic. On any view, the quantity of the material is a highly significant amount.
The sampling also demonstrated that some of the video material was of significant duration, the longest being 1 hour and 36 minutes in length. One of the sample videos selected was over 18 minutes in length, and the longer the duration of the child abuse video, the greater the degree of harm to the child that was involved in its production.
As the conduct relevant to Sequence 1 and Sequence 5 occurred over a three-year period, his accessing and possession of this material was not an isolated act by the offender but sustained conduct during that three-year period. Accordingly, there is a significantly high degree of objective seriousness.
While the personal circumstances of none of the child victims depicted in the material are known, it must be accepted that the harm to child victims from this conduct is significant, and it has long been said that it can simply be inferred that sexual activity with a child carries a presumption of harm caused by premature sexual activity, that is, activity before a child can give meaningful consent.
General deterrence has been held to be a primary sentencing consideration, as was stated in Lazarus v R [2023] NSWCCA 214 which referred to a number of factors as to why that is so:

The prevalence and ready availability of CAM and the recognition that markets exist for such material and the insidious impact of child abuse material which has become an international problem, is significantly aggravated by the advent of the internet. Networks of likeminded people exchanging such material are difficult to detect by law enforcement, particularly due to the anonymity provided by the internet.
The vulnerability of the abused children who feature in the material when they are too young to avoid the exploitation to which they have been subjected and who often come from disadvantaged countries that lack adequate resources to provide protection to them.
The victims are vulnerable, and the internet provides prolific and worldwide dissemination of the material by a means which is difficult to detect.
There is a public interest in stifling the transmission and use of child abuse material as a means of protecting children and signalling to the community that it will not be tolerated.

SUBJECTIVE MATTERS

The offender was 31 to 34 years of age at the time of the offending, and he is now 34.
In relation to subjective matters, before me is the offender's criminal history which I note contains only one offence of contravene a prohibition or restriction in an AVO which came before the Kempsey Local Court on 15 May 2024, and in relation to which he received a conditional release order without a conviction of 12 months commencing on 15 May 2024.
While that indicates that it can generally be said that he is a person of good character, it has long been held that prior good character has less weight in relation to offences such as this, given the need for general deterrence, and of course, relevant to this is the duration of his offending.
Also provided on his behalf is a letter from Dr Balaji Kalband, an epilepsy specialist, dated 19 August 2024 indicating that the accused has been a patient of his since 15 May 2024 for management of temporal lobe epilepsy which I note otherwise appears to have been with him since his youth.
In addition, the offender gave evidence on sentence and a report was provided to the Court under the hand of Ivanka Manoski, dated 17 July 2024. I note that in giving evidence, he made a number of statements relevant to remorse and contrition such as asserting that he was deeply ashamed of what he had done, that his actions had destroyed his life, that it would loom over his head for the rest of his life and that he would need to change a lot to reintegrate with the community, that he now understood the consequences to children and recognised that what he had done was extremely wrong and he thought that it was really horrible.
That is not dissimilar to some of the content of the report from Ms Manoski. While it is relevant particularly to such issues as remorse and contrition, there are other matters relevant to those issues. I note that Ms Manoski found that he presented with "limited insight into his difficulties and engaged in minimisation of his offending" (para 9); that he underreported the amount and frequency of his access to pornographic material (para 30); that he lacked insight into why he was using pornography (para 31); that he lacked understanding of his offending behaviour (para 42); that he "minimised his engagement" and "denial about the offending by suggesting that he would delete child abuse material whenever he discovered it"; and that he simultaneously denied deviant interests but admitted to watching bestiality material (para 33).
I accept that both his evidence on sentence and the material contained in Ms Manoski's report indicate that he has been engaging in persistent and consistent minimisation of his conduct and a denial of responsibility since the time of his arrest, as appears from the earlier quotes of what he informed police officers. I accept that having been charged with offences of this nature and considering the content of the material that the offender is, as a result, deeply ashamed by his conduct as it has now become known to others in the community.
While I accept that he has endeavoured to minimise his conduct, I accept that he has nonetheless expressed matters relevant to an assessment of remorse and contrition, including the fact that he entered pleas of guilty at an early time, which of course does not necessarily indicate remorse or contrition in the light of an overwhelming case, but I do accept that he has been fundamentally affected by the knowledge that his friends, relatives and others in the community now know of his predilection, being an interest in child pornography.
I do not accept any assertion by the offender that he was only interested in viewing 15 or 16-year-olds (who of course are still children) as the predominant child abuse material, and the bulk of it, was in relation to prepubescent children, indicating to me that he had a significant sexual interest in prepubescent children.
It has been always apparent in dealing with such matters as this that persons found with material such as this will typically minimise or deny their sexual interest in children. I note that Ms Manoski in fact states: "Most sexual offenders will typically minimise or deny a sexual interest in children."
In my view, that is done not simply to try and reduce the sentence that might otherwise be provided but also as a matter of self-protection in relation to how they see themselves and how others may see them.
As to his background history, he is an only child to his biological parents. He was born in Sydney and lived there until he was approximately eight years of age. His father was apparently imprisoned for distribution of illicit substances when the offender was two years of age. His parents' relationship ended shortly after his father's imprisonment.
His mother apparently had a cannabis and amphetamine problem and dragged him around while she was "trying to get on." She later met his stepfather, and they formed a relationship which produced two further children, being Mr Dorsett's half-sister, seven years his junior, and half-brother, ten years his junior. He described his mother as being emotionally neglectful to him, focusing on his two younger siblings. Although he had epilepsy as a child, he apparently never sought any assistance for that problem. He always felt that his siblings were provided for and treated in a better manner by his mother than he was. When he was 18, she asked him to leave the home and would not allow him to return when he was experiencing homelessness. Accordingly, he always felt abandoned and unloved.
His stepfather was verbally and physically abusive towards him and was also a substance abuser as well as being involved in criminal activity when the offender was young, growing and selling his own cannabis. When the offender was 18, his relationship with his stepfather improved after a violent interaction between the two of them. His stepfather passed away in 2014.
He has had almost no contact with his biological father in his lifetime and he claims a good relationship with his stepfather's family including his step-paternal aunt who has assisted him throughout his life and with whom he was residing prior to sentence.
He attended two different primary schools and one high school. From Year 2 to Year 6, he reports having been bullied verbally and physically and being socially isolated. He was counselled by a school counsellor in Years 3 and 4 but that ceased in Year 5 because the bullies had moved on to high school. In Year 8 he felt less isolated and made friends but he struggled academically throughout school.
He left school at the end of Year 11 and has had a number of different jobs, mainly in the food industry such as with Donut King and McDonald's. His longest job was with "Masters" for a three-year period from the age of 23 to 26 but he lost that job when the business closed. He undertook an apprenticeship as a chef for two years but when he hurt himself on the job, he did not receive any medical attention and left the job as a result. His last job was some two and a half years ago in a restaurant, and he has been in receipt of Centrelink benefits since that time.
As indicated by the letter from Dr Kalband, he is being medicated in relation to his ongoing problem with epilepsy.
He commenced smoking cannabis when he was about 18 years of age, on and off, as he believed it assisted him with his epilepsy and sleep difficulties. He denies any significant alcohol use and only drinks on special occasions such as Christmas, in order to be social.
He describes himself as a loner and his current social network is very small. He has had three significant romantic relationships during his life, the first with his son's mother at around age 19, and he was together with her for approximately one and a half years. When they separated, the son remained in the full-time care of his mother, and he had regular contact with him. He later sought custody of their son some six years ago and successfully gained custody and his son was residing with them on a full-time basis until his arrest. The son is now 14 years of age and again resides with his mother on a full-time basis. He currently has no contact with his son due to an Apprehended Violence Order.
His second relationship lasted approximately one year and ended when his partner relocated to Melbourne.
His current relationship has been for approximately six years. His partner has four children from a previous relationship being two sons, aged 16 and 14, and two daughters, aged 11 and 10. He describes her as supportive, and I believe she has been present both on the sentence date and today. He has regular contact with her. Even though the current AVO exists, it is in relation to the children and does not include her.
Around this offending, he reported viewing pornography regularly and spending time talking to others through social media platforms and exchanging pornographic material. Ms Manoski indicated: "He tended to minimise this in the interview and may have underreported this, considering he was found to be in possession of a large volume of child abuse material as well as regular pornographic material at the time of his arrest. He had been paying for 40GB of storage and reported that he had used approximately half of this on storing pornography, movies, and anime".
He reported to Ms Manoski that he had a heterosexual orientation and denied any deviant sexual interest including paedophilia, exhibitionism, voyeurism, sadomasochism, or fetishes. However, Ms Manoski goes on to note that he was found in possession of bestiality videos which he had admitted to watching in the past and she opined "Mr Dorsett may have some deviant interests, however this is difficult to definitively say, as he denied this during the assessment."
She otherwise found that he had a persistent depressive disorder with anxious distress, and she stated at para 40: "Mr Dorsett's charges were discussed with him during the assessment. He minimised his engagement by indicating that when he discovered some of the CAM, he deleted this and did not view it. He also engaged in denial about the offending, indicated that he had not been aware of the amount of CAM or bestiality videos he had been in possession of, as he had not viewed the large amount of material he had been provided. He had planned to go through the material and delete anything he did not want; however, he never did. He had come about this material by reportedly sharing folders of pornographic material with others online. He claimed that he viewed these folders about once a week as he was generally busy with work and house duties."
Paragraph 41: "When asked about his attitude towards CAM he described it as 'sickening' and questioned why anyone would view it as it was placing children through adolescents early and it 'It's not right.' He stated that his mother had been sexually abused as a child and he had supported her throughout the court process. In relation to his offending and the material being in his possession, he described this as 'horrible' and 'sickening' and that it was not something that he wanted to have in his possession" ... "Mr Dorsett lacks understanding of his offending behaviour and the reasons he engaged in such behaviour".
She assessed him as being a medium risk of reoffending and as to his risk for sexual violence, she assessed him as being in the likely low range.
While I have some difficulty in the extent to which the Court can accept the offender's protestations of being deeply ashamed and acknowledging that this conduct is "horrible," I am prepared to accept that there is evidence of genuine remorse and contrition. However, in my view, taking into account the observations of Ms Manoski, I cannot say that there is a good prospect of rehabilitation, but I accept that having had this conduct exposed to the community the offender is unlikely to return to accessing and viewing such material.
I note that the offences are one of using a carriage service to access child abuse material, in terms of the Commonwealth offences, and one of possessing the child abuse material. There is in my view in relation to the facts in this matter a significant degree of overlap between those two charges, and of course the charge is not viewing such material, it is accessing it and possessing it.
I have taken into account the matters contained in s 16A of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) as the matters the Court must take into account when determining sentence, such as the nature and circumstances of the offence, whether it forms part of a course of conduct consisting of a series of criminal acts of the same or similar character, that course of conduct, the personal circumstances of any victim, but only in the sense that these were recordings of children, the fact that he has pleaded guilty, the deterrent effect that any sentence will have on him, or on any other person. But fundamentally, the Court must ensure that the sentence imposed is adequate punishment for the offences as well as having regard to the objective of rehabilitating the person.
Taking all of those matters into account, I have given consideration to the sentence that is appropriate to impose both in relation to the New South Wales Crimes Act offence and the Commonwealth Criminal Code offences. As I have already noted, I consider that there is a considerable overlap between all of the matters and accordingly, in relation to Sequence 4, being the offence contrary to s 547E (2) of the Crimes Act (NSW), possess bestiality material, the sentence is six months' imprisonment to commence today 16 September 2024 and to expire on 15 March 2025.
Although there are some distinctions between the Acts, and the Commonwealth charges of access and possession, in my view, it is appropriate to deal with those by way of an aggregate sentence. And while there are some differences between them, in my view, the same indicative sentence can be provided for each, of course taking into account the fact that the maximum period of imprisonment is 15 years in each, rather than three years as it was for the possess bestiality material. The indicative sentence in respect of each of those matters is one of three years, six months. That is for the s 474.22 (1) offence and the s 474.22A (1) offence: three years, six months in respect of each.
The aggregate sentence must allow for some accumulation to reflect the different nature of the offending. But due to the overlap, there would not be what I regard as a significant accumulation by way of the aggregate sentence. The aggregate sentence will be a sentence of four years with a non‑parole period of two years. In my view, the offender will require a longer period on parole than might otherwise be the case in order to assure that he ceases accessing and possessing materials such as this in the future. In my view, that will require some ongoing psychological or psychiatric treatment and accordingly, a two-year period on parole being forced to adhere to the orders of Community Corrections will assist him in that regard.
So accordingly, the non-parole period is two years commencing on 16 September 2024 and it will expire on 15 September 2026. The balance of term is two years, so the four years will expire on 15 September 2028, and it will be evident that I have made that sentence entirely concurrent with the sentence of six months for the bestiality charge. Now, is there anything significant that I have omitted or mistake that I have made that anyone can alert me to? MCKENZIE: No, your Honour. HIS HONOUR: Alright. BROOKS: No, your Honour, I just ask that your Honour make the forfeiture order sought by the Crown. HIS HONOUR: I have already made that, I have already signed that and it's with my associate, so I'll just note-- BROOKS: Thank you, your Honour. HIS HONOUR: --that I have made the forfeiture order as requested in respect of the mobile phone.

DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 18 February 2025

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Source

Judgment (13 paragraphs)

Parties

Legislation Cited (3)

Cases Cited (2)