The offender, Mr Brendan Jessop appears before the Court in relation to both Commonwealth and State offences to which he has entered pleas of guilty. First an offence under s 474.19(1) of the Commonwealth Criminal Code 1995 being an offence of using a carriage service to access child pornography material. The maximum penalty for that offence is 15 years imprisonment.
Secondly, he has pleaded guilty to three offences under s 17(1) of the New South Wales Child Protection (Offender's Registration) Act 2000 being offences of failing to comply with reporting obligations under that Act. The maximum penalty for each of those offences is five years imprisonment.
In addition the offender has admitted to having breached six good behaviour bonds imposed in the Local Court on 22 November 2017 under s 9 of Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999. Those good behaviour bonds were imposed for six earlier offences of failing to comply with reporting obligations.
In relation to those matters the offender has provided consent to this Court dealing with the breaches and his counsel has conceded that the appropriate action in relation to those bonds is that they be revoked pursuant to s 107C of the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 and the offender re-sentenced pursuant to 107D of that Act for the original six offences.
An agreed statement of facts has been provided in relation to the Commonwealth offence and the three State offences to which the offender has pleaded guilty on indictment. In summary the facts are as follows:
By way of background I note that in February 2015 the offender was sentenced for an offence of possessing child abuse material to imprisonment for 20 months with a non-parole period of 12 months. As a result of that conviction he became a registrable person under the Child Protection (Offender Registration) Act 2000 and was placed on the Child Protection Register. In August/September 2017 the offender was convicted in the Manly Local Court of six offences of failing to comply with reporting obligations under that Act and as a result was placed on good behaviour bonds, each for a period of two years pursuant to s 9 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.
On 29 May 2019 New South Wales police attended the offender's home in order to conduct a home visit pursuant to the offender registration legislation. At that time the offender told police he had recently broken up with his girlfriend, had nothing new to report in relation to his reporting obligations and that none of his relevant details had changed. He also told police that there had been no change in his social media accounts or employment.
The next day 30 May 2019 police again attended the offender's home for the purposes of an inspection pursuant to s 16C of the legislation aimed at verifying relevant personal information which was required to be provided to police by the offender due to his status as a registrable person. During this inspection the offender provided written consent to police conducting an examination of any computers or electronic devices. As a result police examined and seized two devices, namely an Apple iPhone and an Apple iPad. The examination of the iPad indicated that there was no internet history prior to 29 May 2019. The internet history which was visible on that device mostly related to the New South Wales police child protection register. Police said to the offender, "Brendan your internet searches are mainly for the child protection register?" to which the offender replied, "That's good isn't it, making sure I know the law?".
Moving to the facts relating to count 1 on the indictment, being the Commonwealth offence. When police examined the offender's iPhone for the purposes of verifying social media information they found a number of images on his Instagram account. As is now reasonably well-known, Instagram is a blogging and social network application which allows users to create accounts and post content including photos and videos. It also allows users to mark a post or an image posted by someone else as having been "liked". The Instagram account on the offender's iPhone was logged in under the user name "Brendan Jessop". Under this account the user, which the offender agrees was himself, had "liked" hundreds of images of adult females. However, seven of the "liked" images were identified by police as child pornography. The seven identified images were, after examination by police, categorised as being category 2 material under the Interpol Baseline Scale system of classification. That is a system which categorises child abuse material by reference to the activity depicted in it.
Category 1 involves material depicting a real pre-pubescent child where the child is involved in a sex act, is witnessing a sex act or where the material is focused or concentrated on the anal or genital region of the child. Category 2 material involves other child abuse material which does not fit within category 1. This includes material depicting a person who is or appears to be, or is implied to be a child, and is depicted or described in a way that reasonable persons would regard in all the circumstances as offensive and who, a) is a victim of torture, cruelty or physical abuse or b) is engaged in or apparently engaged in a sexual pose or sexual activity or c) is in the presence of another person who is engaged in or apparently engaged in a sexual pose or sexual activity or d) is exposing the genital or anal region or breasts of a female child.
The seven detected images showed female children mostly in bikini swimwear or underwear with some focusing on the breast area. Two of the images were digital in the sense that they did not depict real children. The agreed facts describe the seven images in the following terms: The first image involved a female aged 12 to 15, clothed in a denim jacket which is open exposing her breast. The second image involved a female clothed in a crop top aged about 12 to 15 years, sitting up with legs splayed and bent at the knee. The third image involved a female aged 12 to 15 sitting with legs apart wearing a singlet top and short shorts and who does not appear to be wearing underwear. The fourth image involved a female aged approximately 12 to 15 years clothed in a sheer nightie. The fifth image was an animated image of a female approximately ten to 13 years of age with pink hair exposing her breast area. The sixth image was of a female aged 12 to 15 years clothed in underwear and a top in a pose with her hands behind her head and the seventh image was of two animated females approximately aged ten to 13 years, the images being from the waist up where the images were clothed in a bra and tagged with the word "#gaolbait".
The offender was cautioned by police and shown these images and a conversation in the following terms then took place. The police officer said, "Brendan, I'm concerned about these pictures of girls on your Instagram account, that have been "liked". Again you don't have to say or do anything but anything you do so can be used in Court. Do you understand?" The offender said, "Yes". He then said, "Sometimes I just like to have a bit of fun. They are just people I follow on Instagram. I didn't download anything." The police said, "You're under arrest for having these pictures which are child abuse material" and he was then taken into custody.
Turning to the remaining three counts on the indictment. As noted in the Agreed Facts, police had received information that the offender, whilst mostly residing at his declared address, had also been residing or visiting another address which had not been declared to police. This was the address of his then girlfriend who resided in Toongabbie. During the inspection the offender was asked about the girlfriend and whether she had any children and the following conversation took place. He said, "Yes she's got two boys, Christian and Gabriel, and a daughter who's 21 who lives in Newcastle. The boys are 8 and 7 and live with their dad in Penrith."
Police asked, "Did you ever stay at her place when the boys were there?". The offender said, "No, no way I can't do that. I've seen them play soccer but that's it. Their father has full-time custody of them." Police asked, "Did you ever stay at Sheena's?", that being the name of the girlfriend, and the offender said, "No". Police asked, "Brendan do you know what your obligations are in relation to being around children and staying at another address?" and he said, "Yes, definitely I need to report any contact with children to you and any new addresses."
Police spoke with the offender's ex-girlfriend who stated that her children would stay at their natural father's house on Friday and Saturday nights and that the offender would occasionally stay at her house on weekends arriving by Friday night and leaving on a Monday morning. Those are the facts relating to count 2.
Turning to count 3, police were also informed by the offender's ex-girlfriend that the offender had accompanied her to watch her sons play a soccer match and that on that occasion the offender used his phone to take photographs of her sons as her own phone was at that stage broken. The ex-girlfriend also indicated that in November 2018 the offender had visited her house when she had a broken foot and had stayed over for a couple of days at a time when her children were in the house. As is noted in the Agreed Facts, the details of the children with whom the offender had been in contact should have been reported to New South Wales police in accordance with the offender's reporting obligations. When asked by police if he had ever stayed over when the children were present the offender responded, "No, no way I know I can't do that. I've seen them play soccer but that's it. Their father has full-time custody of them."
Turning to count 4 on the indictment. Further inspection of the offender's iPad showed that there was an email address, "Brendan1979@iCloud.com" in the inbox. This email address had not been disclosed by the offender on the Form 4 Child Protection Register Acknowledgement Forms which he had signed on 30 September 2015, 31 August 2016 and 25 August 2018. In relation to this email address the offender denied using it and stated that he did not set it up. Those are the facts relating to count 4.
Turning then to the matters relating to the bonds that were imposed in the Manly Local Court on 22 November 2017. As I have noted already, on that date the offender was dealt with in the Manly Local Court in relation to six offences of failing to comply with reporting obligations, those being offences under s 17(1) of the Child Protection (Offender's Registration) Act 2000. Each of those offences carried a maximum penalty of five years' imprisonment, although as they were dealt with in the Local Court they were subject to the jurisdictional limits of that Court.
In relation to those offences, which were admitted by the offender, a magistrate imposed pursuant to s 9 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 a bond to be of good behaviour for two years. Those bonds expired on 21 November 2019. However, and as is conceded by the offender, his conduct in committing further offences during April/May 2019 amounted to a breach of those good behaviour bonds.
In those circumstances s 107C of the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 provides, in effect, that the Court should revoke the bonds, or with the offender's consent, a Court of higher jurisdiction may take certain action including revoking the orders under which the bonds were made. In this case the offender has given his consent to this Court dealing with the admitted breaches and has conceded through his counsel that it would be appropriate for this Court to revoke the previous orders by which those good behaviour bonds were created.
Section 107D provides relevantly that where a Court revokes such an order it may resentence the offender for the original offences. Counsel for the offender conceded that the appropriate course in this case would be for me to take that action and resentence the offender. In my view that is an appropriate course and the course that I propose to take. In doing so it is necessary that I exercise the sentencing discretion afresh and that in doing so I consider the facts of those matters and their objective seriousness.
The facts of the offences for which the offender was dealt with in November 2017 are also agreed and relevantly are as follows. The first offence involved a failure to inform police that the offender had changed his employment. This was an offence under s 11 and came to light on 22 August 2017 when police attended Hudson Building Supplies at Brookvale, being the employment details which the offender had supplied on 21 March 2017.
Police attended there because they had been unable to contact the offender for some time. When police did attend those premises they were informed that the offender had left that employment on 14 June 2017. Enquiries by police indicated that the offender had commenced work on 29 June 2017 at Old Mate Fencing but had not informed police about this change as he should have. Although the offender sent an email on the evening of 22 August 2017 to police advising them of this new employment that email was not sent until later on the same day as police had made contact with both the old employer and the new employer. It appears that this was the reason the offender sent that email.
The second offence dealt with in the Local Court involved a failure by the offender to attend for annual reporting in compliance with s 10 of the legislation. The requirement to attend upon police was an obligation imposed upon the offender by reason of his being a registrable person such that he should have reported to police during the month of August 2017. This he failed to do despite the onus being on him to do so and despite numerous attempts by police to contact him. Those attempts included police leaving voicemail messages for the offender on the 1st and 3rd August and attending his home on the 8th and 17th August, when cards with contact deals were left.
The police efforts also included sending emails to the offender on the 10th and 30th August and 4th September 2017. It also included attempts to contact the offender by knocking on his door on 18 August and 5 September 2017. It was not until 6 September 2017 that the offender attended North Sydney police station where he was arrested. On that occasion the offender admitted knowing that he had failed to attend for his annual reporting and that he was aware that police had made a number of attempts to contact him. In explanation he said he had slipped up and felt fearful and depressed.
The third offence dealt with at Manly Local Court involved a failure to disclose the existence of a Twitter account. That was a breach of s 9. This offence was discovered by police from an analysis of emails received on the offender's mobile telephone. Those emails include some which had originated from Twitter, indicating that he had a Twitter account which had not been disclosed to police in accordance with his obligations.
The fourth offence, again under s 9, was one involving a failure to disclose to police the fact that he had an account with an online dating website called Oasis.com. This offence was also discovered by a police examination of the offender's mobile phone.
Offence 5 was of a similar nature in that police detected on the offender's mobile phone emails from flirtcontactclub.com, that being another online dating site on which the offender had been using the name "Tradegy079" [sic]. It is an agreed fact that the offender failed to report the existence of this account in accordance with his obligations.
The sixth offence before the Manly Local Court was of a similar nature and involved the failure by the offender to disclose to police the existence of a Facebook account which existed in his real name of Brendan Jessop.
It is important in sentencing the offender that I make an assessment of the objective seriousness of each of his offences. In sentencing for the Commonwealth offence, I must apply Part 1B of the Crimes Act 1914, and any relevant factors in s.16A. The objective seriousness of the Commonwealth offence, which is count 1 of the indictment, is marked firstly by the maximum penalty of 15 years imprisonment. The maximum penalty is, as is the case with all of the offences before the Court, an important guidepost in sentencing.
The New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal decision in R v Hutchinson [2018] NSWCCA 152 provides a non-exhaustive list updated from an earlier decision of that Court, of potentially relevant matters bearing upon the objective seriousness of offences involving the possession, dissemination or transmission of child pornography or child abuse material.
The matters which I consider relevant in my assessment of the objective seriousness of the Commonwealth access offence are as follows: Firstly of the seven images involved, five of them depicted real children. Each of those children were females in the approximate age range of 12 to 15 years while the two animated images involved females in the age range of about 10 to 13 years.
None of the images involved actual sexual activity but rather involved children depicted in revealing clothes and in sexually provocative poses. None of the images depicted any direct cruelty or physical harm being inflicted. The offender's purpose in accessing the material was stated by him to be having "a bit of fun" by liking the images on his Instagram account, which essentially involved the images being largely for his own use rather than for sale or dissemination.
There is no evidence that the offender received any payment for having accessed the images and there is no evidence as to his proximity to those responsible for bringing the images into existence.
Another of the factors referred to in Hutchinson is the degree of planning, organisation, sophistication and/or deception involved in the offence. In this case it cannot be said that any of these aspects arise, and I am unable to reach any conclusion as to the age of any person or persons with whom the offender was in communication in connection with the images. Given the offender's admission to police that the images he "liked" were either received from, or disseminated to other Instagram users, there is some, although limited evidence, that the offences involved like-minded persons.
As to the 12th matter referred to in the decision of Hutchinson, there was no evidence to establish that there was a risk of the material being seen or acquired by vulnerable persons or persons susceptible to act in a similar manner. It is also relevant, as the Crown submitted, that the offending was not a momentary lapse but continued over a period of about one and a half months and it is apparent that the offender knew the pictures were of children, given that one of the images which depicted two animated girls was accompanied by the word "gaolbait", and also given his pleas of guilty.
It was submitted by the Crown that the offences fall within the low range of objective seriousness while the offender's Counsel argued that they fell at the very lowest level. Having regard to the matters I have noted and to the difficulty involved in postulating the "very lowest" or indeed "very highest" level of any offence, it seems to be that the objective seriousness lies towards the bottom of the range of objective seriousness.
In sentencing for child pornography related offences appellate courts have consistently said that a term of immediate imprisonment would ordinarily be expected. That is in part due to the fact that general deterrence is the paramount consideration. It is also relevant that offences involving child pornography are becoming increasingly prevalent and are difficult to detect. One of the evils of accessing this sort of material is that it creates or feeds the market for the exploitation and abuse of children. It has been said also, many times, that the possession of, or the accessing of such images is not a victimless crime because the material usually comes into existence as a result of children being sexually abused. The harm to children is exacerbated by the fact that such images once placed on the internet are capable of being circulated and accessed on an almost indefinite basis.
It is also necessary for me to assess the objective seriousness of the three New South Wales offences on the indictment of failure to comply with reporting obligations which were detected on 30 May 2019. Each of these carries a maximum penalty of five years' imprisonment on indictment and must therefore be treated as objectively serious for that reason.
Section 2A of the Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Act 2000 states the objects of the Act as being:
1. (a) To protect children from serious harm, including the physical and psychological harm caused by physical or sexual assault, and
2. (b) To ensure the early detection of offences by recidivist child sex offenders, and
3. (c) To monitor persons who are registrable persons, and
4. (d) To ensure that registrable persons comply with the Act.
The offender became a registrable person in February 2015 as a result of his being sentenced to imprisonment for possessing child abuse material. As a result, s 9 of the Act required him to report information including any address at which he generally resides, details of each child with whom he had contact when visiting or staying at a household where a child was present, and details of any email addresses.
Count 2 of the indictment involves an offence of failure to report an address at which the offender resided being the address of his then girlfriend and her two male children. This offence is based on information from the girlfriend to the effect the offender would occasionally stay at her house on weekends arriving Friday nights and leaving Monday mornings and that he stayed over for a couple of days in November 2018 when the girlfriend had a broken foot.
Count 3 of the indictment involves a failure to report the fact that the offender had been in contact with the two sons of his girlfriend when he accompanied her to watch the boys play soccer and stayed over for a couple of days in November 2018 when the boys were present and when the ex-girlfriend had a broken foot. This offence also involves the agreed fact that when he attended the soccer match, the offender took photographs of the children on his phone, although apparently only because the mother's phone was broken.
Count 4 of the indictment is an offence of failing to disclose an email address which was found by police in the offender's iPad. There is a good deal of overlap between the offences in count 2 and count 3. However, in my view, each of these offences must be regarded as serious breaches when viewed objectively. They did not relate simply to personal details, such as tattoos or distinguishing marks or employment details, but involved him residing at a different address at which children lived and having direct contact with those children. This type of breach goes to the heart of the protective nature of the reporting conditions in the Act and must therefore be regarded as reasonably serious.
Having said that, I am conscious of the degree of overlap between the two offences. Mitigating the offences to some degree is the fact that according to the Agreed Facts the offender's stays at the girlfriend's house were occasional only and his contact with the children is agreed also to have been episodic. There does not appear to be anything else by way of mitigation of these offences, especially given that the offender gave false answers to police when questioned about the matters and the fact that as he had been on the register for some years, and could have been under no misunderstanding about his obligations.
The offence that is the subject of count 4 involves the offender's failure to disclose an email address. There is no evidence of when this email address was created or any evidence that it was used in any way. In my view this offence is in the low range of objective seriousness.
In determining the appropriate penalty in relation to these three offences it is, however, significant that they involve a third occasion when the offender has been before a Court for having failed to comply with reporting conditions, given that he was dealt with for the same type of offences at Manly Local Court in November 2017 and also in July 2018. This fact underscores the importance on deterrence, and in particular, personal deterrence.
The objective seriousness of the six offences detected in September 2017 which were dealt with at Manly Local Court in November 2017 is indicated firstly by the fact that each offence carries a maximum penalty of five years, although in the Local Court that was subject to the jurisdictional limits of that Court, which I apply when resentencing. In my view each of these were relatively serious examples of breaches of the legislation.
The failure to report the change in employment meant that the police would, as was indeed the case, have difficulties in tracing the offender. The failure to attend for his annual reporting was a very fundamental breach of his obligations. The third, fourth, fifth and sixth offences were all of the same type, involving a failure to disclose the existence of social media identities and activity. While there is a large degree of overlap between those four breaches they nonetheless do involve four separate conscious occasions of conduct in the setting up and presumably using the various online accounts and failing to comply with the requirement to advise police about them.
It was argued on behalf of the offender that the time which he had spent in apparent compliance with the six good behaviour bonds should be taken into account in determining the nature and terms of any sentence imposed following their revocation. While I do take this into account this consideration is somewhat reduced by reason of the fact that on 18 July 2018 the offender was fined $800 for another offence of failing to comply with his reporting obligations.
The Court has some, although limited information about the offender's subjective background. He is now 40 years of age and apart from the matters to which I have already referred, he has a fairly limited criminal history. He has provided to the Court a letter in which he says he grew up in an abusive environment with an alcoholic father who he claimed was physically abusive towards him until he left home aged 16. He also states that he has been in the past placed on medication for bipolar, anxiety and depression disorders. He further says that being arrested has had a devastating effect on him in that he has lost a full-time job, lost his rented apartment and lost friends and family.
He makes reference to plans to marry his fiancée. He also in that letter expresses remorse for his dangerous and irresponsible actions, as he describes them, and accepts that there was a breach of trust involved in his offences. In relation to the access child pornography material offence he says that he did not stop to consider the hurt that those offences would have caused to the young people in the images for the rest of their lives, and claims that since being in custody he has realised how hurtful and damaging his actions have been.
I note that the offender's asserted history of an abusive and disturbed upbringing is consistent with what he told a Community Corrections officer in November 2017 when he was awaiting sentence in the Local Court - and I am there referring to the pre-sentence report dated 22 November 2017 which was admitted in evidence before me.
His claims of problems with anxiety and depression are also consistent with what he told the Community Corrections Officer in November 2017 and are supported by the letter from his girlfriend or fiancée, Ms Melvie, to which I will refer in a moment. Given the consistency in these histories about the offender's upbringing and mental health, I am satisfied that these are matters to which I can attach some weight. The fact that the offender does suffer from anxiety and depression is a matter which, in my view, is likely to have made, and will continue to make, his time in custody more difficult and this is a matter which I take into account in determining the period he must serve in custody.
As to the other assertions, such as his claims of remorse, while I take these matters into account, the weight I give to them is reduced because they have not been confirmed by the offender on oath.
The Court also has a letter from the offender's fiancée, Sheena Melvie, who says that she connected with the offender in May 2018 and that prior to meeting physically with him he had informed her that he was a registered sex offender. The letter from Ms Melvie refers to various difficulties which she says the offender has been affected by since being in custody and in particular his mental state and inability to access mental health services.
Although this material was not in the form of evidence on oath it does provide some corroboration with the offender's claim to having some mental health issues and I am well aware that the access to mental health resources in New South Wales Correctional facilities is often difficult and that those resources are limited.
In my view, however, the most significant aspect arising from Ms Melvie's letter is the fact that she remains supportive of the offender, which is a matter that provides some optimism with respect to his prospects of rehabilitation and avoidance of future offences.
As I have said, I have considered the offender's assertions of contrition and remorse and given them what weight I can. Given the repeated nature of the offender's failures to comply with reporting, his recent Commonwealth offence and the fact that there was no evidence that he has received any counselling or other treatment, I am unable to be confident that he will not reoffend. As I have said, however, the fact that he is in a relationship with an apparently supportive partner does provide some hope about his prospects. On balance I would describe his prospects as guarded.
The offender has a reasonably limited prior criminal history prior to the serious offence of possessing child abuse material for which he was sentenced in January 2015. His criminal history does not suggest that he is a career criminal and it appears that his greatest difficulties have been his failures since becoming a registrable person in 2015 to comply with his reporting obligations and to avoid child pornography material.
The four offences on the indictment are, however, aggravated by reason that they were committed while he was subject to the good behaviour bond imposed in the Local Court in November 2017.
The offender entered pleas of guilty to all of the State offences at the earliest opportunity and I have applied a 25% discount in those matters by reason of the utilitarian value of those pleas. In the Commonwealth matter the plea of guilty was at a much later stage and I have applied a 10% discount in that matter on account of the utilitarian value.
Given that the child pornography images were found on his mobile phone, I regard the plea of guilty in the Commonwealth matter as more a recognition of the inevitable than as indicative of remorse or a desire to facilitate justice. I have taken into account in the offender's favour the fact that he cooperated with police in consenting to them inspecting his iPhone when they attended at his address on 30 May 2019 and that it was this that led to the discovery of the seven child pornography images.
I intend to impose periods of imprisonment in relation to each of the offences. I am satisfied that no penalty other than imprisonment is appropriate. In determining the various sentences and the overall effective sentence I am conscious of the importance of deterrence both of this offender and others. It is necessary in setting the sentence that I have regard to the principle of totality and the need for me to determine the extent to which those sentences ought to be concurrent or cumulative and to what degree.
In my view a degree of concurrency is required in order to avoid sentences that might be described otherwise as excessive or crushing. In sentencing for the New South Wales offences I find special circumstances for varying to some degree the ordinary ratio between head sentence and non-parole period. Special circumstances, in my view, are made out in this case based on the offender's mental health issues and the importance of him being monitored upon his release to parole.
I have also taken into account the recent restrictions imposed by reason of the current Coronavirus pandemic and the cessation of family visits that this has involved in recent times and the increased anxiety and uncertainty associated with the risk of an outbreak in the prison environment where social distancing is impractical.
I intend to impose aggregate sentences for the New South Wales offences and a sentence of imprisonment for the Commonwealth offence with an order in that matter that the offender be released on recognisance at the conclusion of that period of imprisonment.
Turning first to the six offences that were dealt with at the Manly Local Court in November 2017. In relation to those offences of failing to comply with reporting obligations, I find the breaches of the s 9 bonds proved and I note that that was admitted. I revoke the orders made in the Manly Local Court on 22 November 2017 and I proceed to resentence the offender for those matters.
In doing so I have regard to the fact that between 22 November 2017 and his arrest on 30 May 2019 the offender was subject to the penalty imposed by the Local Court in November 2017, namely the s 9 bonds. He has, therefore, already served a large part of that sentence although the weight that I give to this factor is reduced by the fact that he committed a similar offence, namely a failure to comply with reporting in May to June 2018 and by reason of the offences detected in May 2019.
In relation to those six offences I am satisfied that the s 5 threshold in the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 has been crossed and that no penalty other than imprisonment is appropriate. I allow a discount of 25% on account of the pleas of guilty which were entered at an early stage in the Local Court. I have regard to the agreed principle that in sentencing for these matters I should apply the jurisdictional limits applicable in the Local Court.
In those matters I impose an aggregate sentence of 12 months' imprisonment with a non-parole period of eight months. Each of those will date from 30 May 2019. The head sentence for those matters will expire on 29 May 2020 and the non-parole period on 29 January 2020.
The indicative sentences for those matters are as follows: for the first offence, six months imprisonment; the second offence, six months and for the other four offences, a period of imprisonment of two months in each case.
Turning to the second set of NSW offences, those being counts 2, 3 and 4 on the indictment, being offences of failing to comply with reporting obligations. I am satisfied again that the s 5 threshold has been crossed and that no penalty other than imprisonment is appropriate. I allow a 25% discount on account of the pleas of guilty. In those matters I impose an aggregate sentence of 15 months' imprisonment and a non-parole period of ten months. Each of those will date from 30 August 2019. The head sentence, therefore, will expire on 29 November 2020 and the non-parole period on 29 June 2020.
The indicative sentences in relation to those matters are as follows: for count 2, eight months imprisonment; for count 3, eight months imprisonment and for count 4, six months imprisonment.
In relation to all of the New South Wales offences I have, of course, taken into account the purposes of sentencing in s 3A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.
Turning then to the Commonwealth matter which is the subject of count 1 on the indictment, being an offence of using a carriage service to access child pornography. In that matter I am satisfied that no sentence other than one of imprisonment is appropriate. I allow a discount in that matter of 10% on account of the plea of guilty by reason of its utilitarian value, given that the offender's lawyers informed the Crown five days before trial that it was very unlikely that the trial would proceed as a contested hearing.
In relation to the Commonwealth matter I impose a period of imprisonment of 14 months to date from 30 November 2019. I order pursuant to s 20(1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1914 that the offender be released without security after serving eight months of that term. The head sentence will expire, therefore, on 29 January 2021 and the offender will be eligible for release pursuant to that recognisance release order on 29 July 2020.
The total effective head sentence, therefore, is one year eight months and the total effective pre-release period is one year two months. I also make the forfeiture order, which I note was subject to consent, in relation to the iPhone and I have signed the relevant order.
[2]
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: 19 June 2020