R v Kerim

Decision date: 26 June 2025

Jurisdiction: Criminal

Before: Judge Haesler SC DCJ

Decision: Aggregate sentence of 15 months imprisonment to be served subject to an Intensive Correction Order

Catchwords: CRIME — Sexual offences — Bestiality — Production/Dissemination bestiality material
SENTENCING — Mitigating factors — Good character — No record of previous convictions — Plea of guilty — Past and future assistance — Rehabilitation — Remorse — Unlikely to re-offend
SENTENCING — Penalties — Intensive correction orders
SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Deterrence — General deterrence — Form 1 offences — Moral culpability — Objective seriousness — Voluntary disclosure of offending — Assistance to prosecution of others
SENTENCING — Subjective considerations on sentence — Extra curial punishment — Mental illness and disorders

Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)

Cases Cited: Cook v R [2025] NSWCCA 96
Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1; [2010] NSWCCA 194
Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25; (2005) 228 CLR 357
Mill v The Queen [1988] HCA 70; (1988) 166 CLR 59
R v Cartwright (1989) 17 NSWLR 243
R v Chesworth [2003] NSWCCA 115
R v Daetz [2003] NSWCCA 316
R v Geddes (1936) 36 SR (NSW) 554
R v Holyoak (1995) 82 A Crim R 502
R v Pullen [2018] NSWCCA 264
R v PW [2019] NSWDC 963
R v Wilson (2003) 139 A Crim R 398 at 411
Stanley v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) [2023] HCA 3

Texts Cited: Eric Stockdale and Keith Devlin, Sentencing (1987, Law Book Co of Australasia)
The New King James Bible

Category: Sentence

Parties: Joel Jose Kerim (the offender)
Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)

Representation: Counsel:
J Masters (for the offender)
Solicitors:
Clark Rideaux Solicitors (for the offender)
K MacKinnon and K Malcolm for the Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)

File Number(s): 2024/19006

JUDGMENT – ex tempore revised

Introduction

1. In 2023 Joel Kerim, on a number of occasions, had sexual intercourse with a pony – the crime of bestiality. He was living on a small farm on the South Coast of New South Wales with his then wife. In January 2024 sought guidance from the elders of his church. He then went to the local police station where he made full admissions to the offences that now come before the Court. Kerim told police that he was in a “bad frame of mind” at the time.

2. He was eventually charged with four offences of bestiality, pursuant to s 79 Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). Those offences carry a maximum penalty of 14 years imprisonment. Soon after his partner and her family attended the police station. His wife was charged with related offences. She has said she is not guilty and is thus presumed to be innocent. Kerim later made a statement to police. It will be used at his wife’s forthcoming trial

3. Some of the acts toward the pony were video recorded. Kerim has admitted his guilt in relation to producing and disseminating bestiality material: Crimes Act, s 547E(1). He asked that they be taken into account when I sentence him for one the s 79 bestiality matters: Sequence 2. I will do so.

4. Kerim will be giving evidence at his wife’s trial. I anticipate that his version of events will be disputed at trial. This judgement is based on the admitted facts in these proceedings only. They cannot predetermine the facts that will put before the jury, or found by a jury, in that forthcoming trial. As Kerim will be giving evidence at her trial according to his undertaking, to the fact that he has been sentenced, and the facts upon which he was sentenced, will, I expect be, before the jury when those matters eventually come to trial.

Agreed Facts

5. These Agreed Facts relate only to Joel Kerim:

6. Sequence 1 – Relates to an event in early January 2023 where, using a lubricant, he penetrated a pony’s vagina with his penis. His wife was present. She held the pony steady.

7. Sequence 2 – A second incident of bestiality took place a few months later. The acts were almost identical to the first. It occurred while his wife was present. Things were said designed to enhance his erotic experience, and presumably hers. Some photographs or videos were taken and exchanged between the couple: Sequences 3 and 6 on the Form 1.

8. Sequence 4 – A third incident of bestiality occurred in a paddock behind a shed. The offender stood on the chair and penetrated the pony’s vagina with his penis.

9. Sequence 5 – The last incident of bestiality occurred in August 2023. This time the offender stood on a feed bucket. The incident took place near a dam at dusk. It too was filmed.

10. There is support for these activities in the recordings and text messages.

Maximum penalties and standard non-parole periods

11. The maximum penalty for this offence is 14 years; a maximum that was fixed at its current level last century. A maximum penalty can be an important guide to the exercise of the judge’s sentencing discretion. If there has been a recent change, it can convey Parliament’s view of the seriousness of the offence. As plurality of the High Court noted in Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25; (2005) 228 CLR 357.

“Legislatures do not enact maximum available sentences as mere formalities. Judges need sentencing yardsticks. It is well accepted the maximum sentence available may in some cases be a matter of great relevance.”

12. The Court went on, however, to cite a leading text that said:

“A maximum sentence fixed by Parliament may have little relevance in a given case, either because it was fixed at a very high level in the last century … or because it has more recently been set at high catch-all level”: Eric Stockdale and Keith Devlin, Sentencing (1987, Law Book Co of Australasia) at 1.16-1.18.

13. Speaking of that maximum Judge Tupman has noted:

“It seems to me, a somewhat bizarre outcome that the maximum penalty for these offences is 14 years, [and at the relevant time] … the maximum penalty for offences of indecent assault [involving a child] was 2 years … That is perhaps an indication of how the attitude of the community has changed over many years for sexual abuse. It is, however, what it is”: R v PW [2019] NSWDC 963 at [87].

14. Prior to the Crimes Act biblical references note much higher penalties were prescribed: The New King James Bible, Exodus 22:19; Deuteronomy 27:21; Leviticus 20:15-16. My limited research indicates that one reason for this may have been to distinguish between the Judea Christian beliefs that saw man as a creation in God’s image from older religions whose deities assumed bestial form or other religions whose deities assumed bestial forms and whose rituals and fertility rights often involved animals.

Form 1

15. When I sentenced for Sequence 2, I take into account the two matters on the Form 1. As the guideline judgment notes, I do so by recognising the need for personal deterrence and retribution for the crimes for sentence. Section 547E was introduced as a new offence on 22 May 2022. Unusually, when the bill was read this section was not referred to in the second reading speeches. So, there is no guidance from Parliament as to how they, on behalf of the community, view the offence of producing and disseminating bestiality material other than its maximum penalty of 5 years imprisonment.

16. Sometimes there can be a substantial increase for Form 1 matters but here the images were not intended to be distributed. The taking and distribution of them was for Kerim’s, and possibly his wife’s, very private use and sexual enjoyment. The Form 1 matters thus require only a modest increase in the matter for sentence requiring more emphasis on personal deterrence than retribution.

Guilty pleas

17. Because of the guilty pleas and early acceptance of responsibility, each indicated sentence will be reduced by 25% to reflect the utilitarian value of a guilty plea: Crimes *(*Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), s 25D. I will take care the process of accumulation does not erode that benefit.

18. The guilty pleas are also indicative of Kerim’s continuing cooperation with, and facilitation of, the course of justice. He went to the police station and made police statements. He made immediate admissions. Those matters must be taken into account. Reduction in penalty for disclosure of unknown guilt and assistance, particularly in the forthcoming trial, require reduction in the otherwise appropriate sentence. So too does his undertaking to give evidence in the forthcoming trial of his partner.

19. Sentence reductions are commonly given to those who assist law enforcement and the community by making voluntary disclosures of otherwise unknown guilt and giving evidence against others in criminal trials. This reduction recognises that anyone who comes forward and gives evidence against another person takes a potential risk of reprisal by doing so. There is also a community interest that offenders turn on others: R v Cartwright (1989) 17 NSWLR 243 at [252].

20. I must indicate how I have apportioned the reduction by reference to the penalty that I would otherwise have imposed. The result, however, must not be unreasonably disproportionate to the crimes committed. For ease of calculation and transparency I will do so by indicating percentages. For past assistance, 10%. For future assistance, 10%: Crimes *(*Sentencing Procedure) Act, s 23(4). Those reductions will be on the indicated sentences, but again, I will take care that the benefit is not reduced by the process of accumulation that must take place.

A proportional sentence

21. The sentence must be proportionate to what was done. It requires I assess the objective seriousness of each offence as one essential parameter in fixing an appropriate sentence.

22. The offence of bestiality is not concerned wholly or principally with the infliction of cruelty or violence towards animals. If the offender were to have inflicted gratuitous cruelty on the animal, apart from the offence itself, that would be an aggravating factor I would have to have taken into account: Crimes *(*Sentencing Procedure) Act, s 21A(2)(f).

23. Offences against animals, as distinct from humans, involves slightly different criteria. They take into account the vulnerability of a domestic animal and their incapacity to refuse to engage in the particular conduct. As a consequence, bestiality is difficult to compare in terms of seriousness with other types of offences, particularly those against human beings.

24. When sentencing for the offence of bestiality, it is commonly accepted that general deterrence looms large, as does condemnation of the conduct. The Crown submit a custodial sentence is required. The defence accept that proposition. It is accepted that each individual offence is so serious that a custodial sentence of some length is required to reflect the community’s abhorrence at Kerim’s behaviour. The courts must do what they can, to prevent others from engaging in this behaviour by indicating the retribution that will fall upon those who do as this offender did.

Case for the offender

25. Kerim’s personal history is uncontroversial. He was born in Queensland to a close and religious family. He has no prior criminal history. His good character requires some reduction in sentence. The common law, and the Crimes *(*Sentencing Procedure) Act, requires that good character be taken into account in mitigation of penalty. Statutory exceptions for that rule do not apply here. His voluntary ceasing his criminal behaviour, and his revealing to church elders his behaviour, enable me to conclude that while the offending occurred over some months, it was an unusual aberration in an otherwise blameless life.

26. The offender gave evidence, but the substance of his evidence is set out in his affidavit, which was tendered today. He sets out his personal history and confirms the history given to others. He makes a commitment to reform. His regret for his behaviour is clear. A rehabilitation plan is well in place.

27. He had a strict childhood in accordance with the tenets of his faith. He did not mix with other children. He worked all his adult life until an accident caused a spinal injury. He received a compensation payment which gave him the funds to buy the property where the offence occurred. His first sexual relationship and marriage began well but became strained. It appears that attempts to broaden their sexual experience led to increase use of pornography and then the acts with the pony, acts he says were supported and facilitated by his wife, now a co-offender. A matter that she at present contests.

28. I also have the benefit of a comprehensive Sentence Assessment Report and an accompanying Community Corrections sex offender psychological assessment. The reports note Kerim’s cooperative attitude. He is suitable for supervision and community service is available. There is a concern about his residence, as his family live in another state, but he has obtained a residence in New South Wales.

29. Of greater concern is that his isolation from family and church may impair his recovery and impair treatment for underlying mental conditions. This can be overcome. While he has been removed from his church he is still allowed to attend meetings, and his family provide support. He has regular contact with his treating psychologist. Were he to be placed in full time custody those supports would be severed. The material before me indicates that he would be at significant risk because of the notoriety of the offence and the fact that he has agreed to give evidence against another person.

30. There are a number of positives in the material before me; and all of the negatives could only be exacerbated by a full-time custodial sentence. He will require referral to a senior corrections psychologist for a comprehensive risk assessment, but I have the benefit of a psychological report from Dr McDonald. She notes on p 12:

“[The offending] was preceded by approximately 12 months of increased pornography use, including … bestiality of various kinds. Mr Kerim’s offending behaviour appears to have occurred in the context of pre-existing paraphilia, depressive illness, significant marital problems and social isolation.”

31. In her opinion, which in not contested, Kerim has a long-standing depressive illness and a Paraphilic Disorder, ‘Zoophilia’. His Persistent Depressive Disorder, dysthymia, would not “have been causative” but it “might have …. contributed to his pre-existing paraphilic desires”. She notes at p 13, a long loading of historical risk facts relating to related sexual recidivism:

“His dynamic risk is associated with an increased risk of potential future sexual [offending] … [It] is mainly centred around social isolation, difficulties in intimate and non-intimate relationships, problems with employment and inadequate stress and coping mechanisms. Assertive intervention will help ameliorate his dynamic risk factors.”

32. She notes that his current treatment is effective. She attaches a treatment plan to her report. That report will be provided by the registry to Community Corrections.

33. He told Dr McDonald, “I just wanted to completely destroy my character … I didn’t care anymore. I was at that point”. He was also impacted on by his depressive illness and melancholia. His counsellor spoke of him “shutting down emotionally”.

34. I also have references from family members who speak of his deep remorse and “the crushing weight of [his guilt]”. I note the impact of the charges on him and them. They promise him their support.

Mental health

35. A person’s mental health can result in the amelioration of their moral culpability and carry with it a consequent reduction in the need to denounce the crime but here, while it must be taken into account, that amelioration is modest. His illness and the nature of his crimes, however, would mean that there would be a significantly greater burden associated with a custodial sentence: Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1; [2010] NSWCCA 194 at [177].

Remorse

36. Kerim has taken full responsibility for his acts and its consequences. He is taking action to address risk factors. He is engaged in treatment, and he is willing to engage in the further assessments and plan envisaged by Community Corrections and Dr McDonald.

Extra curial punishment

37. This matter has attracted a considerable amount of local and other attention from the community and the media. That is entirely understandable, but a sentencing court may properly take into account the fact an offender has suffered a serious loss or detriment as a result of committing the offence: R v Daetz [2003] NSWCCA 316*; R v Wilson* (2003) 139 A Crim R 398 at 411.

38. The impact of publicity of this matter and his personal disclosures meant that he has been removed from his church and some crimes attract such attention. He has been ostracised from a church he has been a lifelong member of; he is restricted in the practice of his faith and that has had consequent impact on his parents who shared his faith. Obviously, this results from the offender’s own acts, but in a real sense they increase the punishment he has suffered for his crime: R v Holyoak (1995) 82 A Crim R 502.

39. I will take into account punishment caused by the offender’s humiliation, ostracism and the community opprobrium he has and will face. This will result from even fair reports of the crime and will be revived again by reporting of this determination. Nothing here suggests that the established media have produced other than fair reports. I cannot say, however, what online mischief may result. In the modern world, it must be expected.

Other cases

40. I am indebted to Mr Masters and the solicitors for the Director of Public Prosecutions who appeared in this matter. I have sought to address their oral and written submissions in this judgment. I was referred to other cases including R v PW [2019] NSWDC 963. In matters such as this, there is little utility in comparing this case with other quite different facts situations. For example, the Court of Criminal Appeal recently dealt with another filmed act involving intercourse with a pet: Cook v R [2025] NSWCCA 96. Thankfully the rarity of bestiality cases means that there is no ‘range’ fixed by other sentences: R v Chesworth [2003] NSWCCA 115 at [31].

Totality

41. There are four matters for sentence, and I have to indicate an appropriate sentence for each and then structure the sentence such that the overall aggregate is just and appropriate to the offender’s crimes: Mill v The Queen [1988] HCA 70; (1988) 166 CLR 59 at [62]-[63]. I will attempt to do so.

An Intensive Correction Order

42. Kerim accepts that the seriousness of each of the crimes require a custodial sentence. A submission was made that the sentences could be served subject to intensive correction in the community.

43. The Crown, having reviewed all of the material before the Court and the assistance, accepts that that the intensive correction option is available to me. But it is only available if; I have considered all possible alternatives and concluded no penalty other than imprisonment is appropriate, I have determined the appropriate length of any aggregate sentence to be less than three years, and having considered the paramount concern of community safety, I conclude he intensive correction is appropriate: Stanley v Director of Public Prosecutions *(*NSW) [2023] HCA 3.

44. If a person is imprisoned community safety may be enhanced by their removal from the community and later by supervised liberty on parole. But where the court has confidence in an existing process of rehabilitation; community safety can best be met by serving a sentence subject to strict conditions in the community. This is particularly so if, as here, the Court has confidence that it is unlikely that a person will reoffend and is concerned that gaoling the offender may in fact impede their progress to rehabilitation: R v Pullen [2018] NSWCCA 264 at [84]. This is an appropriate case for an Intensive Correction Order.

Synthesis

45. A judge is required to identify all factors relevant. Some aggregate and some mitigate; there are no golden rules: R v Geddes (1936) 36 SR (NSW) 554 at [555]-[556]. The various purposes of punishment have to be considered but here they point in different directions. The Crown put particular and appropriate emphasis on the need to denounce what was done and to attempt to deter others. The nature of the crime and the community opprobrium attached to the crime should be enough to deter anyone from committing offences such as this but some, as Kerim, it is noted, still commit bestiality offences. The community has to understand that this is a serious offence.

46. There are, however, matters which evoke sympathy and pity rather than indignation and outrage. Although I briefly referred to Old Testament biblical penalties, I remind others that there is also a New Testament.

47. Ultimately a court’s sentence marks the court’s view of the seriousness of the crime and lets others know the retribution which will fall upon them if they commit similar crimes. It must also be structed in a way to assist the offender and ensure that he does not reoffend.

Orders

48. For those reasons I have determined the following sentences:

49. For Sequences 1, 4 and 5 my starting point was 1 year and 8 months. Reducing each indicated sentence by 25% for the early plea, and 20% for s 23 assistance, there will be indicated sentences of 11 months.

50. For Sequence 2, which includes the Form 1 matters, my starting point was 1 year and 10 months, with those reductions there is an indicated sentence of 1 year.

51. The Aggregate Sentence is 15 months imprisonment. It will commence from today; 26 June 2025. That sentence is to be served subject to intensive correction in the community.

52. Mr Kerim, there will be a custodial sentence in this matter. That sentence will be served subject to intensive correction in the community. There are important standard conditions of any Intensive Correction Order:

53. The first is you must not commit any offence. If you breach the conditions or commit a further offence you could be sent to gaol to serve the balance of your term.

54. You must submit to supervision, and you must report to the Tweed Heads Office of Community Corrections no later than seven days from today. You can make an appointment this afternoon after you are formally released after you have signed those Orders.

55. There are six special conditions:

56. That you participate in 200 hours of Community Service Work.

57. That you take part in a sex offender assessment from Community Corrections.

58. That you participate in sex offender rehabilitation programs as directed.

59. That you continue seeing a psychologist as directed.

60. That you accept regular home visits and seek approval for any change of address.

61. That you agree to authorise third party checks with service providers and family. In other words, you give your family and any psychologist, or treating person, an authority that they can, and should, speak to Community Corrections.

**********