R v McCann

THE AGREED FACTS

1. In 2018, the Offender, then a 45-year-old man became a person nominated on the Child Protection Register.
2. On 12 December 2022. representatives of the New South Wales Police Force attended premises in Marayong at which the Offender was residing for the purposes of undertaking an inspection of the Offender's electronic devices under the Child Protection (Offender's Registration) Act 2000 (NSW). In the course of an initial examination of the Offender's laptop computer, a representative of the New South Wales Police identified that the AVG secure browser application which automatically encrypts the user's data was installed.
3. The Offender's computer had been used to access various webpages hosted on "GayBoysTube.com", over the course of 16 November 2022. In addition to adult pornography, a number of the webpages depicted child abuse material which was comprised of images and videos of male children, in sexualised poses or engaged in sexual acts. It was also observed that the Offender had used his Apple iPhone to perform a search for "Russian soldier video toddler" and "Russian soldier fucking boy" on twitter.

ACCESSING CHILD ABUSE MATERIAL - SEQUENCE 4

1. In the course of accessing GayBoysTube.com, the Offender navigated to webpages variously associated with different users of the site, each of whom maintained profiles to which they had either uploaded images and videos or linked existing content. Some of the profiles had names such as "Boys11", "Littlewonders2U" and "Lovpedcum". On reviewing each of the specific websites to which the Offender had navigated on 16 November 2022, New South Wales Police identified at least four profile pages that contained child abuse material.
2. The following examples are descriptions of what was depicted in thumbnails visible to a person's accessing the webpages: 1. On the profile named "Boys11", a photograph of a naked male child aged in his early teens that depicts the child's anus covered in semen. The child's scrotum is also visible. 2. On the profile named "Boys11", a photograph of two naked male children aged in their early teens, depicting them holding apart their bottoms to expose their respective anuses, their scrotums also being visible. 3. On the profile named "lovpedcum", a nine-minute video entitled "two twinks pleasuring…", the photographic preview to which depicts two naked male children, aged in their mid-teens, performing fellatio on one another. 4. On the profile named "manboyfun", photograph of a naked male child, aged in his early teens, that depicts the child's anus being penetrated by a glass bottle, whilst he laid on his back holding his legs. The child's scrotum is visible. 5. On the profile named "manboyfun", photograph of a naked male child aged, in his mid-teens, that depicts an adult male penetrating the child's anus. 6. On the profile named "manboyfun", a photograph of a naked male child aged in his early teens, that depicts the child's bottom covered in semen.
3. At the top of the webpage maintained by "manboyfun", the user of the profile included the following commentary: "NO LIMIT FUN - Trade or dirty chat on wickr gaypedlovr."

FAILING TO COMPLY WITH REPORTING OBLIGATIONS - SEQUENCE 5

1. At the time of the Offender's arrest on 12 December 2022, the Offender had failed, without reasonable excuse, to report to New South Wales Police that he was using a wireless broadband internet connection subscribed with NetCom in the name of his sister with whom he was living.
2. The Offender had also intentionally failed to report to New South Wales Police that he had previously used GayBoysTube.com to create and maintain a profile on that website in the name "IamwhatIam". The Offender was informed of his reporting obligations less than four months prior to his arrest, at which time he was in attendance at Riverstone Police Station.

RECORD OF INTERVIEW

1. Following his arrest and after receiving the usual caution, the Offender participated in a recorded interview with representatives of New South Wales Police during which he made partial admissions. The Offender represented that he did not consider that GayBoysTube.com could have hosted child abuse material, as it was a public website that was presumably regulated.
2. The Offender also sought to maintain that he had a sexual interest in "boys" who "were over 20" and that he had navigated to the various webpages on GayBoysTube.com in order to identify and report the publication of child abuse material. When asked how he felt about accessing the various webpages, the Offender said that he was "not sure".

SEQUENCE 4 OFFENDING

1. The site name GayBoysTube.com does not of itself beyond reasonable doubt reveal that it hosted child abuse material. However, I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that in accordance with the agreed facts, the Offender's navigation of that site which hosted pornography of adult and child profile contact onto child abuse material profiles was intentional. Most particularly, the facts supporting this determination are as follows:
2. Within GayBoysTube.com, he navigated to user profiles with names describing the involvement of children. In particular, within those names "boy", "toddler", "Boys11", "little wonders" whilst using an automatically encrypted browser installed on the laptop. And his other search activity on his mobile phone navigating to sites labelled "Russian soldier video toddler" and "Russian soldier fucking boy" also focused on titles obviously describing the involvement of children.
3. The Crown's oral submission appropriately concedes that whilst those child abuse profiles were navigated to, the evidence does not support beyond reasonable doubt that the Offender actually opened any of them. The agreed facts amount to the Offender having navigated to the titles and thumbnails of those websites and user profiles, but not to having opened them to achieve sexual gratification by viewing their internal content.
4. As the Offender properly concedes, through the written submission of his counsel, the labels of those profiles and the thumbnails were material which "depicts teenage children engaged in sexual activity or other sexualised positions." MFI 2, paragraph 20.
5. For the Offender, it is submitted his accessing the child abuse material was inadvertent, rather than deliberately planned, as he navigated the GayBoysTube.com site: MFI 2, paragraph 19. I reject that submission. For the above given reasons, I find that the Offender directed energy to actively navigate amongst the general pornographic content of the site to the user profiles identified by labels and thumbnails with children engaging in sexualise content.
6. For the Offender, it is submitted that "from the descriptions available", that is from the thumbnails, "it is unclear whether there was any cruelty or physical harm occasioned to the children." MFI 2, paragraph 10. I reject the argument that children engaged in sexual activity and sexual positions, for the purposes of child abuse material, might not suffer cruelty or physical harm. On the other hand, there is nothing in the facts which describes cruelty or harm to children beyond that which is inherent of child abuse material. Because the Offender did not access the content, he is not to be sentenced on the basis that the extent of cruelty or physical harm to children was beyond that which is inherent to this type of offending.
7. There is no suggestion that the Offender disseminated or transmitted child abuse material and there is no evidence of payment or other material benefit provided or received. Nor is there evidence of any proximity between the Offender and those responsible for bringing the material into existence or of him having collaborated in a network of likeminded persons.
8. The Crown submits that the objective seriousness of the subject offending was "just below the midrange" for offending of this type. At the same time, the Crown acknowledged that its submission was made for assistance and in recognition that identification of a particular range is not a required exercise in sentencing.
9. Counsel for the Offender submitted on the same basis that the offending was "within the low range." MFI 2, at paragraph 13.
10. In summary, the offending is properly described as the Offender having exercised the energy to use an encrypted browser for search to locate pornography websites, and within the pornographic websites, to have navigated to child abuse material profiles but not indulge in the content beyond viewing those labels and thumbnails. The children were from 11 years of age and into adolescence, according to the descriptions given.
11. The Offender's degree of planning, organisation, sophistication and deception were low. There is no suggestion that the Offender risked the material being seen or acquired by vulnerable persons, including children. This is not a serious incident of this type of offending and it falls, in my assessment, close to a least worst possible case in the range of this abhorrent type of offending. It is well established that all offences relating to child abuse material are very serious and that factors personal to the Offender can carry less weight than general deterrence and protection of the community.
12. Significant lifelong harm is caused to children who are sexually abused. Accessing child abuse material is not a victimless crime. It is an activity which the community views as abhorrent because it supports a market to produce images that involve the sexual exploitation of children: Phibbs v R [2023] VSCA 123.
13. Section 16AAB of the Commonwealth Act provides that a minimum mandatory term of head sentence of 4 years imprisonment applies to the sequence 4 offending. This is because the Offender was previously convicted of accessing and transmitting child pornography material using a carriage service, contrary to s 474.19(1) of the Criminal Code. For that offence, he was sentenced to imprisonment of 6 months, to be released forthwith, coinciding with his release, after serving the sentence of 9 months' imprisonment arising from the same events and offending against s 91H(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 NSW.
14. In Hurt v R; Delzotto v R [2024] HCA 8, Gageler CJ and Jagot J explained that: At paragraph 25: s 16AAB(1) establishes a temporal sequence by which the earlier offending triggers the application of minimum mandatory sentencing pursuant to s 16AB(2). At paragraph 32: a statutory minimum sentence and a statutory maximum sentence are each 'circumstances of the offence' and 'circumstances of the case' of fundamental importance for the purposes of s 16A(1) and 17A(1) in deciding if there is no sentence other than imprisonment that is appropriate in all the circumstances, and if so, a sentence that is of a severity appropriate in all the circumstances of the offence, and that a statutory minimum sentence and a statutory maximum sentence are 'other matters' which a court must take into account under s 16A(2). At paragraph 33: generally the mandatory minimum sentence, having been statutorily provided as a 'functioning...yardstick representing the least worst possible case warranting imprisonment against which a case before the court at the time can be measured' requires direct consideration at all steps in the sentencing process. At paragraphs 34 and 35: the provision for other available sentences, pursuant to s 17A(1), 19B(1), 20(1)(a) and 20(1)(b) enables a court to impose less than the statutory minimum sentence in appropriate cases, but the statutory minimum sentence remains a yardstick for consideration. This is because s 16AAB(2) presupposes both conviction and that the Court has decided, first to impose a sentence of imprisonment, thereby excluding s 19B and 20(1)(a) and second, that the sentence of imprisonment is not to be subject to any direction under s 20(1)(b). At paragraph 38: the Court remains required to consider the objective of rehabilitation, s 16A(2AAA), including in determining the length of any sentence for non-parole period and this reinforces the required approach for statutory minimum sentence consideration, as does s 16A(3) which requires the Court to have regard to the nature and severity of the conditions that may be imposed on the offender under a sentence or order when determining the application of, relevantly, s 19B(1) or s 20(1).
15. At paragraph 39, their Honours stated (footnotes omitted): "In summary, if a person was 18 years or more when the 'current offence' was committed, is convicted of that offence, is to be subjected to a sentence of imprisonment, and is not to be subject to an order for release under and in accordance with s 20(1)(b), then the minimum sentence provision in s 16AAB(2) is engaged - the minimum sentence is the yardstick representing the Commonwealth Parliament's view of the least worst possible case warranting imprisonment against which the case before the court at the time can be measured. The sentence is to be determined recognising that yardstick as part of the synthesis of all other relevant factors. If the person has pleaded guilty or cooperated with law enforcement agencies, the court may reduce the sentence below the four year minimum (appropriate for the least worst possible case warranting imprisonment satisfying the qualifications described) in accordance with s 16AAC(3)...the reduction in s 16AAC(2) and (3) is available to all offenders who have pleaded guilty or who have cooperated with law enforcement agencies whether that reduction would decrease the sentence below the statutory minimum or not."
16. At paragraph 40 their Honours noted: "If a person is sentenced to imprisonment for a period exceeding three years then s 19AB(1) requires the court to fix a non‑parole period (subject to s 19AB(3)). If a person is sentenced to imprisonment for a period that does not exceed three years then s 19AC requires the court not to fix a non‑parole period, and instead to make a single recognizance release order."
17. At paragraph 41 their Honours stated that: "That the Commonwealth Parliament intended the statutory minimum sentence to function as a yardstick against which the severity of the case before the court could be measured is apparent from the extrinsic material."
18. The plurality of Edelman, Steward and Gleeson JJ recognised the clear parliamentary intention to adopt the minimum sentence as a yardstick for sentencing (at paragraph 90) and that, for instance, it is irrelevant to the power to discharge the offender without proceeding to conviction under s 19B because in that circumstance s 16AAB does not apply (at paragraph 99). Just as the minimum mandatory term provision does not disempower the exercise of the Court's discretion to order release upon security including immediate release in exceptional cases for a person convicted of Commonwealth child sex offences because s 20(1)(b) is concerned with the point of release not with the sentence imposed: "It does not alter the prescribed minimum sentence": at paragraph 101.
19. At paragraph 102 the plurality as did Gageler CJ and Jagot J explained that s 16AAB(2) is subject to s 16AAC(2) such that discounting for plea of guilty and cooperation with law enforcement agencies will in the appropriate case result in a sentence of imprisonment of less than the minimum period specified in the mandatory minimum term provision. At paragraph 104, the plurality explained: "The exceptional circumstances in which a discount can lead to a sentence of imprisonment below the minimum prescribed sentence do not detract from the role of the minimum sentence as a yardstick. Rather, the process contemplated by s 16AAC reinforces the yardstick role of the minimum sentence. The discretion in s 16AAC(2) applies where it is 'appropriate to reduce the sentence' implying that a legitimate procedure will involve determining a prima facie sentence with the use of the prescribed minimum sentence as a yardstick, prior to considering the discount. The subsequent and transparent consideration of the discounts in s 16A(2)(g) (plea of guilty) and s 16A(2)(h) (co-operation with law enforcement agencies) reinforces the utilitarian goals underlying those considerations."
20. The High Court did, as I have addressed, deal with the proposition of the circumstances in which, albeit mandatory minimum sentencing and maximum term are fundamental considerations, the provisions of sections 6, 17A, 19B(1) and 20(1) remain for application of consideration and the discount provisions in relation to plea under s 16AAC, are also preserved. I approach sentencing in this case according to the law as I would understand it from Hurt's case.
21. I move now to subjective considerations. There is no Sentencing Assessment Report by Corrective Services. Neither party referred to this as a deficiency in the available material for the purposes of this sentencing exercise. The Defence relies on some records of Justice Health. Most significantly, the Court has the benefit of the expert opinion assessment by Ms Kris North, forensic psychologist, dated 8 December 2023. I am satisfied that the material is sufficient for the purposes of sentencing.
22. Ms North reports that the Offender historically has experienced social detachment and restricted range of emotional expression consistent with a diagnosis of schizoid personality disorder. Ms North's opinion is that the Offender's underlying personality traits, and associated issues relating to social isolation, presented risk factors for the subject offending. Whereas the Offender denied to her that he searched for child abuse material, or that he had a sexual interest in children, Ms North identified potentially deviant sexual interests.
23. My understanding is that the Offender has struggled with his sexuality since adolescence and over time engaged in sexual intercourse with approximately 6 male partners of comparable ages to his own, each of which relationships were casual. Ms North accordingly focused recidivism risk assessment upon non contact paedophilic offending.
24. In regard to future behaviour relating to possession of child pornography, or engaging in child pornography online behaviours, Ms North assessed the Offender to present a risk of sexual recidivism in the above average range. On testing for that specific nature of offending the Offender's score was higher than 84% of comparable sexual offenders and below 6% of his offending group.
25. At paragraph 32, Ms North stated: "It was my opinion his underlying schizoid personality traits to have contributed to Mr McCann's use of pornography in the past, particularly in relation to the reported viewing of fetish-related material, in an attempt to experience an emotional response. That is, his restricted range of effect was identified as having contributed to him viewing more aberrant content, with Mr McCann reporting he was trying to produce a response."
26. Ms North observed that the Offender's offences, past and index, also indicated the presence of a sexual interest in adolescent males, aged in early to mid adolescence, suggestive of hebephiliac sexual interest; and that although further assessment is indicated in relation to sexual interests, the statement of facts indicates a diagnosis of paedophilic disorder may be present.
27. Ms North recorded the Offender's expressions of regret and acceptance of responsibility for his non-contact offending. I accept that the Offender is contrite to that expressed extent. Ms North's assessment is that he is willing to accept treatment. The Offender has not received psychological treatment and has not been offered offence specific treatment whilst in custody or during his earlier community supervision.
28. Ms North recommends that the Offender engage in psychologist-directed and managed offence specific treatment to address his risk issues relating to social detachment, the presence of deviant sexual interests and his use of pornography to experience emotions and/or physical pleasure.
29. The Offender told Ms North that he had been diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder in 2018 by a psychologist however he entered custody for his earlier offending before having the opportunity to engage in treatment. The Offender reported having been sexually assaulted by a male inmate in 2019 whilst incarcerated.
30. Justice Health clinical notes record that in February 2019 the Offender was sexually assaulted, including anal penetration, and he had been threatened with rape by a cellmate. The Offender subsequently suffered flashbacks and was prescribed antidepressant medication with good effect. Ms North confirmed that in consequence of those assaults whilst in custody the Offender suffers extra hardship of hypervigilance with anxiety.

SYNTHESIS - SEQUENCE 4

1. The appropriate starting point whilst bearing in mind the statutory mandatory minimum sentence of imprisonment of 4 years and the maximum penalty of imprisonment of 15 years is that the sentence imposed must be of a severity appropriate in all the circumstances of the offence, s 16A(1).
2. The yardstick of a mandatory minimum sentence is to be considered amongst all factors weighing in the synthesis of determination of appropriate sentence. The abhorrence with which the community holds offences involving child abuse material, the minimum mandatory sentence yardstick and the maximum penalty guideline are fundamental considerations in this sentence.
3. The Crown submits and the Offender concedes that the s 17A threshold is crossed (MFI 2 paragraph 52) and that no sentence other than a sentence of imprisonment would be appropriate. In my opinion and for the just stated reasons, the Defence concession is properly made on the basis of agreed facts. The Defence submission points to the two available sentencing options of release on recognisance with conditions, after serving a minimum period, pursuant to s 20(1)(b) in the event of a sentence of imprisonment of three years or less, or a sentence in excess of three years, comprising a non-parole period pursuant to s 19AB(1).
4. In regard to s 16A(2) of the Commonwealth Act, these reasons to this point have considered the nature and circumstances of the offence, and the injury, loss and damage resulting from the offence, it being not a victimless crime. I have found the Offender to be contrite to the extent that he accepts responsibility for his wrong.
5. The Offender entered a plea of guilty at the first available opportunity and is entitled to a discount on sentence of 25% unaffected by the mandatory minimum sentence provision. Given the nature of the offending and that it is repeat offending, the deterrent effect that the sentence has on the Offender and on other persons who might contemplate accessing child abuse material are important considerations.
6. The mandatory minimum sentence of 4 years already recognises the significance of the repeated offending and in that way, already provides a specific and general deterrence, to the extent the legislature has yardsticked. The importance of personal deterrence is lower for this type of offending than other types of offending.
7. The offender is entitled to recognition of the hardships of his personal environment which Ms North assessed as a "difficult childhood" in a family which struggled financially and being raised by an emotionally distant mother. He was bullied at school and his formal education was terminated at the completion of Year 10 but he later returned to study and completed his Higher School Certificate at the age of 23 years. During his adolescence, he was sexually molested, and prior to his incarceration for his earlier offending, was assessed by a psychologist, as I have already observed, to suffer Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. From his youth, he has sensed a detachment from other people and Ms North observed that the Offender described himself as not experiencing emotions like other people.
8. These factors to some extent, lessen the moral culpability of his offending. This is particularly so, in circumstances where, as I will come to it, Ms North observed that the Offender has never had the benefit of treatment for his personality traits which probably underlie his tendency to seek emotional or other pleasure from pornographic material.
9. I observe that the present offending to some extent displays self-restraint when compared to his earlier offending, in that whilst he navigated to the sites entitled as bearing child abuse material and to user profiles and thumbnails entitled as bearing child abuse material, he did not open those sites and profiles to seek sexual gratification from the content within. In my assessment, the Offender is entitled to a discount on account of his prospects of rehabilitation. Ms North observed the Offender's willingness to undergo treatment and reported her opinion that the Offender will likely benefit in terms of lessening his risk of recidivism from that treatment. At least that is the effect of Ms North's opinion as I understand it.
10. It is in the interest of the community that the sentence give practical effect to this consideration in accordance with s 16A(2AAA). In short, Ms North's opinion is that treatment of the Offender's underlying personality traits and rehabilitation would be directed to his present risk factors in relation to this type of offending. It is appropriate to design a sentence which permits practical effect be given to the opportunity for rehabilitation, Crane v R [2024] NSWCCA 112.
11. An important consideration is protection of the public and this includes the victims of child abuse material. Given Ms North's assessment of the risk of recidivism in the above average range, treatment of the Offender's underlying personality traits is desirable in the interests of the community toward amelioration of that risk.
12. That in 2019, when in custody for his prior offending, the Offender was both seriously sexually assaulted and threatened and that he suffered flashbacks and required anti-depressant treatment and now continues to suffer hypervigilance and anxiety during incarceration is a circumstance of special hardship which he has experienced during his incarceration and would continue to experience were he to be imprisoned for a longer period. This warrants some discount of sentence of full-time imprisonment. Compounding this situation, the Offender has remained on remand for more than one and a half years during which period, he has experienced the additional hardship of not having appropriate placement for the benefits of such rehabilitation programs as might have been offered, had he been appropriately placed within the correctional system. During this period, he has endured the further hardship of not knowing his destiny, in terms of ultimate sentence as to how long he was to remain in prison because his sentencing hearing was delayed pending the outcome of the High Court decision in Hurt's case.
13. Returning to my earlier assessment that the objective seriousness places the sequence 4 offending within the low range for offending of this type. The evidence does not identify aggravating factors in the sentencing synthesis, elevating seriousness of the offending beyond an assessment of slightly above a least worse case.
14. I am satisfied that no sentence other than a sentence of full-time imprisonment is appropriate in all the circumstances. The Offender's antecedent history and that even after his prior imprisonment for similar offending, he exercised his energy to navigate through pornographic material in search of child abuse material, in my assessment, means that proceeding to release on recognisance after serving a minimum period of imprisonment would not provide adequate punishment, denunciation or deterrence for the subject sequence 4 offending. Further, there are not exceptional circumstances justifying early release into the community, pursuant to s 20(1)(b).
15. That the Offender navigated to the child pornography sites and user profiles from amongst the general pornography and that the described ages of the children include the age range 11 years to adolescence, places his offending, as more serious than the possible least worst case. I assess the appropriate commencement point for determination of sentence at 4 years and 2 months' imprisonment.
16. On account of his early plea and pursuant to s 16AAC(2)(a) and (3). It is appropriate that the sentence be discounted by 25%. I note that this is a position adopted by the parties, after taking the discount for early plea into account. The appropriate head sentence is 3 years 1 month and 15 days.
17. I now move to imposing the appropriate non-parole period. In this respect, it is appropriate to allow the opportunity for rehabilitation including treatment and to take into account the special circumstances of the hardship of his imprisonment to date, as well as to the extent it continues. The Offender has not had the opportunity of supervised rehabilitation and treatment in the past. This as I have observed from the expert opinion of Ms North is particularly relevant to the likelihood of his reoffending. The appropriate non-parole period is 1 year and 6 months.

SYNTHESIS - SEQUENCE 5

1. Sequence 5 is a rolled up charge, comprising two contraventions of failing to comply with reporting obligations. It is the criminality disclosed by the offence not the number of charges which is for primary consideration. The Offender failed to report the details of an internet connection that was in use at his pace of residence or his use of the GayBoysTube.com site to create and maintain a user account, in the name "IamwhatIam". The sequence 5 offending substantially comprehended and reflected the criminality of the sequence 4 offending whilst of the separate criminality of failure to report.
2. I agree with the approach in which the parties joined that the sequence 5 offending shares an immediate and obvious connection with the more serious sequence 4 offending and that in accordance with the application of the principle of totality, it is appropriate that the term of imprisonment to be served have significance concurrence with the sequence 4 sentence. The parties did not contest that the sequence 5 threshold was crossed. In my opinion, the only appropriate sentence, bearing in mind the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) Act s 3A considerations of denunciation, punishment, deterrence and recognition of the harm done to victims is a sentence to be served by way of full-time imprisonment. The Offender is entitled to a 25% discount for the utilitarian value of his plea of guilty entered at the earliest opportunity: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) s 25D(2)(a). All of the above considerations in the syntheses of sentencing for sequence 4 offence, after differentiation between the Commonwealth and State statutory provisions, apply to the sequence 5 synthesis of sentencing. I do not repeat them here but I have considered them separately in determination of the sequence 5 offending.
3. The appropriate sentence is a fixed term of 6 months imprisonment to be served with substantial concurrence with the sequence 4 sentence of imprisonment. The Offender is entitled to credit for the time spent in custody to date.

Orders

1. The orders I make are as follows: 1. The Offender is convicted of the sequence 4 offence. 2. In relation to the sequence 4 offence, the Offender is sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 3 years 1 month and 15 days, commencing 12 December 2022 with a non-parole period of 1 year and 6 months, expiring on 11 June 2024 and a balance term, expiring on 26 January 2026. 3. The Offender is convicted of the sequence 5 offence. 4. In relation to the sequence 5 offence, the Offender is sentenced to a fixed term of imprisonment, commencing 12 January 2024 and expiring 11 July 2024. 5. The Offender will be eligible for release to parole on 11 July 2024 and thereafter, until 26 January 2026 he is to comply with all reasonable directions of Corrective Services, including in regard to the requirements of any mental health plan, including direction to specialist forensic psychological services or a private psychologist and generally the Offender is to comply with the reasonable requirements of any treatment plan addressing the risks of his re-offending factors, including social detachment, presence of deviant sexual interests and use of pornography to achieve emotional and/or physical pleasure. I recommend that Community Corrections be provided with the report of Ms Kris North, forensic psychologist, dated 8 December 2023. I recommend that Community Corrections direct the Offender to professional psychological treatment as appropriate.

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: 22 October 2024