R v Perry [2026] ACTSC 63

1. The offender, Ian Charles Harcourt Perry, is to be sentenced following pleas of guilty to the following offences: (a) Count 1: On 7 February 2023 he possessed child abuse material obtained from a carriage service, namely 6 files on a Probox array and 89 files on a Seagate hard disk (CC2023/1464) contrary to s 474.22A(1) of the Criminal Code 1995 (Cth). (b) Count 2: Between about 26 May 2022 and 17 October 2022, he caused child abuse material to be transmitted to himself, made child abuse material available and solicited child abuse material using a carriage service (CC2024/1815) contrary to s 474.22(1) of the Criminal Code 1995. (c) Count 3: Between 18 November 2022 and 2 February 2023, he caused child abuse material to be transmitted to himself and solicited child abuse material using a carriage service (CC2024/1819) contrary to s 474.22(1) of the Criminal Code 1995.

2. Each of the offences carries a maximum penalty of 15 years of imprisonment.

3. Consistent with the approach taken by McCallum CJ in R v Roy (No 4) [2025] ACTSC 449 I have determined to redact the detail of the agreed statement of facts (excluding the ‘summary’) in these remarks and with the agreement of the parties do not propose 1 to read them aloud. Among other concerns, I consider that there is a need to ensure that the detail of this judgment does not serve as material for others to pursue an inclination to consume child abuse material in the same way as the offender.

Agreed facts

Summary

4. Between 26 May 2022 and 2 February 2023, the offender caused the transmission of child abuse material to himself, including by the payment of money. The offender also

1 The redacted judgment will be published on the Court’s website. A full version will be held on the Court file. made child abuse material available and solicited further child abuse material, including by the payment of money, which he did not receive.

5. On 7 February 2023, after the execution of a search warrant, the offender was found to be in possession of 95 child abuse material videos and images on data storage devices at his residence. The offender was arrested on 7 February 2023 and on that day released on bail.

6. [Redacted].

Nature and circumstances of the offending

7. The significant maximum penalties which apply to the offences, as a ‘yardstick’, reflect the gravity of the conduct and the community’s abhorrence of this kind of offending.

8. I have had regard to the non-exhaustive list of factors identified by R A Hulme J in Minehan v R [2010] NSWCCA 140; 201 A Crim R 243 at [94] as relevant to the assessment of the objective seriousness of offences involving the possession or transmission of child abuse material. I make the following observations with respect to each count.

Count 1

9. Count 1 captured child abuse material located on the Probox array and Seagate hard drive. There were 95 files consisting of 41 videos and 54 images. Real children were captured in much of the material.

10. Six files stored on the Probox array required a degree of sophistication and that imagery involved a high level of depravity including penetrative acts of sexual abuse perpetrated against pre-pubescent children.

11. The Seagate hard drive had 44 images which depicted highly realistic computer-generated images of a naked pre-pubescent female. The offender accepted that the computer-generated nature of the images does not mean that the offence is “victimless”.

12. The Seagate drive also contained 37 videos and eight images of the child ‘Cami’ paid for by the offender. This is the child involved in the offending captured by count 2 who was paid by the offender, through a third party ‘Leo’, to create the images.

Count 2

13. This count captured the following conduct engaged in by the offender over a five-month period: (a) Child abuse material transmitted to him on two occasions for payment which amounted to AU$1885. The offender paid a further AU$725 but did not receive any material in return. (b) Making child abuse material available to ‘Leo’. (c) Soliciting child abuse material on one occasion.

14. The context of the offending was contact made with the offender by ‘Leo’ asking whether he would pay for child abuse material to be produced. The offender and ‘Leo’ agreed that the first ‘shoot’ would involve “topless” imagery, and the second would include “full nude”.

15. The child involved, ‘Cami’, was represented to the offender to be 16 years of age. There was a level of organisation involved in the offending revealed by the role of ‘Leo’ in organising and facilitating the production of the material for payment.

16. I am satisfied that the offender was primarily driven to commit the offence to consume the material himself though contemplated and on one occasion shared the material with ‘Leo’.

Count 3

17. This count captured the following conduct engaged in by the offender over a two-month period: (a) Transmission of child abuse material to him on two occasions. The first occasion involved a child ‘Serena’ in a state of undress, and the second occasion involved ‘Serena’ topless. (b) Soliciting child abuse material on one occasion which included an agreement to make payment for a naked photo shoot with ‘Serena’.

18. The total number of images received by the offender is unknown. The offender confirmed with ‘Leo’ that the first set included 68 photos and one video. The child involved, ‘Serena’, was represented to the offender to be 17 years of age.

Conclusion on objective seriousness

19. The Crown submitted that each count falls around the mid-range of objective seriousness. Counsel for the offender submitted the seriousness of each offence was toward the low end. Taking into account the features of the offending that I have identified, I have concluded that count 1 and 2 fall below the mid-range and count 3 falls toward the lower end. Subjective circumstances

20. An Intensive Correction Order Assessment Report (ICOAR) was prepared. A report prepared by psychologist Dr Cristian Torres was also before me. Taken together with the submissions advanced on the offender’s behalf by Ms Huxley, the offender’s subjective circumstances can be summarised as follows.

21. The offender is 42 years old. He was 38 to 39 years old at the time of the offending. He is one of three children to his parent’s union and reported positive relationships with his siblings. The offender had a positive relationship with his mother who died when he was seven years old. The offender described an overall “good” childhood to the ICOAR author however stated that his adolescence was more difficult as he did not experience any romantic relationships. He identified this as a sensitive topic for him.

22. The offender attended boarding school for high school during which he felt isolated and disconnected from his family. His father remarried when he was 13 years old. [Redacted].

23. The offender did not report any romantic relationships and has no dependants. He acknowledged his lack of romantic relationships was difficult matter for him to discuss and admitted he considered it to be a contributing factor to his offending behaviour.

24. The offender reported studying at the Australian National University (ANU) completing two years of a Bachelor of Software Engineering before discontinuing his studies. The offender completed a Certificate III in Electrotechnology through the Canberra Institute of Technology (CIT) between 2005 and 2007.

25. The offender has mainly been employed in the technology sector. He commenced employment with the IT department of the Australian Federal Police (AFP) in 2014. The offender was suspended and ultimately dismissed from this role in 2023 after being charged with the offences. The offender has since been unemployed. He noted that the ongoing court proceedings and uncertainty with respect to his future has made it difficult for him to seek or maintain employment. The offender stated that should the sentencing outcome permit him to remain in the community that he would like to return to the workforce in a role which is less demanding and more manageable than IT work, which he considered stressful.

26. The offender currently has no income, relying on the assistance of his family, his grandmother’s inheritance and his own savings to maintain his finances. He recognised this to be an unsustainable long-term solution. The offender advised his only debts were his mortgage and a credit card which he is currently paying off through a payment plan.

27. The offender reported to the ICOAR author that majority of his friendships ceased following his arrest for the offences. He identified one friend he remains in contact with, noting their contact is mainly face-to-face or via text message, however these interactions are limited as the friend has children under the age of 16 which restricts their face-to-face contact due to his bail conditions.

28. Urinalysis undertaken by ACT Corrective Services for the purpose of the ICOAR returned negative results for illicit substances and alcohol.

29. The offender is not involved in pro-social organised activities and noted his hobbies and interests are primarily home based, such as IT-related activities. The offender is unable to participate in many IT-related hobbies because of his bail conditions.

30. The offender reported no formal mental health diagnoses and general good physical health.

31. The offender has a hereditary and progressive hearing impairment. As a result, the offender has severe hearing loss and is assisted by bilateral hearing aids. His impairment impacts his social functioning and employment. He reports difficulty in noisy environments, which affects meeting new people and maintaining social relationships.

32. The offender has been engaged with Dr Cristian Torres for mental health treatments for approximately 3 years. In his report Dr Torres concluded the following: Based on Mr Perry's report, and my direct clinical observations, there was no evidence that he was experiencing a diagnosable mental health disorder or cognitive impairment at the time of the offending. Similarly, at the time of presentation for treatment, he did not report, nor did he exhibit, symptoms consistent with a major mood disorder, psychotic disorder, trauma-related disorder, neurocognitive disorder, or substance use disorder that would meet diagnostic threshold under the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, Text Revision (DSM-5-TR).

33. Dr Torres concluded that the offending did not occur in the context of “acute emotional dysregulation, panic, intoxication, or psychological destabilisation” and instead considered that the offending “reflected the operation of distorted cognitive frameworks and self-serving justifications that facilitated and maintained the behaviour”.

34. The offender was assessed as suitable for an ICO and suitable for community service.

Responsibility, remorse and rehabilitation

35. I am satisfied that the offender has accepted responsibility for his offending having entered pleas of guilty at an early opportunity. He acknowledged the entirety of his conduct to the ICOAR author including that he had paid for computer-generated 3D character material and downloaded material on third party forums. The offender was able to identify the factors which he believed led to his offending which included a “lack of romantic relationships, wanting access to something others did not have, and a belief payment to the victims made the situation feel more acceptable”.

36. The offender reported to the ICOAR author: [T]hat it is difficult to place himself back into the mindset he had at the time of the offences due to three years of ongoing psychological treatment since he was arrested. [The offender] was able to identify the harm to victims, including normalising unsafe sexual behaviour for children, causing both physical and psychological harm, and the long-term impact of material remaining on the internet. [The offender] also acknowledged he did not cease his offending behaviour on his own, recognising it required for him to be charged. He expressed “it was not wrong I was caught; it was wrong I did it.”

37. The offender has “explicitly admitted” to Dr Torres that his “behaviour was anti-social and wrong” and has “indicated a strong commitment to "never go back" to his offending behaviours”. Dr Torres recorded “from a psychological perspective, [the offender’s] appreciation of the full moral, relational, and victim-impact dimensions of his behaviour was significantly distorted at the time of the offending” and observed: During treatment, Mr Perry developed increasing insight into the exploitative and harmful nature of his conduct. At the time of the offending, he did not conceptualise the individuals involved as "victims" in the psychological sense; rather, he described perceiving the interactions as consensual or transactional. He did not adequately recognise the inherent power imbalance, the elements of grooming behaviour present in his conduct, or the manipulative dynamics operating within the interactions. These misperceptions were maintained by cognitive distortions-cognitive "filters" through which he interpreted events in a manner that minimised harm, externalised responsibility, and normalised his offending behaviour. Through structured cognitive and behavioural therapy (CBT) interventions, these distortions were identified, challenged, and cognitions reframed. Mr Perry has since demonstrated a substantially improved capacity to recognise the wrongfulness of his behaviour, including its impact on victims and the broader community. Accordingly, while his legal capacity to understand the wrongfulness of his actions was intact, his psychological appreciation of harm and exploitation was meaningfully distorted at the time. Addressing precisely these cognitive distortions is central to evidence-based sex offender treatment.

38. The presence of remorse influences an assessment of the potential for rehabilitation. I have previously observed (see DPP v Benn (No 2) [2025] ACTSC 266) that a remorseful offender is more likely to have insight into their conduct and some desire to reform. In turn this operates to protect the community from harm. I am satisfied that the offender is genuinely remorseful and that he has attained significant insight into the gravity of his conduct. Further, I am satisfied that he has demonstrated a genuine commitment to reform which includes developing tools and strategies to guard against re-offending.

39. The offender presents with excellent prospects of rehabilitation. Significantly, the offender has attended 66 therapeutic consultations in the almost 3-year period of his treatment. Dr Torres stated the offender has “engaged with treatment in a consistent, proactive, and therapeutically meaningful manner” and “not merely at a superficial level but in a manner indicative of genuine psychological work”. This conclusion is consistent with the insight attributed to the offender in the ICOAR.

40. Dr Torres accepted that it is not his role as a clinician to provide a professional judgment of re-offending likelihood, however expressed the view based on his sustained observations of the offender that he presented a “very low risk” of re-offending. This is consistent with the conclusion of the author of the ICOAR as to the level of supervision that the offender would require in the community.

Criminal history and time in custody

41. The offender has no criminal history, and he has not spent any time in custody in relation to the offending. In a matter such as this, where the offender was employed by the AFP and inevitably understood that his conduct was a betrayal not only of the conditions of his employment but involved a high degree of criminality and occurred over a period of months, his prior good character has limited weight.

Pleas of guilty

42. The offender entered guilty pleas in the Magistrates Court. It can be readily accepted that the offender’s plea facilitated the administration of justice to a substantial degree and saved the court and the community the cost of a jury trial. I consider his plea indicative of his willingness to accept responsibility. I will apply a reduction in the sentence imposed of 25 per cent in recognition of the value of his plea to the administration of justice.

Comparative cases

43. The Crown helpfully provided a table which included three comparative cases and is annexed to this judgment (‘Annexure A’). Of course, no sentencing outcome is a precedent. I bear in mind that the consistency pursued by regard to comparative cases is the application of relevant principles and not consistency in outcome. In addition to those cases, I was taken to R v Brooks [2025] NSWDC 354 by counsel for the offender which included a useful summary of several cases to which I have had regard. Determination

44. In coming to sentence the offender, I have carefully considered the matters mandated in Part 1B of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) to the extent that they are known and relevant. The overarching requirement of Part 1B is that a sentence be imposed which is of ‘severity appropriate in all the circumstances of the offence’.

45. Accessing, procuring and sharing child abuse material ensures the existence of a market for its production. The willingness of consumers of child abuse material to engage in criminal conduct contributes to the demand for its production and drives a commercial value for the harmful sexual exploitation of children. By his conduct the offender perpetuated that harm.

46. Consistent with the substantial maximum penalties which apply, the community rightly expects that offenders who give effect to a perverse sexual interest in children by engaging with child abuse material should be the subject of severe punishment.

47. The prevalence and availability of child abuse material facilitated by the international connectivity that access to the internet affords makes general deterrence a sentencing consideration of considerable weight. So too denunciation and punishment. Arising from the combination of his genuine remorse and the substantial treatment the offender has engaged in since the offending, a matter to which I will come, I am satisfied that specific deterrence has been almost entirely achieved and carries limited weight in the sentencing task.

48. There was no contest that the offending warrants the imposition of a period of imprisonment. I note the requirement in s 19(5) of the Crimes Act 1914 to impose a wholly cumulative sentences when sentencing an offender for multiple federal offences. Section 19(6) permits the imposition of a sentence that does not include entire cumulation as between the offences if I am satisfied that it would result in a sentence of appropriate severity in all the circumstances. The Crown appropriately conceded that a degree of concurrency as between count 1 and 2 is appropriate given the overlap between the counts in the conduct involving ‘Cami’.

49. There was some delay in the resolution of this matter arising from related proceedings which resulted in an acquittal. The result of the delay has been a period of some uncertainty which in turn has affected the offender’s employment status. I have taken this effect into account, though I do not consider it significantly influences the sentence to be imposed in the circumstances.

50. Of more significant consequence is the substantial effort the offender has demonstrated toward his own rehabilitation in the period since his arrest. It is, in my view, an exceptional effort. Since April 2023 the offender has attended more than 60 sessions of therapy with Dr Torres. The offender has already completed an extensive course of individual cognitive behavioural therapy intervention targeting his sexual offending behaviour. Dr Torres concluded that the offender has “formulated a detailed and individualised safety plan designed to minimise risk of re-offending”. Dr Torres also concluded that the offender remains amenable to ongoing rehabilitative treatment and that this would “further consolidate gains already achieved”.

51. The impact of this substantial body of psychological work is revealed by the genuine insight contained in much of the offender’s commentary about the gravity of his offending. The offender, through his sustained engagement in clinical treatment, does not present with “offender supportive attitudes” and is committed to maintaining behavioural change. The offender has several protective factors which in combination with his substantial insight, influences an assessment of the need to protect the community from the offender. Based on the material, I am satisfied that the offender presents as a low risk both with respect to this kind of offending and offending more broadly.

52. The Crown conceded that there was no evidence before me of any specific sexual offender program currently offered in custody. Given the dynamic environment of the Alexander Machonchie Centre, the availability of such a program was not a matter about which I was prepared to take judicial notice. No adjournment was sought for enquiries to be made. It would clearly be in the offender’s and the community’s interest for the offender to continue with the treatment in which he has already significantly invested, and which has had measurable effect.

53. The offender’s severe hearing impairment is a factor which I accept will render his experience of a custodial environment more difficult. The offender stated to Dr Torres that one of his concerns about the custodial environment is the potential for confusion if a corrective services officer perceived that he had ignored a verbal command. The offender, not unreasonably in my view, expressed concern that his hearing impairment would be difficult to manage in a custodial environment and result in negative consequences for him.

54. Whilst I have readily concluded that a period of imprisonment is warranted, notwithstanding that ‘ordinarily’ an immediate term of imprisonment is imposed for offending of this type, I have concluded that in this instance the offender need not serve a period of full-time imprisonment in order that the purposes of sentencing be given proper effect.

55. I have formed that view after careful consideration of the objective seriousness of the offending, the subjective circumstances of the offender which include his exceptional commitment since April 2023 to address the offending behaviour as well as the effect of his hearing impairment upon his experience of the custodial environment and the purposes of sentencing most compelling in this case including general deterrence.

56. Section 20AB of the Crimes Act 1914 permits the making of an order that is available in a corresponding state which includes an intensive correction order (ICO). Unlike a determination to release an offender on a recognizance release order pursuant to s 20(1)(b)(ii) of the Crimes Act 1914, I do not need to conclude that exceptional circumstances exist to impose an ICO. Had I determined to impose a recognizance release order, I would have concluded that exceptional circumstances exist in this matter.

57. The Crown submitted that a direction for the sentence of imprisonment to be served by ICO would be “insufficient punishment” and fail to achieve the object of general deterrence. I do not agree. General deterrence, whilst a sentencing consideration of great significance, is not the only consideration to which I must have regard. On the material before me the significant progress achieved by the offender with respect to addressing and understanding the motivation for his offending and the development of tools he has acquired to guard against re-offending would be, at least, interrupted if he were required to serve a period of imprisonment full-time.

58. The Crown further submitted than an ICO “would have minimal impact on the offender’s day to day life”. This submission underestimates the strict regime of compliance which accompanies the implementation of an ICO. It also ignores the prospect of the inclusion of a requirement to perform community service work as a condition of an ICO.

59. Under an ICO the offender would be required to comply with any number of ‘reasonable’ directions given to him under the order. The ICOAR recorded that in addition to the core conditions (which include for example restriction on leaving the ACT, home visits from ACT Corrective Services, engagement in programs and compliance with accommodation directions: see s 42 of the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT)), the offender would be ‘targeted’ for interventions specific to employment, leisure/recreation activities, mental health and financial matters. The ICOAR recommended that the ICO contain additional conditions which would require the offender to: (a) Engage in and complete a sex offender program. (b) Engage in psychological treatment as directed. (c) Inform ACT Corrective Services of any changes to his residential circumstances. (d) Not be within 50 metres of a school, childcare facility or a playground. (e) Not use an encrypted application on any device.

60. Evidently, an ICO will constrain the offender’s liberty. Any breach of an ICO could result in severe consequences for the offender which could include his remand in custody for a period or for the entire duration of the sentence if the ICO is cancelled. The imposition of an ICO involves a measure of punishment. Whilst it involves the extension of some leniency such that it avoids the service of a period of full-time imprisonment, it is not a lenient sentence.

61. In my view an ICO sufficiently marks the gravity of the offending and additionally will best support the offender’s rehabilitation by subjecting him to a close regime of scrutiny and accountability. The consequences of breaching an ICO are swift and certain. In contrast, to an extent, with the process invoked if a recognizance release order is breached because of the requirement for it to be dealt with by the Court. The scrutiny which accompanies an ICO, whilst not dissimilar to a parole order, can respond directly to the offender’s evolving rehabilitative needs including the need for ongoing engagement with treatment and support, particularly from Dr Torres with whom the offender has an established clinical relationship.

62. For count 1, the starting point is 30 months of imprisonment. In recognition of the plea of guilty, the sentence will be reduced to 22 months and 15 days of imprisonment.

63. For count 2, the starting point is 24 months of imprisonment. In recognition of the plea of guilty, the sentence will be reduced to 18 months of imprisonment.

64. For count 3, the starting point is 20 months of imprisonment. In recognition of the plea of guilty, the sentence will be reduced to 15 months of imprisonment.

65. A degree of concurrency as between count 1 and 2 noting the concession made by the Crown is appropriate. In coming to consider the overall criminality involved, having regard to the principle of totality and noting that count 3 involved entirely separate conduct and a different child, I consider there should be concurrency but only to the extent necessary to ensure that the overall outcome is of appropriate severity. The result will be total sentence of 3 years and 6 months of imprisonment.

66. I can make an intensive correction order if the sentence of imprisonment is for more than 2 years but not more than 4 years, but only if I consider it is appropriate to do so, having regard to: (a) the level of harm to the victim and the community caused by the offence; (b) whether the offender poses a risk to 1 or more people or the community; and (c) the offender’s culpability for the offence having regard to all the circumstances.

67. Whilst the offender’s culpability for the offending was high and represented real harm occasioned to children exploited by the production and distribution of child abuse material, I do not consider that the offender poses a risk to the community. Taking those matters into account, I consider it appropriate to direct the period of imprisonment be served by an ICO.

Forfeiture Order

68. The offender did not oppose the making of the order for forfeiture sought by application of the Director. Pursuant to s 23ZD of the Crimes Act 1914 I am satisfied that the offender has committed a Commonwealth child sex offence, that the devices named in the order sought are forfeitable things (see s 23ZA(c)), that the devices were used in connection with the offending and that they have not already become property of the Commonwealth. Accordingly, I must make the order.

Orders

69. For those reasons, I make the following orders: (1) On count 1, possessing or controlling child abuse material obtained or accessed using a carriage service (CC2023/1464), the offender is convicted and sentenced to 22 months and 15 days of imprisonment commencing on 18 March 2026 and concluding on 1 February 2028. (2) On count 2, using a carriage service for child abuse material (CC2024/1815), the offender is convicted and sentenced to 18 months of imprisonment commencing on 20 March 2027 and concluding on 19 September 2028. (3) On count 3, using a carriage service for child abuse material (CC2024/1919), the offender is convicted and sentenced to 15 months of imprisonment commencing on 18 June 2028 and concluding on 17 September 2029. (4) The total period of imprisonment is 3 years and 6 months commencing on 18 March 2026 and ending on 17 September 2029. I direct this period of imprisonment be served by way of ICO. (5) In addition to the core ICO conditions for the duration of the ICO the offender must comply with the following additional conditions: (a) Engage in and complete a sex offender program as directed by ACT Corrective Services. (b) Engage in psychological programs or treatment as directed by ACT Corrective Services. (c) Inform ACT Corrective Services of any change in circumstances with respect to his accommodation. (d) Not be within 50 meters of any primary school, high school, college, childcare facility or playground. (e) Not to install or use any encrypted applications on any device to which he has access. (f) Complete 150 hours of community service. (6) Pursuant to s 23ZD of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) the following items are forfeited to the Commonwealth: (a) Probox enclosure and drives (3675333/003) (b) 2 TB Seagate hard drive (3675333/002) (c) Google Pixel 5 mobile phone (3675333/04)

I certify that the preceding sixty-nine [69] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Sentence of her Honour Justice Taylor. Associate: P Beohm Date: 23 March 2026 Annexure A: Table of Comparative Cases

Case Offences Features Sentence Remarks on Appeal Lazarus v 4 x Transmit Offending: First instance [31] After referring to R [2023] indecent • Over a period of Aggregate the seriousness of the NSWCCA communication to eight years, offender sentence of 6 offending and the 214 person under 16, s communicated with years, 6 importance of 474.27A(1) Criminal multiple children months protecting children from Code (Cth) under 16 years old. imprisonment, being sexually preyed For each child, he non-parole upon by adults, the 1 x Possess child either transmitted period of sentencing judge abuse material, s indecent material to 3 years, 9 considered the 474.22A(1) Criminal the child, or caused months. objective seriousness Code (Cth) the child to transmit of the offences. His child abuse material On Appeal Honour observed that 4 x Cause child (depicting Appeal the applicant’s conduct pornography to be themselves) to him. dismissed. involved an extended transmitted, s • On one occasion, period of predatory and 474.19(1) Criminal the offender persistent criminal Code (Cth) intended to procure behaviour. At all times, sexual activity with a the applicant was 3 x Access child child. aware of the age of the pornography, s • Possessed a total of young girls with whom 474.19(1) Criminal 282 child abuse he was communicating, Code (Cth) files. having actively sought them out. […] 1 x Procure person Subjective factors: under 16, s … • Guilty plea. 474.26(1) Criminal • Remorseful. Code (Cth) [79] I have adopted the • Low risk of factual findings of the reoffending. s 16BA schedule sentencing judge, • Poor mental health, 2 x Transmit which were not the but no specific indecent subject of challenge. I diagnosis of communication to have also adopted his psychiatric illness. person under 16, s Honour’s findings as to • Psychological 474.27A(1) Criminal objective seriousness. treatment needs Code (Cth) […] unlikely to be met in custody. Cairncross 5 x cause child Offending: First instance [66] Minors aged 16 v R [2025] pornography / child • Over period of five Individual and 17 are particularly VSCA 117 abuse material to years encouraged sentences per vulnerable to the be transmitted to children aged 14-17 offence. manipulation and self, s 474.22(1) to produce child Total effective coercion of adults who Criminal Code abuse material and sentence: 3 intrude into their online send it to him, years, world. The need to 3 x solicit child including by making 10 months belong and be admired abuse material, s payment. imprisonment, is particularly acute at 474.22(1) Criminal • Possessed the child non-parole that stage of life. So Code abuse material sent period of 2 too is the pretension to to him and some years, 3 superior 2 x procure person other material (208 months. understanding. As under 16 for sexual unique files) illustrated by this case, activity, s 474.26(1) On Appeal such a teenager might Criminal Code Subjective factors: • Guilty plea. Appeal think that participating 1 x possess child • 26 at the time of dismissed. in the production or abuse material, s sentence, no prior transmission of such 474.22A(1) Criminal convictions. imagery is nothing Code • Lived at home with more than a joke or an mother and had easy, short term way to stable work history. make money, and a process he or she can • Educated to year 12 control or end by and grew up in ‘blocking’ the other harmonious family contact. […] environment. • Ongoing family [67] A 16 or 17-year-support. old focuses on the • Ephebophilia immediate. The life diagnosis (attraction experience and neural to post pubescent development of a mid-adolescent children). teenager does not • genuine remorse bestow sufficient ability and contrition as to rationally consider shown by and truly understand cooperation, the inherent risks of admissions and acquiescing to plea. potentially millions of • Voluntarily internet users viewing commenced intimate and/or sexual specialist sex images of his or her offender treatment. physically mature body in perpetuity. Such a teenager has scant understanding of the impact such material can have on a person’s future standing in the community, career opportunities and intimate relationships. […] Woods v 1 x Solicit child Offending: First instance [19] Noting in particular R [2023] abuse material, s • On a single day, Imprisonment the limited duration NSWCCA 474.22(1) Criminal communicated with for nine and extent of 37 Code (Cth) police officer with an months, communication and its assumed online released unsophisticated nature, s 16BA schedule identity of a 14-year- forthwith her Honour found that 1 x groom person old girl. Offender subject to the offending in both under asked to “see you recognizance instances fell “well 16 years, s naked”. to be below mid-range, with 474.27(1) • In the same of good sequence 3, the Criminal Code (Cth) conversation, sent behaviour schedule offence, an image of a naked and accept falling below that of male to the supervision sequence 4.” assumed online for two years. identity. […] On Appeal Subjective factors: Appeal [71] In my view, [the • Guilty plea. dismissed. sentence] was not • Offender suffered outside the range of from mild intellectual available sentences. disability, attention As a result of this deficit hyperactivity sentence, the applicant disorder and did not spend any Tourette’s time in custody on syndrome, as well account of the as learning and offending conduct and speech difficulties. his complex needs • No prior criminal were able to be history. suitably addressed in • Offender displayed the community. The contrition, sentence imposed understood the clearly reflected that seriousness of his deterrence and offending and had denunciation had a taken genuine steps lesser role to play in towards addressing this particular case due it. to the reduced moral culpability of the • Low risk of applicant, as the reoffending. sentencing judge expressly recognised. The extent of the reduction was a matter for the sentencing judge and the degree of reduction in the present case was substantial when the relatively short length of the sentence and the fact that the recognizance release order resulted in the immediate release of the applicant are considered. […] When regard is had to the specific nature of the conversations which constitute the offending in the present case, even taking into account the absence of any actual child victim, the short duration and the apparent voluntary cessation of such activity, the lack of threats, intimidation or bribes and the applicant’s powerful subjective case, the sentence itself does not bespeak some latent error or misapplication of principle.