//
[2025] NSWDC 268
General information, not legal advice.
District Court of NSW
2025-07-18
Newlinds SC DCJ
Original judgment source is linked above.
Zoe will write a short plain-English summary of this judgment and email it to you for free: what it was about, what the court decided and why. It can take up to a minute.
General information, not legal advice.
Or create a free account to save it and ask Zoe follow-up questions.
Source: NSW Caselaw (www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au). Converted to plain text by ZoeLaw. Not the official version.
Medium Neutral Citation: R v Rebbeck [2025] NSWDC 268
Hearing dates: 10 July 2025
Date of orders: 18 July 2025
Decision date: 18 July 2025
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Newlinds SC DCJ
Decision: (1) After deduction of 25% for the early guilty pleas, I sentence the Offender to an aggregate term for Counts 1, 2, 3, and 4 of 3 years imprisonment to commence on 20 February 2024 and expire 19 February 2027.
(2) For Count 4, after a deduction of 25% for the early guilty plea, I sentence the Offender to a fixed term of 6 months imprisonment, commencing 20 February 2024 and expiring 19 August 2024.
(3) After serving 20 months in custody, the Offender is to be released on a Recognizance Release Order for a period of 16 months, to expire on 19 February 2027, on conditions found at [77].
Catchwords: CRIME — Sentence – Child sex offences — Child abuse material — Using carriage service to solicit, access, and transmit child abuse material CRIME – Sentence – Bestiality material – Possession or dissemination of bestiality material an offence under s 547E of Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) s 547E(1)
Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) s 16A, s 17A
Crimes (Sentencing and Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) s 3A, s 5
Criminal Code (Cth) s 474.22(1)
Cases Cited: Chesworth v R [2023] NSWCCA 115
Curle v R [2024] NSWCCA 117
Lyons v R [2017] NSWCCA 204
Peters v R [2018] NSWCCA 126
R v Hutchinson [2018] NSWCCA 152
Category: Sentence
Parties: Rex (Crown)
James Rebbeck (Offender)
Representation: Counsel:
E McGinness (Crown)
J Etkind (Offender)
Solicitors:
CDPP (Crown)
Guirguis Legal (Offender)
File Number(s): 2024/65496
Publication restriction: Nil
It is accepted that, between 24 November 2022 and 13 February 2022, James Terence Rebbeck (“the Offender”) born 3 October 2024 engaged in online communications with a number of unknown people over the encrypted messaging Telegram, during the course of which he:
Solicited child abuse material from a person between 24 November 2022 and 27 November 2022 (Count 1);
Accessed child abuse material in a conversation with a person on 27 November 2022 (Count 2);
Transmitted child abuse material to five separate people between 8 December 2022 and 13 February 2024 (Count 3); and
Disseminated bestiality material to four separate people between 8 December 2022 and 18 January 2024 (Count 4).
The Offender pleaded guilty at the first available opportunity when the matter was in the Local Court.
On his arrest, the Offender made full and frank admissions to arresting officers and provided access to his electronic devices. He participated in an interview where he admitted his guilt, took responsibility for his actions, and cooperated fully with police in their investigations.
| Count | Offence | Description | Maximum Penalty | | 1 | s 474.22(1) Criminal Code (Cth) | Between about 24 November 2022 and about 27 November 2022, at Leichhardt or elsewhere in the State of New South Wales, solicited material using a carriage service, the material being child abuse material. | 15 years’ imprisonment | | 2 | s 474.22(1) Criminal Code (Cth) | On or about 27 November 2022, at Leichhardt or elsewhere in the State of New South Wales, accessed material using a carriage service, the material being child abuse material. | 15 years’ imprisonment | | 3 | s 474.22(1) Criminal Code (Cth) | Between about 8 December 2022 and about 13 February 2024, at Leichhardt or elsewhere in the State of New South Wales, transmitted material using a carriage service, the material being child abuse material. | 15 years’ imprisonment | | 4 | s 547E(1) Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) | Between about 8 December 2022 and about 18 January 2024, at Leichhardt or elsewhere in the State of New South Wales, disseminated bestiality material. | 5 years’ imprisonment |
In addition to any other relevant factors, the Court must specifically take into account the matters listed in section 16A(2) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) (“Crimes Act (Cth)”) that are relevant and known to the Court.
The overarching requirement imposed by Part lB is that the Court must impose a sentence "that is of a severity appropriate in all the circumstances of the offence", having considered the non-exhaustive list of matters in section 16A(2) that are relevant and known to the Court.
Section 17A provides that a Court shall not pass a sentence of imprisonment unless satisfied that no other sentence is appropriate in all the circumstances of the case. However, as the offences are Commonwealth child abuse material offences, there is a presumption of full-time imprisonment unless “exceptional circumstances” are found.
The Court must have regard to the purposes of sentencing as set out in s 3A of the Crimes (Sentencing and Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) (“CSPA”) as well as the applicable aggravating and mitigating factors provided in ss 21A(2) and (3).
Like s 17A of the Crimes Act (Cth), s 5 of the CSPA provides that the Court must not sentence an offender to imprisonment unless satisfied that no penalty other than imprisonment is appropriate.
The applicable principles and factors in sentencing for offending involving child abuse material are uncontroversial and well-established.
The objective seriousness of such matters is ordinarily determined by reference to the following factors:
Whether actual children were used in the creation of the material.
The nature and content of the material, including the age of the children and the gravity of the sexual activity portrayed.
The extent of any cruelty or physical harm occasioned to the children that may be discernible from the material.
The number of items or images possessed.
The proximity of the Offender's activities to those responsible for bringing the material into existence.
The degree of planning, organisation, sophistication and/or deception employed by the Offender in acquiring, storing, disseminating or transmitting the material.
The age of any person with whom the Offender was in communication in connection with the acquisition or dissemination of the material relative to the age of the Offender.
Whether the Offender acted alone or in a collaborative network of like-minded people.
Any risk of the material being seen or acquired by vulnerable people, particularly children.
Any risk of the material being seen or acquired by people susceptible to act in the manner described or depicted.
Any other matter in s 16A of the Crimes Act (Cth) bearing upon the objective seriousness of the offence.
General deterrence is a significant consideration for offending involving child abuse material and the online sexual exploitation of children. This is because of the prevalence and ready availability of child abuse material on the internet, and the need to protect children online from sexual abuse, given their vulnerability.
Specific deterrence, denunciation, punishment, and protection of the community are also very important sentencing considerations. The question of likelihood of re-offending is clearly central to the important consideration of protection of the community from ongoing offending by the offender. General deterrence also has a significant protective factor against other potential offences by other people.
The possession, transmission, or accessing of child abuse material creates a market for the continued corruption and exploitation of children. It is a crime that is notoriously difficult to detect.
There is a paramount public interest in promoting the protection of children. Online child exploitation offences and offences involving activities such as the production or possession of child exploitation material are not victimless crimes - children continue to be sexually abused and degraded to supply the market. Because of the nature of the internet and its infinite ability to store material, children are forced to suffer the indignity of images of them being available in perpetuity.
Such offending is not mitigated by the fact that an offender did not profit from the offending, did not pay for material, or was not involved in the distribution or sale of the child abuse material.
Count 1 involves a conversation with another user “Fine Let’s do iT” on two separate days, 24 and 27 November 2022. During the course of that conversation, the Offender, after having expressed his disappointment with losing “hours” of videos, including one involving a “brutal…gang rape” of a boy, asked the other participant “So any vids…Pedo bro here is desperate”. When the conversation resumed on 27 November 2022, the Offender stated, “wish I was perving…but nothing” before asking “Can U add me to pedo groups?”
Although the Agreed Statement of Facts does not indicate that any child abuse material was obtained as a result of this conduct, the offending was nevertheless not insignificant having regard to the depraved nature of the material that the Offender was attempting to obtain and given that the Offender was persistent in his requests over the course of two days.
Count 2 involves the access by the Offender to child abuse material during a Telegram conversation with a user described as “third deleted account”. The material is a drawing of a baby being pulled from the anus of an adult man, apparently in the context of being welcomed into a group where child abuse material would be shared.
It is accepted that this single image, not of a real child, renders the offence as being of low objective seriousness. Nevertheless, the context of the image being shared as part of an invitation to a group where abuse material is apparently shared.
Count 3 involves the transmission of child abuse material by the Offender to a number of different users between 8 December 2022 and 13 February 2024, namely:
with “first deleted account” on 8 December 2022, during which 49 videos of child abuse material were transmitted by the Offender, including videos of real prepubescent children involved in acts of sexual penetration, including one in which the child is handcuffed;
with “second deleted account” on 22 December 2022 where the Offender reintroduces himself to that participant and describes extreme acts of sexual violence against children, receives child abuse material, and then either forwards or sends child abuse material himself across three messages. A sample of the material sent shows the material included videos of real pre-pubescent children engaged in acts of sexual penetration with adults;
with “Jay Den” on 29 December 2023, where the Offender forwarded the other participant child abuse material across two separate messages. A sample of the material sent shows the material included videos of real pre-pubescent children engaged in acts of sexual penetration with adults;
with “Ausboy Slampig” between 29 December 2023 and 13 February 2024, during which sexual activity with children was discussed, and, on 13 February 2024 when the Offender forwarded child abuse material across five messages. A sample of the material sent shows the material included videos of real pre-pubescent/infant children engaged in acts of sexual penetration with adults, including one video where a child attempts to “fight back and is hit by the male and restrained on the bed” and another where an infant is crying while being sexually assault by an adult;
with “Ant Ant” on 18 January 2024, during which the Offender forwarded the other participant child abuse material across three messages. A sample of the material sent indicates the material included videos of real pre-pubescent children engaged in acts of sexual penetration with adults.
As to the objective seriousness of Counts 1, 2, and 3, in my opinion, Counts 1 and 2 fall towards the lower end of seriousness. However, Count 3 must be regarded as a highly serious example of offending of its type having regard to:
the depraved nature of the material that was transmitted, involving real and very young children, including acts of violence.
the fact that the material was transmitted to five separate people in multiple transmissions; and
the fact that the conduct was not isolated and occurred over a period of about 2 and a half months.
Count 4 is a State offence. It concerns the transmission of bestiality material between 8 December 2022 and 18 January 2024 during conversations with a number of participants, including those involved in Count 3.
Although the number of images transmitted during Count 4 is not high, the offending must nevertheless be regarded as serious having regard to the depraved nature of the material, that it involved real people and animals, the sustained period of time of which it was transmitted, and the number of recipients to whom it was sent.
In relation to the first two counts, the offending can properly be described as very much towards the lower end of seriousness. As to count three, it can only be described as a serious example of this type of offending. Notwithstanding the relatively small amount of images, there are still quite a number of images and, without going into any more detail of what is shown in the images, they are disgusting, depraved, and abhorrent, and involve real children being humiliated and suffering pain.
As to the bestiality offences, it is always difficult to categorise this type of offending because, as the reported cases reveal, it remains rare. There are a small amount of images, and I regard the objective seriousness as moderate.
The Offender was born in 1984 and is still a young man. He has a good work history, having, amongst other things, conducted his own business for a while and has a stable home life with a loving partner who has, in a letter before me, stated that he continues to support the Offender and that the Offender will, upon release, continue to reside with him.
Leaving aside his drug history, he is a man of otherwise good character who has been a good and productive member of society in the past.
He has struggled with drug addiction, which got out of control around the time of the offending.
Both he and Ms Georges, clinical psychologist, explain his conduct, not by reference to some sexual interest in child or animal abuse material, but rather as a consequence of disinhibiting behaviour caused directly by taking drugs. This explanation does, however, seem inconsistent with what he said in the various messages.
I am satisfied that the Offender does not have any memory at all of some of the circumstances surrounding his offending. The offending does seem to only occur when the Offender is under the influence of drugs.
He appears committed to being free of drugs. He has undertaken a number of courses whilst in custody and has a commitment to continuing to remain drug free.
He is humiliated and ashamed as to his conduct, the subject of these charges, and, other than by reference to the use of drugs, is unable to explain it.
From the moment of his interaction with police, he was cooperative, honest, and frank and has expressed remorse from that time to this day.
I regard his subjective case as strong.
The Offender pleaded guilty at the first opportunity.
Under New South Wales legislation, the Offender would be entitled to a statutory 25% discount from what might otherwise have been his sentence because of that early plea. He is entitled to that for the State bestiality offence.
I see no reason why I ought not apply that same discount to the Commonwealth offences, which is what I propose to do.
All of his conduct, from the moment the Offender first had interaction with police, is entirely consistent with him being contrite, remorseful, and having real insight into the consequences of his offending.
He has expressed contrition, remorse, and insight to me on oath and I accept that evidence.
I regard the Offender's prospects of reoffending as low. In large part, they are linked to his ability to stay drug-free.
I should say that, with time, I hope the Offender and those treating him recognise that his issues may not just be around addiction to drugs but also there is probably some sort of sex addiction in play, which I am confident, with proper treatment, can be dealt with.
In a sense, when considering bestiality crimes, it might be thought that the animal is the "victim." However, I think this is artificial. Animals have an inability to consent to such activities and, as is explained in the cases, it is therefore difficult and again artificial to compare such offences with sexual offences against people.
That being said, as is clear from the maximum penalty prescribed by Parliament, this offending is considered serious. Such conduct is an affront to a civilised society and must be condemned. As such, general deterrence looms large in the exercise.
Whilst there are not many images, they are images of abhorrent, disgusting, and wholly unacceptable acts and I have already determined that the level of seriousness, in my judgement, falls somewhere in the mid-range.
There is no doubt that, for the Commonwealth offences, individually or together the threshold created by s 17A of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) has been satisfied.
As to the State offensive bestiality, it was submitted on behalf of the Offender that, on its own, it might attract a non-custodial sentence. I do not accept that submission. I think some period of custody is necessary so as to mark the seriousness of the offending and to send a strong message of general deterrence to the community. Nonetheless, that period in custody ought not be significant. It will be backdated so as to have already expired.
In my judgement, there is a large degree of overlap between the offending underpinning all of the offences.
There is significant overlap between the images, the subject of the various Commonwealth offences.
All of the offending happened within a relatively short time span, and I think, realistically, whilst there cannot be total overlap between the sentences, a large degree of accumulation is appropriate.
I consider the Offender has an unusually strong subjective case.
He is a young man who is generally of good character and has been in the past and can be in the future, a good productive member of society.
He has worked hard to confront his addictions and, to date, has done extremely well. He is aware that it might be more difficult for him to continue to abstain when out in the community, rather than in a controlled environment of prison.
I am confident that he will continue to succeed in his endeavours to remain drug-free and wish him well in that regard.
As far as subjective deterrence is concerned, I think that his arrest, charging, and the significant period he has already spent in custody have done all that can be done to subjectively deter the Offender from reoffending.
However, that all being said, the offences are serious, and general deterrence must loom large.
On balance, I do not think the Offender really has a sexual interest in children or animals. I consider what has occurred here is that, when under the influence of drugs, he loses control of his ability to make sensible decisions and, for some reason, explores this type of material. I strongly suspect that, not only does he have drug and alcohol addiction issues, but underneath all of this there is probably some sort of sexual addiction going on. Nonetheless, there is a direct correlation between the Offender’s drug use and his offending, and as I have already said, I consider it unlikely that he will reoffend, so long as he can stay off drugs.
Society in general needs to understand with clarity that these type of offences are not some sort of victimless crime and that real children are being harmed in significant ways as a result of people being tempted to look at this type of material. It is a serious breach of the criminal law to do so, and it needs to be recognised that, when apprehended, people guilty of such offences will inevitably be met with stern punishment.
I consider it is important that the Offender spends as much time as possible under supervision upon his release and, therefore, will adjust what, in the State regime, would be considered the usual period of parole for the purpose of such supervision.
I been taken to a number of cases by both the Crown and the Offender. In particular, I have considered R v Hutchinson [2018] NSWCCA 152; Lyons v R [2017] NSWCCA 204 (“Lyons”); Peters v R [2018] NSWCCA 126; and Curle v R [2024] NSWCCA 117 (“Curle”).
Of course, in none of those cases is the objective seriousness and subjective case of the Offenders on all fours with this case. That being said, Curle seems to be reasonably close.
Each matter must be considered on its own merits, similar cases do not create some sort of precedent as is explained in Lyons, such cases may well establish a range of sentences for the offences concerned and it is permissible that they be used as a yardstick against which to examine any proposed sentence.
For the Commonwealth matters (Counts 1, 2, and 3), having taken all those matters into account and trying to synthesise them as best I can, I have concluded that an effective aggregate head sentence of four years as a starting point is appropriate.
From that, there will be an effective 25% discount to acknowledge the early guilty pleas, meaning an effective head sentence of three years.
That sentence will be taken to have commenced on 20 February 2024 and will expire on 19 February 2027.
I propose that, after a period of 20 months in custody, the Offender will be released on a Recognizance Release Order so as to serve the balance of his term in the community.
The date of that Recognizance Release Order to commence will be 19 October 2025, which will be the date the Offender is released from custody.
For the State offence (Count 4), I sentence the Offender to a fixed term of imprisonment of 6 months, commencing 20 February 2024 and expiring 19 August 2024.
My indicative sentences for each Commonwealth Count (after deducting 25% from each for the guilty pleas) are as follows:
Count 1 – Eighteen (18) months’ imprisonment.
Count 2 – Eighteen (18) months’ imprisonment.
Count 3 – Three (3) years’ imprisonment.
My orders are as follows:
After deduction of 25% for the early guilty pleas, I sentence the Offender to an aggregate term for Counts 1, 2, and 3 of three (3) years imprisonment to commence on 20 February 2024 and expire 19 February 2027.
For Count 4, after a deduction of 25% for the early guilty plea, I sentence the Offender to a fixed term of 6 months imprisonment, commencing 20 February 2024 and expiring 19 August 2024.
After serving twenty (20) months in custody, on 19 October 2025, pursuant to s 20(1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), the Offender is to be released on a Recognizance Release Order, himself in the sum of $100, for a period of sixteen (16) months, to expire on 19 February 2027, on the following conditions:
(a) To be of good behaviour (b) To report to the nearest City Community Corrections office within 7 days of 19 October 2025. (c) To be subject to the supervision of a probation officer. (d) To obey all reasonable directions of the probation officer. (e) To submit to any treatment plan for drug, alcohol, and/or sexual addiction as directed by his probation officer. (f) To abstain from taking any illicit drugs. (g) To not travel interstate or overseas without the written permission of the probation officer.
(a) Samsung Smart Phone (Exhibit No. X0005184751) (b) Samsung Flip Phone (Exhibit No. X0005184753) (c) iPad Tablet (Exhibit No. X0005184754) (d) Asus Chromebook Laptop (Exhibit No. X0005184755)
**********
R
Rebbeck [2025] NSWDC 268