R v Stevens [2025] NSWDC 517 | Case summary | Zoe

NSWNSWDC

R v Stevens

[2025] NSWDC 517

District Court of NSW|2025-05-05|Before: Sutherland SC DCJ

View on NSW CaselawOr email me a plain-English summary of this case

General information, not legal advice.

At a glance

Source facts

Court

District Court of NSW

Decision date

2025-05-05

Before

Sutherland SC DCJ

Catchwords

SENTENCING — Child sex offences — Using carriage service to
transmit communications to procure person <16 years for
sexual activity
– Using carriage service to transmit indecent communications to person

Source

Original judgment source is linked above.

Email me a plain-English summary of this case

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.

Catchwords

SENTENCING — Child sex offences — Using carriage service totransmit communications to procure person <16 years forsexual activity– Using carriage service to transmit indecent communications to person<16 years – Use carriage serviceto solicit and cause child abusematerial to be transmitted to himself – Form 1 offences – Possesschild abuse material– Use carriage service to transmit indecentcommunications to person <16 years – Plea of Guilty to two substantiveoffences – Plea of Not Guilty to one substantive offence – FoundGuilty after jury trial – Strong subjective circumstances– No priorrecord – “exceptional circumstances”

Judgment

Source: NSW Caselaw (www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au). Converted to plain text by ZoeLaw. Not the official version.

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Stevens [2025] NSWDC 517

There is a statutory prohibition pursuant to section 15A of the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW) and section 578A of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) against naming the children who were victims in the offending conduct which is the subject of these sentence proceedings. That prohibition extends to material which might tend to disclose their identities, including the names of friends. Accordingly, whilst I will use their real names and identities in the course of delivering these Remarks, their names are substituted by pseudonyms in this published version of this judgment.
Adam Stevens appears for sentence with respect to 3 substantive offences arising from his communications and interactions of a sexual nature with young males who were initially under the age of 16.
While I will deal with the detailed factual background shortly, by way of overview the offender was initially arrested and charged in April 2022 following the execution of a search warrant at his home. Naked images of a young boy, aged 16, were located on electronic devices in his possession.
In due course a charge of using a carriage service to transmit communications which included material that was indecent to that 16-year-old boy was preferred. It is the first of two counts on an indictment to which the offender pleaded Guilty. I will refer to it as plea indictment Count 1, or the second substantive offence chronologically. It constitutes an offence contrary to section 474.27A(1) of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) and carries a maximum penalty of 7 years imprisonment.
The second charge on the plea indictment in respect of which the offender pleaded Guilty related to requests from the offender to a person identified as ‘Ben*’* believed to be under the age of 16 to send sexualised images to the offender. This conduct gave rise to an offence of soliciting and causing child abuse material to be transmitted to himself using a carriage service. I will refer to this offence as plea indictment Count 2, or the third substantive offence. This constitutes an offence contrary to section 474.22(1) of the Commonwealth Criminal Code and carries a maximum penalty of 15 years imprisonment.
Two additional related offences were charged following the detailed forensic examination of the offender’s electronic devices.
The first additional offence related to the transmission of communications including material that was indecent to the person ‘Ben*’. This again constituted an offence contrary to section 474.27A(1) of the Commonwealth Criminal Code. However, the offending conduct on this occasion occurred after 22 June 2020 when the maximum penalty for such an offence had been increased from 7 years to 10 years imprisonment. The offender has admitted this conduct and it has been placed on a Form for the purposes of section 16BA of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth).* The Court is asked to take it into account in determining an appropriate sentence with respect to the substantive offence under section 474.22(1) relating to the soliciting or requesting child abuse material from ‘Ben*’*, being plea indictment Count 2.
A further charge was preferred with respect to images and data constituting child abuse material which had been received by the offender and retained on his electronic devices. This charge arose under section 474.22A(1) of the Criminal Code and carries a maximum penalty of 15 years imprisonment when prosecuted separately. It similarly is conduct which was admitted by the offender and placed on the section 16BA schedule to be taken into account with respect to the substantive offence under section 474.22(1), being plea indictment Count 2.
An additional substantive charge brought against the offender related to the alleged use of a carriage service to transmit communications to a different boy who was under the age of 16 years, such communications alleged to have been made with the intention of making it easier to procure the recipient to engage in sexual activity with himself. Such an offence contravenes section 474.27(1) of the Criminal Code. Police in 2022 had discovered communications dating back to 2016 and 2017 between the offender and this particular boy which were retained on his electronic devices. As such it is the first substantive offence chronologically.
This offending was alleged to have occurred between about 31 December 2016 and 16 August 2017 when the maximum penalty for this offence was 12 years.
The offender pleaded Not Guilty to the trial indictment presented with respect to this offence. Following a trial before a jury between 17 and 23 October 2024, the jury returned a verdict of Guilty with respect to this offence. I will refer to this offence as trial indictment Count 1.

The offender, Adam Stevens, was born in June 1996. While I will deal with the detail of his subjective circumstances in due course it is appropriate to observe when dealing with the factual background that Mr Stevens had struggled to some degree during his schooling years, both academically and socially. His difficulties with social skills and sensory processing were noted both by his family and by his schoolteachers.
He has subsequently been clinically diagnosed as suffering from Autism Spectrum Disorder.
From a very young age he exhibited a focused interest in buses. In due course this may be perceived as having developed into an obsession or fixation with buses, their operation, and various factors with respect to the use of buses as a means of public transport.
It was in the context of his active and extreme interest in buses and matters related to buses that his offending conduct initially occurred.
The offender left school after completing Year 11. I will assume that he had turned 17 years of age which would presumably mean that his first year out of school was 2014. It is unclear whether some of his learning difficulties may have caused him to leave school later, and it is conceivable that his first year after leaving school may have been 2015.
While there is no precision as to dates of employment in the material before the Court, it would appear that he obtained employment with a bus transport company, Transdev, with aspirations of becoming a bus driver. Transdev was, at the time, one of a number of private companies operating buses on behalf of Transport NSW.
In late 2016, by which time the offender had turned 20, he was employed with Transdev. Whilst he told the first complainant, the victim in the offence which went to trial, that he had aspirations to be a bus driver, the evidence does not reveal whether he had commenced training as a bus driver at that time. However, it is reasonably clear that he was associating with other people with a similar focused interest in buses and their operations.

During the period described as late 2016, the offender was given the phone number and name of "Reg Varney" as a person who shared similar focused interest and enthusiasm in relation to buses and their operations. "Varney" at that time was 14 years of age. The person who provided "Varney’s" contact details to the offender, "Robert Zimmerman," was the same age as "Varney" and was a mutual acquaintance of the offender and "Reg Varney". Both boys had a shared interest in the operation of buses and trains.
The offender sent "Varney" a text message in which he said: *“Hey, it’*s Adam Stevens, I got your phone number from a friend, I understand that you are into the bus software ‘Mobitec’, can we meet up and I can show you how it works.”
Mobitec was a computer and software application which permitted buses to display destination signs electronically.
"Reg Varney" gave evidence that he was interested in the software but did not know how to use it. He said that his interest “was just to recreate bus destinations. At the time I thought it was just a pretty cool thing to be able to do.”
Stevens and "Varney" arranged to meet up. They met approximately a week later in a shopping centre in Miranda. "Varney" took his laptop with him and over a period of about an hour and a half, the offender showed him how the Mobitec application worked.
Approximately 2 to 3 weeks later the offender again sent a text message to "Reg Varney" asking him if he would like to “hang out” and offering to show him a “cool place with buses in Bankstown.**” "Varney" responded: “Yes.**”
The offender went in his car and picked up "Reg Varney" from his home and they went for a drive to Bankstown. In due course they arrived at Bankstown bus depot. At some stage during their time together the offender showed "Varney" a photo of a woman’s breasts which he had received from another person, to which he had responded with a photo of what he said was his penis. In the course of the discussion with "Varney" the offender asked him about the nature of his sexual orientation. "Varney" advised that he was ‘straight’ and that he had a girlfriend.
The Bankstown bus depot was a depot where buses which were surplus to requirements were stored.
After spending time with the buses the offender drove "Reg Varney" back to "Varney’s" home.
There were subsequently numerous communications between the offender and "Reg Varney" and a number of occasions where they would meet up, particularly on Thursday afternoons. On one occasion when they had arranged to meet, the complainant, as he became, had to cancel the meeting because his mother had surprised him by arranging to go to the premiere of a movie. The complainant gave evidence that the offender seemed to be quite angry and upset and sent photos of himself saying: “I don’t like to be lied to.”
The complainant gave evidence at Trial that on about three or four Thursday afternoons the offender and he would travel on a bus driven by a bus driver friend of the offender’s. They would travel from Menai to Bankstown on the bus where they would then have dinner at Bankstown shopping centre before returning on the bus to Menai where it would end its service. The offender would then drive the complainant back home.
The complainant also gave evidence that the offender saved photos of the complainant which were on Facebook, which had apparently been posted and “tagged” by the complainant’s father. The photos were of the complainant when he was a child of five or six years of age. The offender sent a screenshot to the complainant of the photo asking: *“*Who is this cutie?**”
"Varney" gave evidence of an occasion when the offender had asked him to come to the offender’s 21st birthday party which "Varney" decided to not attend. He gave evidence that he was aware the offender lived at home with his parents and that other persons had been invited to the party. After he did not turn up to the party he said that the offender subsequently indicated that he was ‘not happy*’* that "Varney" had not come to the party.
The complainant identified various text messages between himself and the offender and also described an occasion when they had met in the city and then caught a bus to Baulkham Hills where they ate at a Red Rooster restaurant. He identified photos taken of himself during that outing while they were sitting opposite each other at the restaurant. The offender subsequently sent the photo to the complainant with a message: “Look at this cutie.”
Later that same day the offender sent a message to "Reg Varney" asking him to send a photo back to him of the complainant shirtless. The message was accompanied by an emoji of 3 water drops or splashes. The complainant in evidence at Trial said that he interpreted that with a sexual connotation.
Some of the text messages which were sent from the offender, and which were exhibits in the trial, carried an overtone of sexual innuendo. By way of example, a message said: “I like you Bro, as a friend you’re cool, and like I*’ve said before you are hot, but I like you as a friend mainly.”*
The offender also asked the complainant whether he was still working on his six-pack. The offender said: “if you get your six pack back for me, I will do anything for you Bro”**.
The complainant said that he found this conduct ‘very strange’ to the point where he decided to block the offender from all social media.
Both the complainant and the offender continued to associate with a group of bus afficionados who would dine at a restaurant on Wednesday evenings. However, the complainant said that he avoided further direct contact with the offender and did not communicate with him.
The sole issue at Trial was whether or not the jury could be satisfied, beyond reasonable doubt, that the communications from the offender to the complainant, the fact of which was not in dispute, had been made with the intention of making it easier to procure the recipient to engage in sexual activity.
The jury’s verdict of Guilty binds me and the offender falls to be sentenced on the basis of such an intention being present.
The period of time during which the communications occurred was between December 2016 and August 2017. The complainant was 14 years of age, although he turned 15 in August 2017. The offender was 20 years of age over most of this period, although he turned 21 in June 2017.

The offender was a Transit System NSW driver from April 2018 up until his resignation after being charged with the present matters in 2022. In around 2018 he met the second complainant, "Stephen Lewis", who was 13 years of age at the time. They met at the Sydney Bus Museum where the offender was a volunteer, as well as being employed full-time as a bus driver. A mutual focused interest in buses and matters connected with buses led to an exchange of contact details and communications between the two with respect to their shared interest. Contact between them became fairly constant over social network applications.
In approximately 2020 the offender picked up the young person and took him for a drive in a bus. In the course of their ongoing shared interest, the offender gave "Lewis" an out-of-date Sydney Bus Museum uniform including a jacket. He also gave him a number of old bus mechanical parts.
The mutual interest in buses continued and in March 2022 the accused permitted the now 16-year-old complainant to drive his bus on a number of occasions whilst members of the public were on board as passengers. The four occasions were captured on CCTV. The offender, having allowed the 16-year-old to drive the bus, was detected by his employer who notified police.
The offender was charged with four offences of employing or permitting an unlicenced driver to drive a bus, contrary to section 53(1) of the Road Transport Act 2013.
With respect to these offences he pleaded guilty and was sentenced at Sutherland Local Court on 9 March 2023. With respect to each offence, he was released pursuant to a Conditional Release Order without conviction for a period of two years. He was required to be supervised until 8 March 2025 and to continue with rehabilitation treatments including psychotherapy and to participate in assertiveness training as directed by Community Corrections.
On 30 March 2022 police executed a search warrant at the home of the offender at Menai. A number of electronic devices including a laptop, an iPad, and a hard drive were seized and subsequently forensically examined. Police also obtained the offender’s mobile phone.
The offender voluntarily provided the passcodes and PIN numbers for his electronic devices to the police.
The forensic examination revealed pictures of "Stephen Lewis" driving buses and included naked images taken of "Stephen Lewis" on a bus. The complainant was 16 years of age at the time of these photographs.
The forensic examination ultimately revealed in excess of 1,000 messages exchanged between the offender and the complainant across a variety of social networking applications over a period of some years. The Agreed Facts included a screenshot which had been saved of a sexualised message in December 2019 when the complainant was 14 years of age. This included a reference from the offender to the 14 year old telling him: “You*’*re all excited aha”… “You got hard yesterday”.
Further messages were obtained from June 2020 when the complainant was 15 years of age. The complainant and offender had a conversation about the complainant’s hope to become a bus driver one day. The offender persistently asked the complainant to send images of him shirtless, and on one occasion asked him to send an image in his underwear with an erect penis.
The complainant said that he would send an image “probably” tomorrow. The offender complained that he never got anything from the then 15-year-old. He complained: “because I don*’t get pics from you. Not asking for pics of you know what. I’ve given you PTIPS Blink.* Let you drive my bus. Ummm What else have I done for you”
‘PTIPS’ is Transport for NSW’s ‘Public Transport Information and Priority System’. It is a password-protected computer-based information system for transport operators. It provides real-time tracking for bus locations and travel status. It provides updates to customers via other applications, including ‘Google Maps’ and ‘TripView’.
‘Blink’ is an application which allows employee information and communications for companies in the transport and logistics industry.
Numerous other messages during June 2020 set out the ongoing requests by the offender for the 15-year-old to send him nude photos. In due course the complainant did send photos to the offender, to which the offender replied: “Thanks Bro. Not a hair on your body*,* you lucky boy aha”.
The complainant in due course told police that the offender had sent him nude images of the offender.
The messages and communications sent by the offender to "Stephen Lewis" form the basis for the second substantive count for which he appears for sentence. This was the first count in what can be described as the Plea indictment.
As I have described earlier, this is an offence contrary to section 474.22A(1) of the Criminal Cod**e, namely using a carriage service to transmit indecent communications to a person under 16 years of age.

The third substantive count in respect of which the offender appears for sentence related to a series of communications between the offender in Sydney and a Snapchat user using the name ‘Ben’ and apparently located in Florida in the USA. These communications occurred between June 2021 and September 2021. ‘Ben’ called the offender ‘daddy’ and received cash from the offender initially so that ‘Ben’ could purchase a phone on the promise to then send pornographic material of himself and his friends to the offender. I should note in passing that ‘Ben’s’ actual identity and age is unknown. ‘Ben’ purported to be 14 years of age in a number of communications although in others he stated that he was 16.
‘Ben’ told the offender that he had ordered an Apple MacBook laptop which he did not have the funds to pay for. Over a period of time during the communications ‘Ben’ made various promises regarding producing and sending pornographic videos and continued to solicit money in advance from the offender. I do not see the necessity of setting out the detail of the messages. It suffices to observe that the offender asked on a number of occasions what he would get if he sent the money. ‘Ben’ responded that he would send “everything” and described what he purportedly wanted to do sexually with the offender.
The offender was ultimately prevailed upon to send money to ‘Ben’ on a number of occasions which eventually came to a figure of some $18,000 USD. The offender asked ‘Ben’ to send him a picture of his “cock”.
Ultimately in July 2021 the offender sent a picture of his own penis to ‘Ben’. By September 2021 the total of approximately $18,000 USD had been forwarded by the offender.
Further communications culminated in the offender accusing ‘Ben’ of being a “fraud”. By that stage, on 8 September 2021, ‘Ben’ was seeking to have the offender send a total of $50,000 USD to a PayPal account on an asserted pretext and he promised to send it back.
In a series of further messages the offender reiterated his belief that ‘Ben’ was a fraud who continually asked for money and never returned it as promised. Additionally, ‘Ben’ had never sent ‘material’ that he had promised.
The communications with ‘Ben’ in which the offender solicited and caused communications, which fell within the definition of child abuse material, to be transmitted to himself, forms the basis for the substantive Count 3, being Count 2 on the plea indictment.
As indicated earlier this is an offence contrary to section 474.22(1). In addition to ‘Ben’s’ true identity not being able to be ascertained, nor his actual age, the communications might well be viewed as falling within the categorisation by the offender as a ‘fraud’.
With respect to the transmitting of the image of his own penis to ‘Ben’, the offender was charged with Sequence 7, namely, a further charge of use of a carriage service to transmit indecent communications to a person under 16 years of age. That offence contrary to section 474.27A(1) has been placed on the section 16BA schedule which the court is asked to take into account in dealing with Count 2 on the plea indictment. The maximum penalty for this offence if prosecuted separately is 15 years imprisonment.
The police examination of the various electronic devices also revealed four files downloaded or saved on 27 July 2021 during the period of communications with ‘Ben’ which depicted sexual interaction involving young male children. 16 still photographs in one file showed two male children, one between approximately 6 to 8 years of age and the other between approximately 8 to 10 years of age, involved in simulated acts of anal penetration. The second file contained one photograph of a naked prepubescent boy with an erection. The third file contained two photographs of naked pre-pubescent boys who appeared to be kissing. The fourth file showed a single photograph of a pre-pubescent boy lying naked in a sexualised pose with a slightly older boy.
These photographs formed the basis of a separate charge of possession of child abuse material obtained through the use of a carriage service. This offence which contravenes section 474.22A(1) has been placed on the section 16BA schedule as item 1 to be taken into account with respect to the sentence for plea indictment Count 2. The maximum penalty for this offence if prosecuted separately is 10 years imprisonment.

Whilst it is strictly unnecessary to seek to categorise the level of objective seriousness, it is clear that the offending conduct and the material both solicited and obtained, and the quantity of the material, support a conclusion that the offending in each case falls towards the lower end of objective seriousness.
With respect to the first complainant, "Reg Varney", despite the pervading sexual innuendo in various messages, the zenith of the ‘grooming’ would appear to have resulted in the single request for a shirtless photo. After communications had been terminated by the teenager, despite ongoing attendance at mutual social dinners with other bus and transport enthusiasts, the offender at no time sought to further pursue or entice any form of activity or communication from the complainant.
With respect to the communications between the offender and the second complainant, "Stephen Lewis", it clearly involved a close friendship which was both founded in and continued as a result of their mutual focused interest in buses and activities relating to buses. By the time the second complainant was 16 years of age, photographs of him ‘posing’ whilst nude on a bus were subsequently recovered. The offender subsequently allowing the second complainant to drive the bus when he did not hold the requisite license resulted in substantive charges under the Road Transport Act 2013 (NSW) to which I have already referred and which were the subject of judicial sanction in the Local Court in March 2023.
The transmission of material to the second complainant, which fell within the categorisation of ‘indecent’ and which included naked images of the offender himself, forms the basis of the second substantive count for sentence, namely Count 1 on the Plea Indictment. The pictures, whilst nude and indecent, did not portray sexual activity and clearly fall to the lower end of objective seriousness for the transmission of indecent material.
The child abuse material which was solicited in the course of the communications with ‘Ben’ transpired to be material which was the subject of deletion by the offender upon or close to the time of its receipt. A retention of the material might give rise to a separate or additional charge of possession. Its immediate deletion speaks to the objective seriousness of what was caused to be transmitted to himself. In my view the overall circumstances of the communications with ‘Ben’, who may well have been an adult fraudster, supports a conclusion that this offending falls towards the lower end of objective seriousness.
I make that observation, notwithstanding the admission by virtue of the plea of Guilty to an element of the offence relating to a belief that the material was sent to somebody under the age of 16 years. Notwithstanding the plea, I do note that the offender maintained to the psychiatrist to whom he was referred a belief that ‘Ben’ had been 16, and that text messages in which ‘Ben’ claimed to in fact to be 16 are included in the defence tender bundle.
With respect to the offence of possession of child abuse material, the description of the images and the small number of images the subject of this charge, clearly place such possession towards the lowest end of objective seriousness.

The offender did not give evidence in the sentence proceedings. Information and evidence with respect to his subjective circumstances was provided through a psychological report from psychologist Ms Caitlin Riddell dated 7 June 2022, a psychological report from psychologist Andrew Wong dated 27 February 2023, a report from a forensic psychiatrist, Dr Sathish Dayalan, dated 17 February 2025, and a report from psychologist Connie Tao Li dated 21 January 2025.
The offender was born on 21 June 1996. He is a single child who grew up and continues to live with his parents. There were no reported concerns during his mother’s pregnancy or delivery. His mother recounted to the psychologist that Adam achieved appropriate physical milestones within normal limits, although she reported his toilet training “took a while”.
The offender’s mother first expressed concerns regarding his development at the age of 3. Her paediatrician identified difficulties with his language and what was described as “toe-walking”. Further concerns were raised when the offender started primary school. His schoolteacher identified that he was inattentive and daydreaming in class. He struggled with poor handwriting and was said to have had difficulties with self-direction. Concerns with his development led to him commencing Occupational Therapy supports in Year 2.
His mother recounted significant social difficulties that began with him being bullied during primary school. He struggled within the classroom due to the loudness of his peers. He was reported as occasionally responding with aggressive and destructive behaviour, leading him to get into trouble.
His early interest in buses arose at the age of approximately 6. His mother reported that he was almost instantly obsessed with buses, and used to talk about them often and would request to be taken on bus rides during the school holidays. He had expressed a desire to become a bus driver from an early age.
During consultations with the psychiatrist, Dr Dayalan, the offender described having been bullied through most of his school years. He recalled sitting on his own in recess and lunch breaks, and not interacting with any children. He did not establish any close friendships at school and never had “sleepovers*”*. He told Dr Dayalan that although he had interacted with a few other children, he never had a large group of friends. He said that he did not believe that he had a problem with identifying emotions experienced by others, but did accept that he was not good at noticing social cues.
He ultimately left school without achieving the Higher School Certificate, and as indicated earlier in these Remarks, obtained employment with Transdev with a view to becoming qualified as a bus driver, which he ultimately achieved. He also became an active and regular volunteer at the Sydney Bus Museum.
It was through connections with those with a mutual interest in buses that his friendship and relationship with each of the complainants both commenced and continued for some time.
His mother reported to Ms Riddell, psychologist, that the offender had struggled with initiating conversations unless the topic was a special interest of his, particularly buses. The nature of his obsession with buses is reflected in the ongoing circumstances of his interactions with each of the complainants.
Following his arrest and charging in April 2022 the offender was referred to Leaps and Bounds Early Intervention Clinic due to concerns about his cognitive and behavioural development.
The psychologist, Ms Riddell, undertook a battery of tests during May 2022 including an assessment of the offender’s full-scale intelligence quotient pursuant to the Weschler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS-IV). The offender’s full-scale IQ fell within the 14th percentile which falls within the Below Average range.
With respect to the Verbal Comprehension Index, which is a measure of a person’s reasoning ability, the offender fell within the 16th percentile which again was within the Below Average range. This ranked him at a level slightly lower than expected for his age.
With respect to the Perceptual Reasoning Index he fell within the average range at the 39th percentile, which meant that his performance was at a level equal to most of his same-aged peers.
With respect to the Working Memory Index which refers to an ability to hold information in the mind and use it to solve problems, the offender fell within the 9th percentile which was the Low range. This was a level below what would be expected for his age.
The last test within the Weschler Scale was the Processing Speed Index which measures the ability of a person to process new information quickly. The offender fell within the Below Average range at the 14th percentile.
The psychologist, Ms Riddell, also conducted the Monteiro Interview Guidelines for Diagnosing Autism Spectrum (MIGDAS-2). The MIGDAS-2 is a sensory-based systematic and organised process for gathering and organising the qualitative information needed to diagnose autism.
The psychologist’s report sets out detailed aspects of the offender’s sensory use and particular interests. These included his special interests in buses and transport. He described finding himself thinking about buses even when not engaging with them. He reported noticing visual changes within the environment that others do not. He described his particularity about the fragrance of soaps and body washes, and his aversion to the feeling of anything sticky or slimy. He described his dislikes with respect to particular foods, and a variety of preferences or dislikes with respect to personal clothing. With respect to language and communication, he said he was not typically the person to initiate contact with others. He preferred to discuss his special interest in buses and transport, and finds it difficult to maintain conversations, focusing on other non-preferred topics.
With respect to social relationships and emotional responses, he reported that the people he is closest to are the friends he has met through his work or through social activities to do with buses. He reports preferring to be with those types of friends in preference to spending time by himself. He reported feeling agitated when things were not done in the right way that he wanted them to be done.
Tests were also conducted pursuant to the Adaptive Behaviour Assessment System (ABAS-III). The ABAS-III is a rating scale which provides information regarding an individual’s daily living skills. Pursuant to these tests, his general adaptive composite score and the conceptual domain both fell within the Low range and was equivalent or higher to only 4% of peers of the same age.
His Practical Domain relating to his ability to engage in practical tasks pertaining to daily living was assessed in the Low range, and his Social Domain composite score, relating to the skills needed to plan social activities and engage in them, fell within the Below Average range.
These results were confirmed by a separate assessment on the same bases conducted with his parents.
The combination of each of the battery of tests undertaken indicated that the offender met the diagnostic criteria for Autism Spectrum Disorder – Level II Requiring Substantial Support pursuant to the DSM-5. He was however not suffering from an intellectual disability on the basis of his results on the WAIS-IV.
It was strongly recommended that the offender engage with a forensic psychologist and that his treating doctor might consider the benefit of psychopharmaceuticals. It was further strongly recommended that he receive NDIS funding to aid an improvement of his functioning.
NDIS funding was approved and the offender attended a clinical psychologist, Mr Andrew Wong, for consultations between July 2022 and February 2023. In his report dated 27 February 2023, the psychologist made a number of observations:

Mr Wong’s clinical impression was consistent with the diagnosis of Autism Spectrum Disorder, Level 2 (Requiring Substantial Support) in accord with the DSM-5. In his report, which had been prepared for the purposes of the court appearance with respect to the traffic offences, Mr Wong expressed the opinion that over the course of the consultations that he had with the offender, Mr Stevens had become largely well-adjusted and developed an understanding of appropriate behaviours in his friendship relationships.
Permitting the young person, "Stephen Lewis", to drive the bus was perceived to have been as a result of his social deficits from being autistic and a desire to be a people-pleaser so as to not lose his friendship with the 16-year-old by refusing the repeated requests to be permitted to drive the bus.
In Mr Wong’s opinion the offender displayed genuine remorse and appropriate contrition in coming to an understanding that breaking the law was significantly worse than losing a friend.
In November 2022 an assessment was undertaken of the offender’s functional living skills to assist the National Disability Insurance Agency, the agency which administers the NDIS, in assessing the appropriate supports the offender required to reside within the community. A number of assessment reports were undertaken including by an Occupational Therapist, Ms Susan Heiler. Various dysfunctional aspects were determined to be present, consistent with his Autism Spectrum diagnosis, which had varying levels of difficulty. These included withdrawal from social contact and difficulty in appropriate communication. He performed at a level below other persons of his own age in all areas of adaptive functioning. His interpersonal skills were assessed at well below his chronological age. Ongoing support from the NDIS was recommended.
In February 2023, pursuant to his NDIS funding, the offender was referred to Acacia Therapy Services, an allied health support provider providing specialist behaviour support services, particularly for people with special needs and disabilities. He attended 19 sessions of psychological therapy support with the psychologist, Ms Connie Li.
During these sessions she focused on various areas of psychological need including assisting the offender in understanding and setting boundaries in maintaining social relationships. She also focused on the offender understanding his own emotions and regulation of his emotions. In Ms Li’s opinion the offender demonstrated a clear cognitive distortion about his relationship with the first complainant, albeit some seven years earlier. In her opinion there was a likely need for ongoing forensic therapy to challenge such cognitive distortions.
In early 2025 the offender was referred to the forensic psychiatrist, Dr Sathish Dayalan.
During the offender’s consultation with Dr Sathish Dayalan, it was noted that his cognitive deficits were “evident from slowness in information processing and memory deficits.”
With respect to his interactions with "Reg Varney", the offender told the psychiatrist that he had not intended to engage in sexual activity with him. He accepted that he was attracted to him and that he had asked "Reg Varney" to send a photograph of himself without a shirt. When asked why he did so, he responded: “Because he was cute”**.
With respect to the second complainant, "Stephen Lewis", the psychiatrist noted that the offender described him as “his best friend”**. The offender described their common interest in buses and claimed that he was not initially attracted to "Stephen Lewis", but became aware of a sexual attraction some months later. He admitted having sought photographs that he intended to use to stimulate himself sexually but denied that his actions were intended as “grooming” with an intention to engage in sexual activity with the young person. I, of course, note in passing that there is no such charge with respect to the second complainant in the matters for sentence. Adam Stevens had expressed to the psychiatrist a concern that the statement of facts with respect to "Stephen Lewis" were suggestive of “grooming” behaviour.
Dr Dayalan was provided with numerous screenshots of some of the text message exchanges between the offender and the complainants. In his opinion they indicated poor socio-emotional reciprocity, that is, an awareness of emotional and interpersonal cues of others.
Dr Dayalan summarised each of the earlier reports from the various psychologists and the results of the psychometric testing which had been previously undertaken. In his opinion the extent of the intellectual deficits and severity of impairment in adaptive functioning did not warrant a diagnosis of intellectual disability but did support a conclusion that there was some impairment in the offender’s intellectual capacity. He said that around the time of the offences the offender had continued to suffer from Autism Spectrum Disorder and an impairment of his intellect given the chronic nature of the conditions.
He described that some individuals with autism find directions and communications with children easier given the difficulty and anxiety surrounding establishing rapport with an adult. In his opinion Mr Stevens, having been subject to extensive bullying in his childhood, would have found it less daunting to interact with younger individuals, especially those who shared an interest in buses given his own extensive knowledge and experience working with buses. The psychiatrist opined that his below average intellectual functioning would have made it easier for him to interact with children whose ability to think in an abstract manner was not as well-developed as in adults.
His Autism Spectrum Disorder would have impaired the ability of the offender to appreciate the emotional impact of his behaviour upon others and would thereby potentially limit his own appreciation of the moral wrongfulness of his offending behaviour.
Dr Dayalan noted the account by the offender that the sexual attraction towards the complainants developed over a period of time and that he had primarily interacted with them for friendship. In Dr Dayalan’s opinion:

Ebejer was a sentence imposed by Judge Haesler SC in respect of a number of child sexual offences. It should be acknowledged that this was a sentence passed when the appellate courts had indicated that a sentence of full-time imprisonment should ordinarily be passed, but it was prior to the June 2020 amendments requiring a finding of “exceptional circumstances”**.
Three substantive offences related to the possession of child abuse material contrary to the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), and two Commonwealth offences related to the use of a carriage service. The first Commonwealth offence was communications intending to procure a person under the age of 16 for sexual activity (section 475.26(1) Criminal Code 1995 (Cth)) with a maximum penalty of 15 years imprisonment; and the second was use of a carriage service to transmit child pornography (section 474.19(1)(iii) Criminal Code 1995 (Cth)) with a maximum penalty of 17 years imprisonment.
Included on a section 16BA schedule were three further offences; two of using a carriage service to transmit indecent material (section 474.27A Criminal Code 1995 (Cth)); and one of use of a carriage service to transmit child pornography (section 474.19(1)(iii) Criminal Code 1995 (Cth)).
The offender was 19 years of age at the time of offending. He had engaged in communications with a police officer using an assumed online identity claiming to be 14 years of age. In the course of online communications, the offender had sent an image of his erect penis. This was one of the offences on the 16BA schedule. He subsequently sent a video clip via Skype of him masturbating to ejaculation. This was similarly placed on the 16BA schedule. Several days later he sent 17 images involving Japanese hentai cartoon pornography and a further image of his erect penis. This offence was also placed on the 16BA schedule.
The substantive offences relating to use of a carriage service to procure and the transmission of child pornography material related to requests communicated to the Assumed Online Identity (‘AOI*’*) suggesting that they meet up for sex. They also related to sending images including a photo of a female masturbating. The possess child abuse material offence related to approximately 400 images and videos found on the electronic devices belonging to the offender.
In his judgment Haesler SC DCJ spoke of the callous and predatory nature of crimes involving possession of child abuse material. His Honour made similar observations with regard to the objective seriousness of the transmission of such material. With respect to the procuring charge, his Honour took into account the fact that the AOI was not a real 14-year-old girl, which he held was relevant to an assessment of the objective seriousness of the offence. He noted that the impact of the offence on an actual child would have made the offence much worse, and in the circumstances, no child was harmed.
With respect to the subjective circumstances of the offender, he was 19 years of age at the time of the offending and 21 at the time of sentence. Psychological reports and references in the Sentencing Assessment Report indicated that he had been bullied at school and that as a child, he was awkward and failed to pick up on social cues. He was described as “shy, with a preference for solitary activities”. When arrested, he told police how lonely and desperate he felt, and how he knew that what he was doing was wrong and inappropriate. Following his arrest, he was diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder and a major depressive disorder. In the opinion of the psychiatrist Dr Adams, the undiagnosed Autism Spectrum Disorder had impaired his social and interpersonal behaviour and psychosexual difficulties. The psychiatrist also noted that the offender showed classic symptoms of major depressive disorder which would have impaired his decision-making and judgment. He had subsequently responded to medication and regular psychological therapy under a mental health care plan.
The sentencing judge found that those undiagnosed conditions were significant factors in the case. The sentencing judgment also took cognisance that the offender was young and immature at the time of the offending.
With respect to the NSW offence of possessing child abuse material, Haesler SC DCJ ultimately imposed a community corrections order with supervision for 3 years. With respect to the Commonwealth offence relating to use of the carriage service for procurement, taking into account the matters on the 16BA schedule, the sentencing judge imposed a term of imprisonment of 1 year and six months. With respect to the Commonwealth offence relating to use of a carriage service to transmit child pornography, his Honour imposed a sentence of 9 months. The sentences were partially accumulated and an effective aggregate sentence of 1 year and 9 months was imposed.
Judge Haesler SC then directed that the offender be released forthwith upon entering into a recognisance for a period of 2 years.

In Ellis Lerve DCJ sentenced an offender who was 20 years of age at the time of offending. The offender was friendly in real life with two young boys, one aged between 15 and 16 years, and the other between 15 and 17 years of age at the relevant time. Both complainants were at school and in approximately year 9 at the time. Importantly the sentencing judge said that he could not be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that either young male was under 16 years of age at the relevant time.
The offender communicated with each of the complainants on a variety of social media platforms. He introduced each of the boys to females called ‘Kaitlyn*’* and ‘Jessica Williams*’. These were in fact online identities created by the offender. They were not real persons. The online identity ‘Kaitlyn’* became Facebook friends with both the complainants, while ‘Jessica*’* became a Facebook friend of one of the boys.
Communications of a sexual nature including requests for nude photos and the transmission of child pornography thereafter took place over social media communications.
A substantive offence of using a carriage service to solicit child pornography and two substantive offences of using a carriage service to transmit child pornography were preferred pursuant to the relevant sections of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth). Some of the communications fell within a categorisation of cyber-bullying and this offence, namely using a carriage service to menace/harass/offend contrary to section 474.17(1) of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) was placed on a section 16BA schedule.
It is unnecessary to recite the detail of this offending, which the sentencing judge found was a very serious example of the use of a carriage service to harass, menace, or offend.
The effect on the victims of the cyber-bullying would appear to have been quite serious. The physical and mental health of the first complainant had deteriorated and he was said to be reluctant to go to school or to talk to anyone he knew. He no longer trusted people. The second complainant said that he was scared to use his real name online and was scared that the offender would come back and trick him online again. He suffered from anxiety, had lost friends, and felt humiliated. Both victims expressed concern that graphic images they had been induced into sending might surface at some time in the future.
A significant factor in the subjective case of the offender was that he had a diagnosis of Autism Spectrum Disorder. His Honour found that he did not fully appreciate the seriousness of what he was doing at the time of the offending.
The judge allowed a numerical figure of 5% for the degree of assistance which was provided relating to his provision of passwords and pin codes for his electronic devices. His Honour thought he was “probably erring on the side of generosity”.
Evidence was led at first instance that the offender had a lot of behavioural and emotional problems at school. He attended a school for special needs students where he obtained his year 10 school certificate. At 14 years of age the offender told his mother that he was gay. He was described as very socially isolated.
Material with respect to a report from NDIS was presented at sentence. A report from a psychologist described the Autism Spectrum Disorder as Asperger’s syndrome.
Lerve DCJ was not persuaded that there was any evidence of causal connection between the autism and the offending, but was persuaded that there was a reduction to be given to the weight of general deterrence. His Honour made reference to the observations of Basten JA in Blackett v R [2021] NSWCCA 210 in which his Honour had found a “form of linkage, although it was neither mechanical or absolute in terms.” After reviewing the judgment of the plurality in Muldrock v The Queen [2011] HCA 39; 244 CLR 120 at [54], his Honour referred to the judgment of McClellan CJ at CL in DPP (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1 at [171]-[178]. His Honour ultimately concluded that the diagnosis of autism did in fact reduce the moral culpability of the offender. His Honour noted the absence of any criminal history and that the offender had suffered a degree of social deprivation so as to enliven the principles in Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; 249 CLR 571.
His Honour made detailed reference to comparable cases to which he was referred and also to the Judicial Commission statistics. He ultimately determined that there was no alternative to a sentence of imprisonment and concluded that an appropriate term was one of 3 years imprisonment. His Honour decided, balancing the seriousness of the offending and the various subjective factors including the offender’s autism, that the case was an appropriate matter for the sentence to be wholly suspended pursuant to section 20(1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth).
I should again note that despite this sentence being passed in September 2021, it related to criminal offences which had occurred prior to 23 June 2020. The requirement of “exceptional circumstances*”* introduced pursuant to the amending act, the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Sexual Crimes Against Children and Community Protection Measures) Act 2020 (Cth), therefore did not apply.

Nafarette was a 21-year-old offender who pleaded Guilty to 4 substantive offences relating to the use of a carriage service relating to child abuse material. The offences included the relevant charges under the Commonwealth Criminal Code of soliciting, accessing, making available and possessing child abuse material. Each of the offences attracted a maximum penalty of 15 years imprisonment.
The number of images and videos was in the hundreds rather than thousands. They did, however, depict real images including the vaginal and anal rape of children by mostly male adult offenders as well as solo masturbation by children. The material also included animated images. Buscombe DCJ, after a detailed analysis, concluded that each of the substantive offences fell towards the lower end of objective seriousness, but not at the bottom of the range.
The offender was 23 years of age at the time of sentence. He had no prior criminal history, and the sentencing judge took into account his comparative youth. The offender had a previous history of anxiety and depression which had been assessed at a high level. Although the judge found that the offender had been suffering from significant mental health problems, and had done so for a number of years, he did not consider that the evidence went so far as to engage the principles in DPP v De La Rosa [2010] NSWCCA 194 as the evidence did not establish that his mental health condition had contributed to the offending in any material way.
His Honour had regard to the circumstances of incarceration during COVID, an assessment of a low risk of reoffending and genuine remorse.
Judge Buscombe made reference to two decisions in the District Court of New South Wales and one in the County Court of Victoria with respect to the then comparatively newly-introduced requirement of “exceptional circumstances” which the court needed to be satisfied of before ordering an immediate release pursuant to a recognisance.
The first was R v Pederson [2021] NSWDC 535, a decision of Judge Berman in which a combination of circumstances with respect to a 61-year-old offender of prior good character led to a finding of exceptional circumstances and immediate release on a recognisance.
The second was R v Dregmans [2022] NSWDC 55, a decision of Judge Abadee, in which the Crown had, in effect, accepted that it was open to the sentencing judge to find exceptional circumstances.
The third case to which Judge Buscombe made specific reference for comparative purposes was from the Victorian County Court. In DPP v Joner-Collins [2021] VCC 2046 Judge Sexton had similarly found exceptional circumstances. That matter involved in excess of 11,000 files containing child abuse material. Some of them were of extreme seriousness involving sadism and bestiality of real children. The 29-year-old offender had been sexually abused as a child and exposed to pornography in his sexually formative years thereby normalising abusive behaviour. Notwithstanding the circumstances being more serious than those before Judge Buscombe, a finding of exceptional circumstances based principally upon the personal history of the offender was made in the Victorian County Court.
His Honour Judge Buscombe undertook an analysis of the word “exceptional” in its statutory context. He made particular reference to the Queensland Court of Appeal decision in R v Tootell; Ex parte Attorney-General of Queensland [2012] QCA 273 with respect to the discussion in that matter of the similar term, “exceptional circumstances”, found in the Queensland Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld).
In the ultimate, Judge Buscombe was satisfied that the combination of factors with respect to the 21-year-old offender, Nafarette, did amount to “exceptional circumstances” and his Honour directed the immediate release of the offender pursuant to a recognisance.

Bradley Abbott pleaded Guilty with respect to one offence of communicating to a recipient who he believed to be under 16 years of age, with the intention of making it easier to procure the recipient to engage in sexual activity with himself. This was an offence contrary to section 474.27 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code and carried a maximum penalty of 15 years imprisonment.
Judge Haesler SC analysed the detail of the communications between the offender and what transpired to have been a police officer playing the role of a 14-year-old girl. The communications involved six conversations over a three-day period. The content of the conversations was explicit and included requests for intimate photographs, instructions regarding masturbation, suggestions that she watch pornography and discussions about the possibility of meeting and engaging in sexual activity.
His Honour found that there was an absence of aggravating features and in relation to the range of matters that could be dealt with by the section of the Criminal Code, the conduct fell at a lower level of what were all serious offences.
The judgment of Haesler SC DCJ does not disclose the age of the offender. However, he was a father who was living with his second partner in supporting and providing for his children from an earlier relationship. A report from a treating psychologist had initially diagnosed a Depressive Disorder. It was not suggested that this underlying condition in any way contributed to the commission of the offence. However it was suggested that if the condition was dealt with the chance of reoffending would be reduced.
The sentencing judge concluded that it was an aberrant incident in an otherwise pro-social life.
His Honour was satisfied that there was no alternative to the imposition of a term of imprisonment. He proceeded to give careful consideration to the statutory requirement that “exceptional circumstances” needed to be demonstrated in order to justify a decision to immediately release the offender on a recognisance to be of good behaviour.
Judge Haesler SC undertook a detailed analysis of the relevant principles in ultimately determining that the combination of factors which are identified in his judgment at [61] warranted a sentence of one year and six months with a direction for immediate release pursuant to a recognisance to be of good behaviour for a period of three years.

This was a Crown appeal against the inadequacy of a sentence imposed by Robinson DCJ with respect to one offence of using a carriage service to solicit child abuse material, contrary to section 474.22(1) of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth). Such an offence carried a maximum penalty of 15 years. An additional offence of using a carriage service to groom a person under 16 years of age, contrary to section 474.27(1) of the Criminal Code, was placed on a Form to be taken into account on the soliciting charge. If prosecuted separately, it carried a maximum penalty of imprisonment for 12 years.
At first instance, following a plea of Guilty, the offender was sentenced to imprisonment for 9 months but ordered to be released immediately pursuant to a Recognizance Release Order. Various conditions with respect to being of good behaviour and accepting supervision and directions from Community Corrections were attached to the Recognizance.
The offender had a mild intellectual disability, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, and Tourette’s Syndrome. The offending occurred in the course of an online chat with a female police officer who had an Assumed Online Identity of a 14-year-old female child. In the course of the ongoing online chat the offender sent an image of a man with an erect penis and asked for a naked photo of the person he was talking to. That request formed the basis for the principal offence of soliciting child abuse material.
The overall conversation was relied upon in support of the charge of grooming which was to be taken into account pursuant to section 16BA. The communications were of short duration but involved the immediate introduction of sexualised concepts and references to sexual activity. The offender had sought to groom the intended victim by referring to dominant girls in a sexual context and a desire to engage in sexual activity.
The offending conduct was accepted as falling well below the mid-range and the offence on the schedule was determined to fall further below that. The sentencing judge had found that the offender’s cognitive impairment and mental conditions, which included borderline range intellectual disability, ADHD, specific learning disorder, and Tourette’s disorder, reduced the moral culpability for the offending. Robinson DCJ accepted evidence from Dr Furst, the forensic psychiatrist, that there was a correlation between the offending and the identified medical conditions.
An appeal against the determination by the sentencing judge to release the offender pursuant to section 21B as an alternative to the imposition of the term of imprisonment was rejected.
Wright J did not accept that the sentence was manifestly excessive. Button J, agreeing with the dismissal of the appeal, held that in his opinion “the sentence was (appropriately) lenient”.

Crowder was an appeal by an offender against the failure of a sentencing judge to find exceptional circumstances with respect to sentencing for two offences contrary to the Criminal Code (Cth). The first offence related to use of a carriage service to access child abuse material (section 474.22(1)) and the second offence related to possession of child abuse material which had been accessed using a carriage service (section 474.22A(1)).
At first instance, County Court Judge Mullaly found that exceptional circumstances were not established and he imposed a total effective sentence of 26 months imprisonment.
The offender was a legal practitioner who was aged approximately 33 at the time of the offending. He was found to possess 5,233 child abuse material files across 5 electronic devices. The files included 3,826 images and 246 videos. The remaining 1,161 files were duplicates. While the majority of the files were animations, there were approximately 700 files that depicted actual acts of sexual abuse perpetrated on real children.
There was some evidence of the offender having entered an abusive homosexual relationship with a more senior member of the legal profession when he was in his early 20s which had introduced him to illicit drug use and sexualised conduct, on occasion non-consensual, during which time he had been introduced to child abuse material. That abusive relationship continued for approximately 6 years. The offender subsequently entered into a heterosexual relationship and became engaged to be married. That relationship had broken up shortly before the offending conduct.
On behalf of the offender it was submitted that he had undertaken significant steps towards rehabilitation. In the opinion of a forensic psychiatrist, he was suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder following the abusive relationship leading to a Major Depressive Disorder. The psychiatrist expressed the opinion that the offender was experiencing mental illness at the time of the offending but that a direct causal relationship with the offending could not be definitively established.
The content of the child abuse material had been found to be “very grave towards the more serious end of the spectrum.” The volume of the child abuse material possessed was found to be significant and the involvement in the abusive relationship and exposure to child abuse material at that time had ceased more than 5 years earlier than the sentencing.
The Victorian Court of Appeal found no error in the judicial sentencing procedure at first instance and refused leave to appeal.

The offender committed the majority of the offences for which he now appears for sentence against the background of an obsession with buses and ancillary matters relating to the operation of buses.
With respect to the two substantive offences to which he pleaded guilty, he will be entitled to a discount on account of the utilitarian value of those pleas which I assess at 25%.
At the time of his arrest he co-operated with police. He provided the passwords and pin numbers to enable access to the content of his electronic devices. He made admissions with respect to the material which he had obtained and the circumstances in which he had obtained and sought it. He told police about the circumstances of his communications with ‘Ben’ in the United States.
I do note his rejection of having had an intention to “groom” either of the young complainants in Australia. Such an allegation with respect to the second complainant was discontinued but, of course, with respect to the first complainant, the jury convicted him with respect to having such an intention and he must be sentenced on that basis.
I accept that his expressions of remorse and contrition, repeatedly expressed to numerous psychologists, the psychiatrist, and the Community Corrections officer who prepared the Sentence Assessment Report, are genuine. I reach that conclusion notwithstanding his protestations regarding the grooming intention.
His diagnosis of Autism Spectrum Disorder and the detailed analysis of the effects of that disorder in the various reports provides an understanding of his involvement with the adolescent young men with whom he developed, initially, friendship relationships.
His relationship with younger persons is more readily understood when one has regard to the various analysed social and intellectual factors which were ascertained to be well below his chronological age.
The acceptance of his diagnosis and subsequent placement on NDIS may appropriately be considered to relevantly reduce, to some extent, his moral culpability.
Such diagnosis also plays a role in rendering him a less suitable vehicle to reflect general deterrence.
His own comparative youth is also a relevant factor favouring more weight to be given to the prospects of rehabilitation. He was 20 years of age at the time of the offending against the first complainant and 23 years of age at the time of the offending against the second complainant. He was at the time 24 or 25 years of age with respect to the offending against ‘Ben*’* in the USA.
His prospects of rehabilitation have been advanced subsequent to his arrest and charging and during the period that he has been on bail.
He has sought and been provided with appropriate support through, firstly, the diagnosis of his previously undiagnosed Autism Spectrum Disorder. Subsequently he has been provided with, and has availed himself of, appropriate psychological intervention which has led to a degree of understanding and perception of his difficulties with social communication skills and an understanding of the inappropriateness of his friendships and connection with youths of a younger age than himself.
Notwithstanding the CSNSW assessment of his risk of re-offending, which has not been tendered but is referred to in the Sentencing Assessment Report, the ongoing psychological consultations and the assessment of the clinical psychiatrist as his risks being ‘moderate’ combined with the absence of any suggestion of re-offending in the three years since he was charged lead to an appropriate assessment of his prospects of rehabilitation as indeed being moderate.
The offender’s more recent realisation that he has homosexual tendencies in his orientation has apparently led to engagement in recent times with a male of his own age. This would tend to augur well with respect to his prospects of rehabilitation with respect to the type of offending for which he appears to be sentenced.

I am satisfied that there is no alternative but to a term of imprisonment.
I propose to proceed by way of an aggregate sentence.
I bear in mind the principle of totality and the circumstance that the offending conduct related to 3 separate recipients of the communications.
In imposing an aggregate sentence I am required to indicate the sentences which would have been imposed had the sentences been imposed separately.
With respect to the first substantive offence relating to the first complainant, "Reg Varney", in respect of which the jury returned a guilty verdict, I indicate a term of imprisonment of 2 years.
With respect to the second substantive offence with respect to the second complainant, "Stephen Lewis", which was the subject of a plea of guilty, I indicate a sentence of 9 months imprisonment.
With respect to the third substantive offence with respect to the person using the name ‘Ben*’*, also the subject of a plea of guilty, taking into account the two matters on the section 16BA schedule, I indicate a sentence of 14 months imprisonment.
There will be an aggregate sentence of 3 years.
The critical question for determination is whether there are “exceptional circumstances” which would justify an immediate release upon entering a recognisance.
In my view, the combination of the various contributing circumstances, leads to a finding that there are, in fact, exceptional circumstances with respect to the present offending.
These include the undiagnosed Autism Spectrum Disorder at the time of offending, the reduced intellectual capacity of the offender, his comparative youth at the time of the offending, the reduction in his moral culpability for the matters that I have already referred to, his remorse and contrition, his absence of any prior criminal history, his very strong pro-social support, my finding that the offending was towards the lower level of objective seriousness, and the strong steps taken towards appropriate understanding of his offending behaviour and assistance towards rehabilitation.
In all of the circumstances, and in the absence of the ability to impose an Intensive Correction Order, I intend to direct the immediate release of the offender on a recognisance to be of good behaviour.

The formal orders of the Court are that Adam Stevens is convicted in respect of the three offences before me.
I find the combination of factors amount to “exceptional circumstances” as required by section 20(1)(b)(iii) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth).
The offender is to be released immediately upon entering into a recognizance himself in the sum of $500 without surety on the condition that he be of good behaviour for 3 years and adhere to the following further conditions during that period:
To be subject to the supervision of a Community Corrections officer; and
To obey all reasonable directions of the Community Corrections officer; and
Not to travel interstate or overseas without the permission of the Community Corrections officer; and
To undertake all treatment programs or rehabilitation programs that the Community Corrections officer reasonably directs, including but not limited to ongoing psychological support; and
You are to attend upon the Bankstown Community Corrections Office as soon as possible and within 7 days from today.
I am required pursuant to the Commonwealth legislation to explain to Adam Stevens the effect of those orders. I have sentenced him to a term of imprisonment of 3 years. The effect of the order permitting him to be released immediately is in practical terms a suspension of that sentence. That is, should he breach any of the conditions of your release, he may be required to serve the balance of the term of actual imprisonment in addition to being sentenced for any further offending. Adam Stevens is now required to attend the Court Registry where he will be required to enter into the recognisance.
Further, upon the application of the Commonwealth Director for a forfeiture order, pursuant to section 23ZD of the Crimes Act 1914 that the following items are forfeited to the Commonwealth:
One Apple iPad (Exhibit No. X0003556113)
One Apple Laptop (Exhibit No. X0003556114)
One Blue Apple iPhone (Exhibit No. X0004235565)

R v Stevens

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Catchwords

Source

Email me a plain-English summary of this case

Catchwords

Judgment

JUDGMENT

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Trial Indictment Count 1

Plea Indictment Count 1

Plea Indictment Count 2

ARREST AND RECORD OF INTERVIEW

OBJECTIVE SERIOUSNESS

VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENT

SUBJECTIVE FEATURES

PRINCIPLES APPLICABLE TO SENTENCING FOR COMMONWEALTH OFFENCES

COMPARATIVE CASES

R v Ebejer [2020] NSWDC 473

DPP (Cth) v Ellis [2021] NSWDC 517

R v Nafarette [2022] NSWDC 225

R v Abbott [2023] NSWDC 488

R v Cui [2023] NSWDC 422

R v Pacey [2025] NSWDC 53

Woods v R [2023] NSWCCA 37

R v Bredal [2024] NSWCCA 75

Crowder (a pseudonym) v The King [2024] VSCA 211

CONSIDERATION

DETERMINATION

ORDERS

Amendments

16 December 2025

12 February 2026

Parties

Legislation Cited (3)

Cases Cited (3)