IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA
AT Melbourne
CRIMINAL DIVISION	 Revised
Not Restricted
 Suitable for Publication	
SEXUAL OFFENCES List

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS		
(CTH)
		
v		
		
XYZ (A PSEUDONYM)		

---

JUDGE:	HIS HONOUR JUDGE PARRISH	
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne	
DATE OF PLEA HEARING:	22 May 2024	
DATE OF SENTENCE:	1 August 2024	
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP (Cth) v XYZ (a pseudonym)	
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2024] VCC 1188		

REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---

Subject:	CRIMINAL LAW
Catchwords:	Sentence – six charges of using a carriage service to transmit child abuse material – one charge of possessing or controlling child abuse material obtained or accessed using a carriage service – one charge of possessing a controlled drug – pleas of guilty
Legislation Cited:	Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth), s308.1(1), s474.22(1), s474.22a(1); Sex Offenders Registration Act 2004 (Vic); Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), s16(a), s16A(2), s19A(c), s20
Cases Cited:		Xiao v R (2018) 96 NSWLR 1; Cameron v R (2002) 209 CLR 339; Tyler v R (2007) 173 A Crim R 458; Worboyes v R [2021] VSCA 169; Bugmy v R (2013) 249 CLR 571; DPP v Herrmann [2021] VSCA 160; Marrah v R [2014] VSCA 119; Muldrock v R (2011) 244 CLR 120; R v Verdins; R v Buckley; R v Vo (2007) 16 VR 269; R v Boyes (2004) 8 VR 230 53; R v George Williams [2008] VSCA 95; R v AMP [2010] VSCA 48; Markovic v R (2010) 30 VR 589; Totaan v R (2022) 108 NSWLR 17; Rodgerson v R [2022] VSCA 82; Hogan v Hinch (2011) 243 CLR 506; DPP (Cth) v Zarb [2014] VSCA 347; DPP v Smith [2010] VSCA 215; DPP v Latham (2009) 19 Tas R 281; Heathcote (a pseudonym) v R [2014] VSCA 37; DPP (Cth) v Thomas (2016) 53 VR 546; State of Western Australia v Collier (2007) 178 A Crim R 310; Walker v R [2008] NTCCA 7; DPP v D’Alessandro (2010) 26 VR 477; R v Booth [2009] NSWCCA 89; R v Hutchinson [2018] NSWCCA 152; R v Coffey (2003) 6 VR 543; Chenhall v R [2021] VSCA 175; Meadows v R [2017] VSCA 290; R v Emberton [2022] ACTSC 286

Sentence:	

APPEARANCES:
	Counsel	Solicitors	
For the DPP (Cth)	Mr S. Hogan	Solicitors for the Office of the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions	
			
For the Offender	Ms Z. Broughton	Nelson Brown Legal	

HIS HONOUR:

1.	On 22 May 2024, you pleaded guilty to the following offences:
Charge 1 ꟷ That you, between 8 May 2022 and 9 May 2022, at Noble Park in Victoria, transmitted material using a carriage service, the material being child abuse material.  
Charge 2 – That you, between 10 June 2022 and 16 June 2022, at Noble Park in Victoria, transmitted material using a carriage service, the material being child abuse material.
Charge 3 – That you, between 2 July 2022 and 8 July 2022, at Noble Park in Victoria, transmitted material using a carriage service, the material being child abuse material.
Charge 4 – That you, between 8 July 2022 and 19 July 2022, at Noble Park in Victoria, transmitted material using a carriage service, the material being child abuse material.
Charge 5 – That you, between 1 August 2022 and 13 August 2022, at Noble Park in Victoria, transmitted material using a carriage service, the material being child abuse material.
Charge 6 – That you, between 5 May 2022 and 25 August 2022, at Noble Park in Victoria, transmitted material using a carriage service, the material being child abuse material.
The offence of using a carriage service to transmit child abuse material is contrary to s 474.22(1) of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth), which I will refer to as ('Criminal Code') and carries a maximum penalty of 15 years' imprisonment (relevant to Charges 1 to 6 on the Indictment). 
Charge 7 – That you on, on 25 August 2022, at Noble Park in Victoria, possessed or controlled material being child abuse material in the form of data held in a computer or contained in a data storage device, and used a carriage service to obtain or access the material.
Possessing or controlling child abuse material obtained or accessed using a carriage service is contrary to s 474.22A(1) of the Criminal Code and carries a maximum penalty of 15 years' imprisonment.
Charge 8 – That you on 25 August 2022, possessed a substance, the substance being a controlled drug, being methamphetamine.
The offence of possessing a controlled drug is contrary to s308.1(1) of the Criminal Code and carries a maximum penalty of two years' imprisonment.
2.	Charges 1 to 7 on the Indictment are Class 2 offences, as defined within the Sex Offenders Registration Act 2004 (Vic) ('SORA').  They are registrable offences.  Upon conviction, you will be a registrable offender as defined by s 6(1) of that Act and will be required to comply with reporting conditions.  As you are pleading guilty to each of the charges, you will be required to report for your lifetime.
Circumstances of your offending
3.	Counsel for the prosecution tendered a document headed 'Summary of prosecution opening for plea', dated 20 October 2023.  The court was informed by your counsel that there was no disagreement in relation to the matters set out in such document.
4.	Although I do not intend to refer to all of the matters set out in such document, I do set out in detail, the nature and the extent of your offending.  You were born in December 1970 and were 51 years old at the time of the subject offending.  You are now aged 53. 
5.	Between May 2022 and August 2022, you contacted numerous individuals utilising mobile number attached to an Amaysim SIM card ('mobile device').  Such mobile number was subscribed to user 'Brendon Wilson'.
6.	Each of the known victims, that is, those people contacted by you on the mobile device, were either employed as sex workers or working in the sex work industry.
7.	You assumed the alias 'Brendon Wilson' when communicating with the various individuals, fabricating sexual interactions between your 'daughter', Mykaylah.  Such communications would also include requesting that the sex workers attend your residence to engage in sexual activity with you and Mykaylah.
8.	When the various recipients of your calls ended the call, you would send images and videos containing child abuse material to the recipients, which you purported depicted Mykaylah.
9.	You further attempted to deceive the recipients and claimed that you were located in the respective country or state that they were in, asking them to attend your 'residence'.  You were persistent in your communications, and would continue to send child abuse material and extensive descriptions of your sexual offending with your 'daughter', despite pleas from the recipients of your phone calls to cease doing so.
10.	In particular, I set out initially details of Charges 1 to 5 and as I have already said, I will not repeat those.  And I jump over to Charge 7, but have already also set out details of Charge 6.
Charge 7
11.	During the execution of a search warrant at your premises on 25 August 2022, police located and seized the following devices:
a.	Opel mobile device;
b.	Latitude Dell laptop;
c.	1TB Seagate hard drive;
d.	Toshiba 16GB USB.
12.	Forensic analysis was completed on the devices and Cellebrite Extraction Reports utilising a particular program were generated.  The authorities categorised the child abuse material located on the mobile in accordance with the Interpol Baseline Categorisation System.  The table below sets out the total number of files of child abuse material within each category, and again that is part of the common documentation, I will not repeat that table.
13.	In total, you were in possession of 5,216 (3,554 unique) files depicting child abuse material.  The type of material was varied and included the following:
a.	children aged between aged six months and young teenagers engaging in sexual activity with other children and/or adults;
b.	images and videos from the 'April Blonde' series, the subject of Charges 1 to 6, which depicted a female under 10 years engaging in sexual activity with an adult male;
c.	males and females under the age of 13 engaging in sexual activity with adult males; 
d.	pubescent male and females engaging in sexual activity, including solo masturbation and sexual intercourse with adults;
e.	images of a deceased teenager.
14.	In respect to the material located in the Seagate hard drive, all of the images and videos contained in the child abuse material had been saved in 10 separate encrypted containers, which included 3.28GB of data.  Investigators were able to decrypt these files by utilising passwords saved on the hard drive.
15.	You used an Onion router to access the dark web for the purposes of downloading and possessing the child abuse material.  The router allowed you to utilise the dark web through a volunteer network, to conceal your location and usage from network surveillance and online traffic analysis.
Charge 8
16.	On 25 August 2022, during the execution of the search warrant, police seized a clip-seal bag containing a white crystalline substance.  Presumptive testing of the substance determined that it was methylamphetamine, ultimately found to have a weight of 1 gram.  It is common ground that the drug was for personal use.
Your record of interview
17.	On that day, you underwent a record of interview, and during such interview made the following relevant admissions:
a.	you were the owner of the Opel mobile device located in the back shed of your residence;
b.	you registered the mobile device with an Amaysim SIM card under the alias 'Brendon Wilson', which you created to hide your identity;
c.	you used an Apple iPhone as your other personal device, however, you use the Opel mobile device exclusively to access child abuse material;
d.	you provided the PIN code for the Opel mobile device;
e.	you utilised an Onion router to conceal your address and protect your identity;
f.	you created a scenario where the 'Brendon Wilson' alias abused your daughter, Mykalah;
g.	you found your victims on sex-worker websites, namely 'Locanto' and 'Escorts R Us';
h.	you could not recall individual instances of contacting sex workers, however, agreed you sent them child abuse material;
i.	your wife and children were not aware of any of the offending;
j.	you had obtained the details of 'Brendon Wilson' from a web page on the dark web which advertises stolen identities;
k.	you used cash at 7-Eleven to purchase credit for your Opel mobile device in order to conceal your identity.
18.	On 25 August 2022, you were arrested and were refused police bail.  You have not made any application for bail at any point prior to the plea hearing.  As at the date of the plea hearing, but not counting that day, you had served 636 days by way of pre-sentence detention.
19.	You have no criminal record.
Your personal circumstances and background
20.	Your counsel tendered the following documents:
a.	a document headed 'Outline of Defence Submissions on Plea', dated 22 May 2024;
b.	report from the psychologist, Dr Mathew Barth, dated 16 May 2024;
c.	report from the clinical neuropsychologist, Dr Celia Pais-Hrit, dated 6 May 2022;
d.	report from the consultant neurologist, Dr David Freilich, dated 9 May 2023;
e.	List of programs attended and completed at Hopkins Correctional Centre;
f.	Letter of apology from you, undated;
g.	Medical report from Dr Rohana Yoganathan, dated 1 June 2022;
h.	Medical report of Dr Martin Hill, dated 8 December 2022;
i.	Medical report of Dr Tony Korman, dated 27 May 2020;
j.	Character reference from your wife, dated 22 December 2023.
21.	Partly based on some of the documents tendered and partly based on submissions made by your counsel, I note the following:
a.	You were born in Melbourne and were the only child of your parents’ relationship, but you have two older half-brothers.  Although born in Melbourne, you told the psychologist, Dr Mathew Barth ('the psychologist'), that your family moved frequently due to your father’s career aspirations as a corporate accountant.  In particular, you said your family lived in Africa for several years before returning to Australia and lived in various parts of Victoria after that.
b.	You reported to the psychologist that your relationship with your father was 'very abusive', describing him as a 'malignant narcissist', who was both physically and emotionally abusive.  Your father was also violent to your mother and older half-brother, Aaron, on a regular basis.  You also informed the psychologist that your father frequently ridiculed and belittled you, particularly in the presence of other people.  In particular, the psychologist recorded:
He [(Your) father was so grandiose, his only focus was to flaunt his wealth and emotionally destroy [you] (XYZ, [your] mother and Aaron). He never did anything with [you] or for [you]. To him, [you weren’t] even a person, [you were] invisible to him.
c.	In particular, you informed the psychologist that you remembered an occasion when your father’s violence necessitated a hospital admission for your mother due to her suffering broken ribs.  According to you, your father refused to admit any wrongdoing and did not exhibit any remorse for his behaviour.  You also informed the psychologist that your father had multiple extramarital affairs.  
d.	Your father’s son from a previous relationship, Alan, also lived with the family from when you were approximately eight years old, with Alan being five years older.  You reported to the psychologist that when he came to live with the family, he started grooming you straight away, which involved being shown explicit pornography.  Furthermore, you informed the psychologist that Alan sexually abused you repeatedly for the following seven years and this involved forced oral and penetrative sex, which occurred multiple times a week.
e.	You also reported that your parents refused to intervene with the sexual abuse, even though your father was aware of the situation and your mother lived 'in denial'.  You expressed resentment towards your parents for failing to provide any protective measures.
f.	Your mother was a heavy alcoholic who was often very depressed due to your father's abusive behaviour and you described her to the psychologist as a 'very odd woman'.  You reported that your parents bred dogs for several years and your mother would insist that you watched the dogs as they were breeding.  You also record that when aged in your early teens, your mother would give you various books to read, some of which were sexually explicit and focused on homoerotic themes.  Ultimately, you stated to the psychologist that your relationship with your mother was mainly positive and that 'she was all [you] had as [you] never had a real father'.  
g.	Your parents separated when you were 15 years of age, with your father immediately relocating to New York with another woman.  You resided with your mother and your father would sporadically 'fly in and fly out of [your] life as it suited him'.  Your mother subsequently remarried and moved to Queensland.
h.	Your mother died in 2016 from stomach cancer and you described to the psychologist that you experienced an 'intense grief response' to her death.  You informed the psychologist that you ceased all contact with your father approximately seven years ago and although you have had no contact with Alan in the last 20 years, you maintained contact with Aaron.
i.	You informed the psychologist that your family's repeated moves and abusive home environment, significantly impacted on your educational development.  You struggled academically and was an average student or slightly below.  You had difficulties developing friendships due to 'always being the new kid'.  You did complete Year 12 at Moorabbin TAFE.
j.	Following your completion of Year 12, you worked as a curator for a local cricket club and also in customer service at Target.  You consequently developed a career in the information technology ('IT') industry and have had roles mainly involved in sales.  In particular, you were employed with a computer company at Bayside for three years, before obtaining a position as a 'product specialist' with a large American software company.
k.	Your father did offer you a job in Florida, where he was living at the time, but that turned out to be a disaster, with your father and his new wife 'treating [you] like dirt'.  You then moved to Chicago, where you worked for brief periods in hospitality, before returning to the IT industry, where you worked for several small companies.  You commented to the psychologist that your drug use derailed your ability to sustain employment at this time and you subsequently returned to Australia.  You reported to the psychologist that you were able to obtain a lucrative position in a large company as an account executive and were then poached by Dell Computers, and you considered that you were quite successful at these roles.  However, you left employment after your mother's death when '[you] went off the rails with drugs and [your] mental health'.  Eventually you gained a position with Huawei in an executive sales position, but were made redundant in 2020, due to the company ceasing operations in Australia.  
l.	You have been unemployed since that time, although you have been able to find some consulting work, but this was unreliable.  You had also commenced a course in cybersecurity, and at the time of the consultation with the psychologist, you were attending a tertiary preparation program and were hoping to develop a new career.  You also told the psychologist you were uncertain of the specific nature of your career ambitions due to the seriousness of charges.
m.	You became sexually active with female peers when you were about 15 years old and you were 'very promiscuous' and had sexual encounters with a large number of females during your teens and early 20s.  You informed the psychologist that looking back at such times, you now think you were trying to prove that you were not 'gay'. 
n.	In particular, you stated that you had several ongoing relationships with women during your 20s, all of which were quite 'dysfunctional and turbulent' and typically ended after relatively short periods. 
o.	You commenced having sex with men when you were approximately 21 years of age, initially commencing by having oral sex with men in public toilets and eventually attended known homosexual meeting places and gay bathhouses, where you would engage in penetrative sex with older men whom you met there.  
p.	You informed the psychologist that you would typically seek out dominant physically-imposing men and that you would frequently act out sadomasochistic fantasies with them during the course of these encounters.  You noted that your emotional response to these occurrences were complex – on the one hand you described the 'taboo nature of it exciting' and on the other hand you noted you often felt 'disgusted', 'upset' and 'abused' by these experiences afterwards.  You continued to engage in such sexual encounters until your late twenties.  
q.	You reported that you ceased these encounters when you commenced a relationship with your wife in 2001, you married in 2006 and have two children from that relationship.  You described to the psychologist, the marriage in very positive terms and that your wife had been so understanding and loving.
r.	Notwithstanding the 'positive connection' with your wife, you acknowledged that you engaged in sexual encounters with other women during the course of the marriage, either through work, social events and subsequently via online activities.  You also attended female sex workers on a number of occasions.
s.	You then stated to the psychologist that you ultimately re-engaged in having anonymous sexual encounters with men and regularly attended men's bathhouses and explained that your sexual behaviour became increasingly reckless and 'bizarre'.  This included subjecting yourself to the debased conduct of a large number of men, which included you deliberately putting yourself in a position where men committed acts of degrading sexual violence against you.  The psychologist recorded you stating:
I wanted it (the sex) to be as painful for me as possible.  I would get high on drugs and let them (anonymous men) do horrendous things to me.  I was enacting my abuse, but this time I was in control.  I felt like I was a disgusting person who deserved it.
t.	You also reported that as part of your increasingly irresponsible behaviour, you deliberately attempted to contract sexual diseases, as you wanted to destroy yourself to validate that you were a disgusting person.  
u.	You also stated that you had unprotected sex with a large number of men and female sex workers and resorted to other dysfunctional sexual conduct, causing you to be ultimately diagnosed with HIV in 2016.  
v.	You informed the psychologist that your wife was fully aware of your sexual behaviour and had resolved to continue with the relationship and is very supportive of you.  You also expressed a concern for your children and hopeful of remaining involved in their lives in the future.  The psychologist noted that you were subject to a Family Violence Final Intervention Order, which is currently in place against you, with the two children listed as the protected persons.
w.	You noted that you have made extensive use of pornography and was first exposed to pornography at eight years of age by Alan.  You recall that you and Alan would regularly watch pornographic material together and that pornography remained a prominent feature of your sexual behaviour throughout your adult years.  In particular, you would view it compulsively, particularly during periods of personal stress.  
x.	You informed the psychologist that your interest in pornography had remained continual for you and you described what could only be characterised as an obsessive interest in a diverse range of material, running from 'mainstream' to more deviant acts with paraphilic material.  You described a particular preference for acts in which one partner is dominated by the other and stated that this had led to an interest in sadomasochistic material.  In such circumstances, you noted that you fantasised about being in the submissive (often female) role.  This led to other more diverse fetishist material, including bestiality, sexual violence and simulated incest scenarios.  You added that you were highly intoxicated from drugs when you viewed such material and you reported that you consequently accessed the dark web, where you often viewed child abuse material.  
y.	You acknowledged to the psychologist that your pornography use was deeply dysfunctional and deviant and that you were determined to 'never view pornography ever again'.
z.	You described to the psychologist an extensive substance-abuse history, which commenced by using cannabis by the age of 14, after which such use escalated rapidly and that you have used cannabis on a daily basis for most of your adult years.  You note that cannabis assisted to calm your feelings of anxiety and helped with your sleep disturbance.  Such cannabis use continued daily, up until you were placed on remand for this matter.
aa.	You also reported that you began using several stimulant-related drugs during your 20s, which included amphetamines (speed), MDMA (ecstasy) and cocaine.  Such use varied and you denied ever suffering a fully‑fledged addiction.
bb.	You first used methamphetamines, that is 'ice', in 2017.  In particular, you informed the psychologist the use of that drug was to cope with your mother's death when you felt stressed.  You reported that this drug use escalated markedly from 2021, when you experienced a depressive mood due to your unemployment and financial problems, and that caused you to resort to using ice to elevate your mood at that time.
cc.	You informed the psychologist that you have participated in substance abuse treatment during your time on remand and expressed a strong motivation to participate in more extensive treatment and to abstain from drugs in the long term. 
dd.	Besides being diagnosed with HIV in 2016, you also have been diagnosed with neurosyphilis and both conditions are being appropriately treated.  You also stated to the psychologist that you suffer from Scheuermann's disease, although stated that this did not significantly impact on your daily functioning.
ee.	In February 2022, you suffered a 'stroke' and experienced significant physical impairment in the aftermath, which included partial paralysis, fatigue and muscle weakness.  You also suffered from cognitive difficulties, which included impaired concentration, memory problems and deficits in your ability to learn new information.  You also described a profound emotional response to the stroke and became very depressed.  However, you also noted that the physical cognitive and emotional impacts of the stroke have gradually improved.
ff.	You told the psychologist that you had emotional difficulties during your early life – particularly around the abuse from your older half-brother, Alan.  Furthermore, you had various periods of suicidal ideation and that according to you, you attempted to repress your emotional distress by using drugs heavily and resorting to reckless sexual behaviour.  You apparently participated in counselling with CASA House in 2005, largely due to your wife's encouragement, but found the process very difficult and was guarded about your sexuality.  
gg.	You described feeling deeply ashamed in the aftermath of being charged with the subject offending and also reported a degree of trepidation about your ability to adjust to the custodial environment.  However, you did inform the psychologist that you were determined to use your time in custody as a turning point and to 'put a stop to [your] self-destructive ways'.  In particular, while it was initially difficult adjusting to prison, you have been able to cope in a reasonably effective manner.
hh.	You are currently prescribed Escitalopram, 20 milligrams, to assist with your moods and you are also presently participating in the Grow mental health group, regularly attend Mass and read self-help/mental-health books to improve your general insight into your psychological functioning.
ii.	When queried by the psychologist as to the background of your offending, the psychologist has reported:
… By way of background, [you] noted that the offending occurred during a particularly difficult period of [your] life.  [You] explained that [you were] struggling with [your] mental and physical health in the aftermath of [your] stroke, was unemployed, experiencing financial stress and abusing drugs heavily.  [You] reported that [your] pornography use had become increasingly obsessive and [you] recalled ‘spending [your] nights out in the shed, smoking weed, using ice and watching porn. [You were] out of control.
[You] explained that [you were] viewing a range of paraphilic sexual material which included material depicting simulated acts of incest. [You] admitted that [you] also began accessing the dark web and downloaded CAM.
[You were] unable to explain the motivations for [your] offending conduct.  In general terms, [you] described [your] offending as an example of the self-destructive and dysfunctional sexual behaviour which had derailed [your] life.  [You] acknowledged that [you] had generated incestuous sexual fantasies about a fictional daughter named ‘Mikayala' and sent explicit narratives about this conduct to various sex workers and others on social media applications.  [You] agree that [you] had committed the offending as set-out in the prosecution opening.
In response to direct questions, [you] adamantly denied ever engaging in any inappropriate sexual behaviour with [your] actual daughter or fantasising about committing such sexual conduct with [your] own daughter.  [You] stated that 'in the fantasies, [you are] Mikayla, she is [you].  [You] have always taken the feminine submissive role; the one being abused by an older male'.
Regardless of the motivations for [your] offending, [you] reported that [you feel] 'disgusted with [yourself]' and ashamed of [your] behaviour. [You] told [him] that:
'Those poor women.  How could I do that (send them incestuous sexual fantasies and CAM) to them.  I’m a fucking idiot.  It (the incest fantasies) was another manifestation of my sexual debauchery. As my porn (use) got worse and worse, I started contacting prostitutes with this bizarre behaviour.  What I have done is terrible. I deserve to be here (in gaol).'
(Emphasis added.)
The evidence of the psychologist
22.	Your solicitors arranged for you to be assessed by the psychologist, Dr Mathew Barth, and such assessments involved four extended clinical interviews with you via audio link to the Hopkins Correctional Centre on 25 March 2024, 16 April 2024, 30 April 2024 and 7 May 2024, with each of these interviews spanning about 90 minutes.
23.	The psychologist was requested to assess your mental state and consider any psychological issues pertinent to your case.  Furthermore, the psychologist was requested to conduct a risk assessment to evaluate your rehabilitative prospects and recommend relevant treatment measures.
24.	The psychologist obtained histories relating to your personal and family life, education and employment, pornography use, substance abuse, physical health, mental health and drug-related issues.  Furthermore, he performed various psychological testing, particularly in relation to an assessment to any potential recidivism.
25.	All this material was contained in his report dated 16 May 2024, as are the various opinions that he has formed.
26.	I refer to those parts of his report entitled 'Professional Opinion' and 'Concluding Comments and Recommendations', wherein the psychologist states:
[You are] a 53-year-old man who participated in a psychological assessment for [your] upcoming plea.  As a result of a comprehensive analysis of [your] mental health, [your] interpersonal and sexual adjustment and [your] risk of recidivism the following conclusions were reached:
1)	Detailed psychological evaluation indicated that [you are] experiencing ongoing symptoms of moderate emotional distress.  This is underpinned by [your] guilt for [your] offending, and persisting worry and anxiety about [your] future.  At a more chronic level, [you continue] to experience issues with [your] sense of self-worth.  [You] also expressed anxiety about the welfare of [your] wife and children in the event that [you are] unable to support them financially and emotionally.
2)	Despite this, [your] symptoms are not sufficient to meet criteria for any mental disorder.  Specifically, [you are] not suffering from an adjustment disorder, anxiety-related disorder or mood disorder at this time.
3)	[Your] thought processes are normal.   [You are] not psychotic; [your] reality testing is intact and [your] moral judgement is unimpaired. [Your] intelligence is estimated to fall at the higher end of the normal range.  All other things being equal, [your] good intelligence would be expected to have a positive impact on [your] ability to benefit from professional intervention.
4)	[Your] abusive personal history severely impacted the development of [your] personal identity.  From early in life, [you] viewed [yourself] as a defective person, who was deserving of the abuse [you] suffered.  [You have] personally held the belief that the more people come to know [you], the more they will reject or humiliate [you].  [You have] therefore gravitated towards anonymous sexual encounters with women and men, even during the course of [your] marriage.
5)	[Your] sexuality is clearly disordered.  [Your] childhood sexual abuse contributed to significant issues with [your] sexual identity, hypersexuality and deliberately subjecting [yourself] to the degrading sexual conduct of older or physically imposing males to reinforce [your] debased self-view.
6)	[Your] obsessive pornography use has also been a key example of [your] dysfunctional sexuality.  [You have] sought out a diverse range of paraphilic sexual material.  More recently, this culminated in depictions of incestuous scenarios and CAM.  A review of [your] offending clearly points to significant issues with [your] sexual adjustment.  In particular, the frankly deviant nature of [your] communications regarding incest, the cognitive distortions about children and sex which were inherent in [your] behaviour and the content of the CAM [you] accessed.  This points to entrenched psychosexual pathology. [You meet] DSM-5-TR criteria for a ‘Unspecified Paraphilic Disorder’.
7)	[You have] suffered with a dependence on cannabis and methamphetamines which has further entrenched [your] behavioural problems.  [Your] addictions have had a detrimental impact on all major areas of [your] life.  [Your] drug use has been sufficiently intense to meet DSM-5-TR diagnostic criteria for a ‘Cannabis-Use Disorder’ and a ‘Stimulant-Use Disorder’.  Provided that [your] current abstinence can be objectively verified, these diagnoses would be specified as ‘In Remission, In a Controlled Environment’.
8)	A comprehensive risk assessment utilising the RSVP-V2 indicated a ‘Moderate-Risk’ of sexual recidivism for [you].  [Your] risk of re‑offending is approximately the same as that of a typical sex offender in the community, but significantly higher than that of a typical offender charged only with online offending.  Provided that [you participate] actively in sex-offender treatment, this risk is likely to reduce.
Concluding Comments and Recommendations
The current assessment indicates that [you present] with severe psychosexual problems.  Presently, [your] insight into [your] offending is limited.  However, it should be noted that gaining insight into offending behaviour typically entails a very lengthy therapeutic process.  [Dr Barth considers] it is vital that [you are] able to access the appropriate offence-specific treatment as soon as possible.  The results from the assessment indicate that the following components are essential to [your] rehabilitation:
• Sex-Offender Treatment  Treatment should focus on assisting [you] to gain insight into the factors which motivated [your] offending, particularly within the context of [your] own sexual abuse and the impact this has had on [your] sexual adjustment.  Psychoeducation on the development of healthy adult sexual relationships and detailed fantasy management strategies should be incorporated.  Implementing a comprehensive relapse-prevention plan to reduce the risk of recidivism would also be very important.  When considering the complexity of [your] personal history, [Dr Barth] would recommend that treatment be implemented on an individual basis.
• Substance Abuse Treatment  Treatment should include a lengthy period of highly intensive and closely structured/supervised detoxification program with regular urine screen testing to enforce prolonged abstinence.  [You] should be assisted to gain insight into [your] drug use and receive education regarding the noxious impacts of substances. Advanced relapse prevention training should be included to allow [you] to develop solid cognitive and behavioural strategies to remain abstinent from further drug use.
• Psychological Treatment.  Psychological treatment should have a significant focus on developing healthier coping and mood management strategies.  Moreover, a prominent focus of treatment should revolve around enhancing [your] poor self-esteem and developing a coherent sense of personal identity.  Assisting [you] to process the emotional and sexual abuse from [your] personal history would clearly be very important.
To [your] credit, [you were] candid about acknowledging the severity of [your] psychosexual problems.  [You] expressed a strong motivation to participate in any treatment required of [you] by the court.  Notwithstanding the unequivocal seriousness of [your] offending conduct, provided that [you] can participate in the treatment [you require] in a timely manner, there are some positive prognostic factors for [your] rehabilitation.  Firstly, while [your] problems are noteworthy, there are well-developed, validated treatments available to address them.  Secondly, [you continue] to enjoy the support and encouragement of [your] wife in pursuing [your] rehabilitation. Thirdly, [you are] a relatively intelligent man who brings these qualities as assets to [your] rehabilitation.  Finally, [your] experience of the criminal justice system has been aversive and is acting as a strong motivator for you to pursue constructive personal change.  If [your] motivation can be harnessed in an effective manner, the other factors enumerated above are such that [Dr Barth considers] that a guarded optimism is warranted in [your] case.
(Emphasis added.)
Medical material
27.	I refer to the following medical material:
a.	the report from Professor Tony Korman, who is the director of Monash Infectious Diseases, dated 14 November 2018 and 27 May 2020.  Professor Korman initially reports that you were referred to him by a general practitioner in or about November 2018, because of an HIV infection.  A history was obtained that you were 'unwell' in late 2016, requested an HIV test, which was performed and was positive.  A history was obtained that you had been treated by a variety of drugs.
b.	In his later report, dated 27 May 2020, it was noted that a recent change of drugs to a new drug may be causing ongoing lethargy.  Professor Korman considered the drug should be continued.  At that time, there was a further history that you had contracted gonorrhoea and syphilis and had been treated at the Melbourne Sexual Health Centre in 2019.  However, repeat testing of syphilis showed that the RPR was not detected, which is consistent with effective treatment.  
c.	Also at that time, you reported to Professor Korman that you had had increasing frequency of headache and suffering migraines intermittently.  At that time, you had lost your job with Huawei (following that company pulling out of the Australian market) and it had been difficult to find further employment because of the COVID pandemic;
d.	I refer to the report of the consultant neurologist, Dr David Freilich, dated 9 May 2023.  In that report, Dr Freilich notes that he was retained by the lawyers Berrill & Watson to make a medical assessment of you and report.  
e.	Dr Freilich interviewed you by way of Zoom, bearing in mind that you were then on remand at the Hopkins Correctional Centre.  Dr Freilich confirmed that you suffered a stroke on 3 February 2022.  Studies showed that an arterial occlusion was demonstrated and a clot retrieval was performed.  Furthermore, brain imaging revealed acute cerebral infarction, consistent with you sustaining a stroke.
f.	The stroke initially caused speech impairment and left-sided weakness from which you have made a good recovery.  At that time, you claimed ongoing limb symptoms, but also you claimed experiencing impairment of cognition and Dr Freilich noted that neuropsychological testing has confirmed cognitive impairment, which was thought to be due, in part, to the effects of the stroke, in part due to the psychological impact the stroke has had on you.  The cognitive assessment performed by Dr Freilich using the MOCA test did demonstrate an impairment of recall.  
g.	Dr Freilich noted that it was approximately one year and three months since the stroke and that most of the recovery from the stroke that would occur had already occurred at that time.  He did consider there was some prospect of some further recovery over the next six to nine months, although it is highly unlikely a full recovery would occur and that you would have some left residual impairment as a result of that condition;
h.	I also refer to the report from Dr Rohana Yoganathan, a rehabilitation physician at Monash Health Community, dated 10 June 2022.  Such report was in relation to 'permanent incapacity', wherein Dr Yoganathan opined that, because of your stroke and the sequelae thereto, you could never return to your usual occupation and it was unclear, at that stage, whether you would be fit for retraining into a new occupation.  In this respect, Dr Yoganathan considered it was unlikely for you to return to work as a chief executive officer, given ongoing cognitive impairment from the stroke.
References
Your wife
28.	I refer to the reference from your wife dated 22 December 2023.  In the reference, she states that she has known you for over 25 years, have been married for 18 years and that that relationship had produced two children.
29.	She also notes that she is 'well aware' of your upbringing as a child and the trauma that haunted you over the years.  In particular, she notes that she began to understand the 'pain and suffering' that was felt by you all those years ago and, as well, 'meet the demons who took away [your] childhood'.
30.	Your wife describes that over the years she has known you, you have always taken care of her, and is, and has always been, a good father to both children.  In particular, you would spend time with them over the years, take an interest in their sports, hobbies and activities, and as they got older you were involved in their lives more than ever.
31.	In particular, your wife stated that you never put herself or the children in any danger or caused any harm.  In particular, she asserts that you are a good man and she wishes you to be able to come home as soon as possible and be reunited with her and the children.
Your letter to the court
32.	I refer to your letter to the court, where you describe yourself as a 'remorseful, contrite and ashamed man' and that you wish to express your:
Sincerest compunction for [your] inexcusable offending, and to present not an excuse or explanation for why [you] offended ꟷ for [your] offences are as inexcusable as they are inexplicable ꟷ but instead to make a sincere and heartfelt apology, and to explain who [you are] and what [you] have done to become a better person since [your] offending took place.
33.	In particular, you refer to the following topics:
a.	you make reference to your wife and you describe in detail how much happiness that has brought, as had when you had children;
b.	you describe your childhood as 'far from a happy time', being subjected to repeated sexual abuse at the hands of your older brother, which continued from about age nine for several years.  As recorded earlier, you assert your parents knew what was happening and you were forced to live with it and keep it a secret.  You describe your father as being cruel, indifferent, violent and selfish, and your mother as suffering from chronic alcoholism, and, accordingly, none of your emotional needs as a child were met;
c.	you left home at 18 and found employment in the IT industry and let off steam playing cricket on weekends.  You note that your childhood problems always seemed to limit whatever stability, success and happiness you strove for.  That all changed when children came into your life;
d.	early in 2016, you described that things started to change for you when your mother was diagnosed with cancer and was very sick in a Queensland hospital.  Your physical and mental health deteriorated and you were diagnosed initially with pneumonia, later with HIV and, in 2019, stage 2 skin cancer requiring chemotherapy;
e.	in early 2020, just after the COVID-19 lockdowns, you lost your job and was made redundant by your employer Huawei, which was forced to abandon the Australian market.  You were unable to find work and were unable to pay the mortgage and faced the prospect of losing your house and car, all of which led into a spiral of psychological disintegration.  You did find some consulting work and began studying for a cyber security certificate at the Charles Sturt University, and although struggling to pay bills, things were improving;
f.	on the morning of 3 February 2022, you had a stroke and everything changed for you and, in particular, you refer to the following:
i.	your mother was diagnosed with cancer and was very sick in a Queensland hospital, and her ultimate death on 27 November 2016 resulted in a very strong grief reaction, causing your physical and mental health to decline;
ii.	as described earlier, you suffered pneumonia, and later with HIV, and in 2018, stage 2 cancer requiring chemotherapy;
iii.	in early 2020, just as COVID-19 lockdowns took effect, you lost your job, which caused financial distress and further psychological disintegration.  Then, finally, on 3 February 2020, you suffered a stroke and initially your body and brain were able to function as normal and you began to behave in ways you could not understand.  
34.	You assert that, from the day of your arrest, you have gone through much self-analysis and rumination over what you have done.  In particular, you state:
… I have thought deeply about my actions and I have been able to gain a great deal of insight into the impact my offending has had.  I have thought deeply about the pain and hurt I have caused my victims—the women that I sent the offending images to.  I have thought deeply about the damage to society that is caused, by the material that I possessed and sent.  I have thought deeply about the children depicted in the images I possessed, and I have thought deeply about the child that is depicted in the images I sent.  I have thought deeply about how seeking out the material itself causes demand for more of this type of material to be produced.  The fact that, by my own actions in acquiring and sending the material, I have hurt people is soul destroying in itself, but knowing now that by my actions I could have created demand for more of this material to be produced and therefore directly contributed to a child being harmed, is even harder for me to cope with.
To my victims, the women who received the material I sent, I want to say how deeply sorry I am for causing you pain and distress.  To the children who are depicted in the images I possessed and to the child who is depicted in the images I sent, I want to say I am so very sorry for what I have done, my heart is broken for you and I pray that you are safe and well today.  To my family, I want to say how sorry I am for the grief that my offending has caused you.  To my two beautiful and wondrous children, who suddenly and without time to prepare, lost all contact with their father, I am so very sorry I have caused you to worry and be upset.  To my wife who has loved me and supported me like no other, who has celebrated my triumphs and cared for me when sick, I am so sorry for the hurt, worry and confusion I have caused you to feel.  I am sorry for all these days and nights that I have not been by your side.  To my community, I am sorry I have not lived up to your standards.  I take this solemn oath to dedicate my life to repaying my community through charitable, selfless actions, to make up for the wrongs that I have done, and for all the good that I have failed to do.
Matters in mitigation of your sentence
35.	Your counsel submitted that the following matters were relevant in mitigation of your sentence:
a.	Your early plea of guilty
Your counsel submitted that you are entitled to a 'significant benefit' by your plea of guilty.  In particular, it was submitted that:
i.	first, you made full admissions and indicated your intention to plead guilty early;
ii.	secondly, your early plea of guilty is accompanied by remorse for your offending and reference is made both to your letter of apology and your comments recorded by Dr Barth:
Those poor women.  How could I do that (send them incestuous sexual fantasies and CAM) to them.  I’m a fucking idiot … What I have done is terrible.  I deserve to be here (in gaol).
Furthermore, it was submitted that you should receive at least a further discount to credit your full co-operation with police during the execution of search warrants and your record of interview.
Counsel for the prosecution, tendered a further document headed 'Outline of Crown Sentencing Submissions', dated 20 May 2024.  In that document, it was conceded that your plea was entered at the first reasonable opportunity and submitted, in taking the plea into account, the following principles apply:
i.	as stated in Xiao v R, 'a sentencing judge is entitled to take utilitarian value of a plea into account when sentencing' for Federal offences and such principle has now been encapsulated in s16A(2)(g) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth);
ii.	s16A(2)(g) of that Act provides that the timing of a plea, and whether it was entered at the first reasonable opportunity, is a significant factor relevant to the extent of any discount or reduction in sentence;
iii.	another factor of relevance to any extent of any discount or reduction in sentence for a guilty plea is whether the offender establishes, on the balance of probability, or the court or the prosecution agree, the guilty plea and any associated evidence, demonstrates the offender to have genuine remorse, acceptance of responsibility and a willingness to facilitate the course of justice.  If so, such matters are relevant to mitigation of sentence;
iv.	the strength of the prosecution case may be taken into account in assessing the subjective value of a guilty plea and the court may consider whether the offender's plea was motivated by a willingness to facilitate the course of justice or was a 'recognition of the inevitable'.  It follows that a guilty plea entered in the face of a strong prosecution case should not be afforded as much weight as a plea entered in circumstances where the prosecution case is weak.  The Crown submits that in the present case, the pleas were entered in the face of a strong prosecution case.
After considering all of the evidence in this matter, I do consider it was an early plea, but in the face of a reasonably strong case.  Notwithstanding, I do consider that such early plea is relevant as a mitigating factor.  Also, I take account of the utilitarian effect of saving the court its time and resources if a trial had to proceed and, more particularly, obviating any need for any witness, to give evidence as to what was said and occurred over the period of offending.
It was also conceded that the plea was entered into during a time when the ordinary operation of the courts were affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, although not to the same degree than at the height of the pandemic.  Reference was made to Worboyes v R, and I again, take the view that this is a relevant matter in mitigation.
b.	The issue of remorse
Your counsel submitted that you have consistently expressed remorse and shame for your offending.  Again, reference was made to the report of Dr Barth, where he records:
… [You feel] that [you have] brought disgrace upon [yourself].  [Your] internal dialogue is quite punitive and this not only reinforces [your] shame, but also undermines [your] self-esteem.
On the evidence before me, I accept that you have demonstrated remorse in relation to your offending, as is made clear by what you have told Dr Barth and also from your comments in your letter to the court.  In particular, your comments in the letter suggest that you do have some understanding that a market for child abuse material results in children, sometimes of a very young age, being frightfully sexually abused and exploited.
c.	The application of Bugmy
Your counsel submitted that, on the evidence available to the court, it was clear that you were 'seriously sexually assaulted' for a protracted period during your prepubescent and teenage years.  Furthermore, your father was purportedly aware of such offending, but uncaring, and your mother lived in denial of it.  Beyond the sexual abuse, there was also a significant amount of neglect in the family home and reports of physical violence by your father.  
It was submitted that as a consequence of the above, but particularly the sexual abuse, you voluntarily engaged in degrading sexual activities from the age of 21 in the furtherance of 'enacting', the abuse perpetrated on you and wanted to feel like a 'disgusting person'.
Your counsel also highlighted that when discussing the offending with Dr Barth, you stated that '[i]n the fantasies, I am Mikayla (sic), she is me.  I have always taken the feminine, submissive role; the one being abused by the older male'. 
Your counsel submitted that the principles enunciated in Bugmy have application.  I refer to Bugmy, and, in particular, paragraphs 40 and 43-44, which state:
'[40]	… The circumstances of the offender has been raised in a community surrounded by alcohol abuse and violence, may mitigate the sentence because his or her moral culpability is likely to be less than the culpability of an offender whose formative years have not been marred in that way.
...
[43]	The Director’s submission should be accepted.  The experience of growing up in an environment surrounded by alcohol abuse and violence, may leave its mark on a person throughout life.  Among other things, a background of that kind may compromise the person’s capacity to mature and to learn from experience.  It is a feature of the person’s make-up and remains relevant to the determination of the appropriate sentence, notwithstanding that the person has a long history of offending.
[44]	Because the effects of profound childhood deprivation do not diminish with the passage of time and repeated offending, it is right to speak of giving 'full weight' to an offender’s deprived background in every sentencing decision.  However, this is not to suggest, as the appellant’s submissions were apt to do, that an offender’s deprived background has the same (mitigatory) relevance for all of the purposes of punishment.  Giving weight to the conflicting purposes of punishment, is what makes the exercise of the discretion so difficult.  An offender’s childhood exposure to extreme violence and alcohol abuse may explain the offender’s recourse to violence when frustrated, such that the offender’s moral culpability for the inability to control that impulse may be substantially reduced.  However, the inability to control the violent response to frustration may increase the importance of protecting the community from the offender.
(Emphasis added.)
I also refer to the Victorian Court of Appeal decision of DPP v Herrmann.  In that decision, the Court of Appeal (consisting of Maxwell P, Kaye, Nyall, T Forrest and Emerton JJA) explained that in Bugmy, the High Court expressed, in two different ways, the potential relevance of childhood deprivation in the assessment of moral culpability.  The first – described as 'more general' – was expressed by those words underlined in paragraph 40 above and the second described as 'more specific' – was expressed by those words underlined in paragraph 44 above.
I also refer to the Victorian Court of Appeal decision of Marrah v R [and, in particular, at paragraph 16 where the court (consisting of Redlich and Tate JJA) stated:
Circumstances of deprivation, abuse and other social disadvantage occurring during an offender’s formative years, are more than matters of historical significance to the administration of justice.  The effects of such social disadvantage do not generally diminish with the passage of time, and are likely to have profound and lasting consequences.  The common experience of the law is that very frequently such disadvantage precedes the commission of crime, and often explains and contributes to an offender’s criminal behaviour.  The frequency with which criminal conduct can be explained by such disadvantage, does not relieve each sentencing judge of the obligation to take such matters into account.  Though they do not provide an excuse for offending behaviour, they must be given due weight in the sentencing calculus.
Your counsel submitted that both limbs of the Bugmy principles have application, in that the long-lasting effects of your childhood deprivation must be taken into account in the sentencing exercise, as they reduce your moral culpability.
Counsel for the prosecution submitted that the Bugmy principles have 'limited applicability' because of the nature of the offending involving child abuse and the principle sentencing principle is 'general deterrence', which overshadows other matters.  
After a consideration of all of the evidence, I do accept the history that you have given to the psychologist and in part, described in your letter to the court.  In many ways, your childhood was dysfunctional and in particular, you were exposed to significant sexual molestation by your stepbrother, in circumstances where your parents had knowledge of such activity but did little or nothing to protect you.
In all of the circumstances, I accept that the principles of Bugmy do have some application and that, as a result, I accept the submission that there should be some reduction in your moral culpability as a result of the principles enunciated in Bugmy.  In this regard, I again refer to the evidence of the psychologist, wherein he states, in part:
69 4)	[Your] abusive personal history severely impacted the development of [your] personal identity.  From early in life, [you] viewed [yourself] as a defective person, who was deserving of the abuse [‘you] suffered.  [You have] perennially held the belief that the more people come to know [you], the more they will reject or humiliate [you].  [You have] therefore gravitated toward anonymous sexual encounters with women and men, even during the course of [your] marriage.
5)	[Your] sexuality is clearly disordered.  [Your] childhood sexual abuse contributed to significant issues with [your] sexual identity, hypersexuality and deliberately subjecting [yourself] to the degrading sexual conduct of older or physically imposing males, to reinforce [your] debased selfview.
I should add, as pointed out in Bugmy, such a consideration must be balanced against other sentencing principles and in particular, the importance of protecting the community from an offender and of course such a consideration must be balanced against the requirement that general deterrence be the primary sentencing aspect of these matters.
d.	Personal circumstances
It was noted by your counsel that you suffered a stroke on 3 February 2022 and that as a consequence of this, you have suffered left-sided impairment, short-term memory issues and have been assessed as having a permanent disability which would, on balance, preclude you from returning to work indefinitely.
However, your counsel also notes that, even taking account of the stroke, it did not preclude Dr Barth from forming the opinion that you have a level of intelligence conducive to engaging meaningfully in rehabilitative programs.
However, it was also noted that it was clear from the reports of Dr Celia Pais‑Hrit and Dr Freilich that you struggled with low mood and memory problems in the wake of the stroke and were referred for psychological assistance.  In this sense, your counsel submits that some 'limited weight' should be placed on the so-called principles set out in the decision of Verdins.
Furthermore, your counsel submits that your loss of employment from Huawei in 2020, your escalation in drug use and the occurrence of stroke occasioning permanent impairment, are all relevant personal circumstances to be taken into account on the plea.
Counsel for the prosecution submitted that the physical health of an offender:
… will be a factor tending to mitigate punishment only where it appears that imprisonment will be a greater burden on the offender by reason of his state of health or where there is a serious risk of imprisonment having a gravely adverse effect on the offender’s health.
Counsel further submitted that what must be determined is whether the impact of the prison regime will be more burdensome upon you due to your particular physical condition.
Furthermore, such situation is not to outweigh the need for a sentence imposing punishment reflective of the seriousness of the offending and the need for general deterrence.  It was ultimately submitted that just punishment, protection of the community, proportionality and general and specific deterrence remain primary sentencing considerations in the sentencing disposition, notwithstanding any ill health suffered by you. 
There is no particular evidence before the court that any of the matters referred to by your counsel has made your incarceration 'more burdensome', although it is clear enough that you have the sequelae to your physical injuries as described.  On balance, I give some limited weight to this issue, reflecting in part your ongoing physical problems and secondly some psychological reaction as a result of these problems, all of which may add to greater hardship in prison.  In this respect, it is to be noted that a psychologist found you to be suffering from moderate emotional stress but such symptoms were not sufficient to meet the criteria of any mental disorder.
e.	Hardship suffered by you and third party hardship suffered by your wife 
Your counsel supplied a further document headed 'Further Defence Submissions on Plea', dated 19 July 2024.  Reference is made to the affidavit sworn by your wife on 28 June 2024.  The purpose of that affidavit was largely in support that you be referred to by a pseudonym, rather than your actual name to give some protection that your children and others will not have precise details of your offending.  
In particular, your wife asserted that her 'greatest concern' was the impact to your children's health, wellbeing and schooling given the age they are, undertaking high school, if the facts pertaining to your offending are made public and a connection drawn between you and the children.
Your counsel notes that your wife asserts that she suffers from high blood pressure and Graves' disease, with these conditions having worsened since your remand.  In particular, it is submitted that your wife is suffering hardship as a result of your incarceration.
Also, your counsel submits, understandably, that you also have concern for your family which 'weighs heavily' upon you.  Reference was made to the report of Dr Barth, wherein he states:
… In particular [you ruminate] about [your] ability to emotionally and financially support [your] wife and children. … 
After a consideration of all of the evidence, I do accept that you have, and will continue to have, such a hardship as a result of concerns in relation to the emotional and financial situation of your wife and family and such is a relevant mitigating factor.  Furthermore, I also give some weight that there may well have been some further hardship since your remand in prison due to the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic.  Although the consequences of the pandemic are ameliorating, I consider that, as a result of lockdowns, limited visitation rights and reduction of various programs while you have been on remand, it does attract some mitigation because of that hardship.
Furthermore, I give some weight to the hardship suffered by your wife during the period of your incarceration.  In this respect, Markovic v R reaffirmed the common law position that, unless the circumstances are shown to be 'exceptional', family hardship is to be disregarded as a sentencing consideration.  However, in Totaan v R, the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal held that the decision of Markovic is 'plainly wrong' in respect of federal offences and should not be followed.  This position has been adopted in Victoria in cases such as Rodgerson v R.
f.	Your rehabilitation
Your counsel submitted that your prospects of rehabilitation are 'reasonable to good', provided that you can begin some treatment relatively promptly.  In this respect, I return again to the opinion of Dr Barth, who stated that a comprehensive risk assessment of you indicated a 'Moderate-Risk' of sexual recidivism.  Dr Barth commented that your risk of re-offending is approximately the same as that of a typical sex offender in the community, but significantly higher than that of a typical offender charged with online offending.
Dr Barth also noted that the current assessment indicated that you present with severe psychosocial problems and that your present insight into your offending is limited.
Dr Barth went on to say that gaining insight into such offending behaviour typically entails a very lengthy therapeutic process and that it was 'vital' that you were able to access the appropriate offence-specific treatment as soon as possible, and if such was undertaken, the 'risk' referred to above is likely reduced.  Again I refer to what Dr Barth said:
… Notwithstanding the unequivocal seriousness of [your] offending conduct, provided that [you] can participate in the treatment [you require] in a timely manner, there are some positive prognostic factors for [your] rehabilitation. Firstly, while [your] problems are noteworthy, there are well-developed, validated treatments available to address them. Secondly, [you continue] to enjoy the support and encouragement of [your] wife in pursuing [your] rehabilitation. Thirdly, [you are] a relatively intelligent man who brings these qualities as assets to [your] rehabilitation. Finally, [your] experience of the criminal justice system has been aversive and is acting as a strong motivator for [you] to pursue constructive personal change. If [your] motivation can be harnessed in an effective manner, the other factors enumerated above are such that [Dr Barth considers] that a guarded optimism is warranted in [your] case.
After a consideration of the material before me, I am of the view that your prospects of rehabilitation are 'guarded'.  Furthermore, I consider, as I have already indicated, protection of the community is a relevant sentencing consideration.
Final submissions by your counsel
36.	Ultimately, your counsel submitted:
a.	the total of the offending spans a period of under four months from 5 May 2022 to 25 August 22;
b.	Charges 1 to 5 each concerns transmission of graphic child abuse material to a single recipient sex worker who did not wish to view or hear it, and in particular, it was submitted the following factors go to the assessment of the seriousness of each charge;
i.	the transmission of child abuse material to unwilling participants is a 'double-edged sword', they were exposed to the content which has the potential to cause them psychological harm.  However, such transmission does not further the trade of child abuse material between people exchanging it and further its dissemination;
ii.	each offence is relatively limited, both in quantity and transmission in timeframe;
iii.	the verbal child abuse material (the description given to each recipient) is graphic and confronting, but the 'chain' of transmissions ends with the unwilling recipient.  It can be contrasted with the visual aspect in the sense that it cannot be further spread;
iv.	in all the circumstances, each should be viewed as a midrange example of this type of offence.  Although the offence dates do no overlap, they occurred chronologically and ought to be taken as a clear 'pattern' of offending.  It was submitted that this warrants some degree of concurrency to give effect of the totality of the offending;
c.	in relation to Charge 6, it was accepted that this was 'plainly the most serious charge on the Indictment', bearing in mind it expands the longest period of time and features the most number of transmissions and recipients by far.
It was conceded by your counsel that this was a serious example of this type of offence.  It was noted that messages sent to 33 different recipients in the United States either did not receive a response, or attracted a very negative response from the recipients.  There was nothing to suggest that the recipients of these messages are other people who receive gratification or further distribution of the material sent by you (other than to law enforcement authorities).  
The messages sent to 19 Australian citizens were largely met with admonishment and no engagement by the recipient.  Again, there was nothing to suggest that the images were transmitted to other sex offenders.
The date ranges for Charges 1 to 5 are currently contained within the range of Charge 6 and concern the same type of offending.  It was submitted that care must be taken to not impose double punishment between Charges 1 to 5 and Charge 6;
d.	Charge 7 relates to the possession of child abuse material on four of the accused's devices, involving a total of 5,216 media files, 3,534 which were unique, and the balance were duplicates.  It was conceded that the majority of them do depict graphic sexual activity;
e.	in relation to Charge 8, it was submitted that the possession of methamphetamine falls towards the lower end of the scale, given it was for personal use.
37.	It was noted that you have no prior convictions and although there is a presumption of cumulation on each of Charges 1 to 7, this does not displace the principle of totality and provision is made for a sentence of appropriate severity not to infringe on this presumption.
38.	In particular, your counsel when discussing the concept of 'community protection', submitted that such can be achieved by a prison sentence which keeps an offender out of the community, or the rehabilitation of an offender, which 'if it can be achieved, it is likely to be the most durable guarantor of community protection and it is clearly in the public interest'.
39.	Your counsel made reference to the various opinions expressed by Dr Barth as to you being a suitable candidate for a targeted rehabilitation program, and as has already been recorded, urged the court to assess your prospects of rehabilitation as reasonable to good, provided that you could commence the treatment relatively promptly.  
40.	To this end, your counsel urged the court, particularly in light of what was referred to as 'powerful factors' in mitigation, that a recognizance release order with conditions akin to a community correction order would adequately give effect to the many aims of sentencing.
41.	In this respect, it was accepted that for a recognizance release order to be ordered, it can only be in circumstances where the total effective sentence in relation to the offending is less than three years.  Notwithstanding, it was submitted that a recognizance release order would enable the Victorian Community Correctional Services to facilitate such an order and monitor your compliance.
The position of the Prosecution
42.	I again refer to Exhibit 2, being the submissions of the prosecution in relation to sentence, and note the following.
43.	In sentencing for Commonwealth offences, the court is required to have regard to the matters set out in Part 1B of the Crimes Act 2014 (Cth) and in particular s 16A(2) which sets out a non-exhaustive list of factors to be taken into account, as far as they are relevant and known, when sentencing a Federal offender.  Section 16A(1) of the Crimes Act 2014 (Cth) requires the imposition of a sentence which is of severity appropriate in all the circumstances of the offence, also bearing in mind the requirement of s 16A(2)(k) that a person be adequately punished for the offending.
44.	The fundamental submission of the prosecution was that: 
a.	no sentence other than an immediate term of imprisonment on each offence is appropriate in all the circumstances;
b.	there should be a degree of cumulation between charges to reflect distinct and different forms of offending of each charge and also to reflect the presumption of cumulation as set out in s 19(5) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth);
c.	the ultimate sentence should be such that a non-parole period is required to be fixed, and in order for that to be the case a total head sentence for the offending should be imposed which exceeds three years, after which the court must impose a non-parole period and not a recognizance release order.
45.	In particular, counsel for the prosecution submitted that the following are the applicable principles and factors in sentencing for offending involving child abuse or child pornography material which it was submitted is uncontroversial and well established, and includes:
a.	a term of immediate imprisonment would ordinarily be warranted for offending involving child abuse material;
b.	the objective seriousness of the offending is ordinarily determined by reference to the following factors:
i.	the nature and content of the material, the age of the children and the gravity of the sexual activity depicted, including the extent of any cruelty or physical harm occasioned to the child or children involved in the material;
ii.	the number of items or images possessed;
iii.	whether the material was for the purpose of sale or further distribution;
iv.	whether the offender will profit from the offence, which includes payment or other material or benefit (such as the exchange of child pornography material);
v.	the number of children depicted and therefore victimised;
vi.	the length of time for which the pornographic material was possessed;
c.	general deterrence is the primary sentencing consideration for offending providing child abuse and child exploitation, given the prevalence and ready availability of material on the internet, and the need to protect children from sexual abuse;
d.	where general deterrence was the primary consideration, personal mitigatory factors such as prior good character, age, prospects of rehabilitation must therefore be given less weight than otherwise might be given.  Reference was made to State of Western Australia v Collier, wherein the court stated that:
… in cases involving sexual offending against children, the seriousness of the offence will often outweigh personal circumstances, even in the case of the first offender …
e.	specific deterrence, denunciation, punishment and protection of the community are also very important sentencing considerations;
f.	offending involving child abuse material occurs on an international level and is becoming increasingly prevalent, with the advent of the internet as an accessible means of allowing people to access and obtain such material;
g.	there is a paramount public interest objective in promoting the protection of children as the possession of child exploitation material is not a victimless crime – the possession of child abuse material creates a market for the continued corruption and exploitation of children and children are sexually abused to supply the market;
h.	offending involving child abuse material is difficult to detect given the anonymity provided by the internet;
i.	offending involving child abuse material carries a risk of material being seen or acquired by vulnerable persons, particularly children;
j.	offending involving child abuse material carries a risk of the material being seen by a person susceptible to act in the manner described or depicted;
k.	the offending is not mitigated by the fact that the offender did not profit from the offending, did not pay for material or access the child abuse website, or was not involved in the distribution or sale of child abuse material;
l.	the nature of the internet and the evolution of remote storage devices using internet networks, means that images may be published and stored around the world for many years.  The longevity of such materials is akin to re‑victimising the abused children, as the victims not only have to endure the abuse that occurred in producing such material, but must live with the consequences of the images being swapped, traded and accessed, potentially indefinitely; and
m.	evidence of prior good character carries less weight in online child exploitation offending matters.
46.	Counsel for the prosecution noted that the maximum penalty for Charges 1 through to 7 on the Indictment is 15 years' imprisonment, with the maximum penalty for Charge 8 being two years' imprisonment.  Such penalties, so it was submitted, are indicative of the seriousness in which the legislature views the offending conduct.
47.	In particular, counsel again noted that the offending conduct in relation to Charges 1 to 7 on the Indictment involves you engaging in separate instances of offending relating to a minimum of 63 victims, most of whom were sex workers.  Charges 1 to 5 relate to individuals known by police, and Charge 6 relates to victims who could not be identified and/or located.  
48.	Furthermore, you assumed an online alias, 'Brendon Wilson', while communicating with the recipients, fabricating sexual interactions with your fictitious 10 year old daughter, 'Mykaylah'.  Such communication would include requesting that the sex workers attend your residence to engage in sexual activity with yourself and Mykaylah.  Once the recipients would end the call, you would send messages and videos containing child abuse material to the recipients, which were purported to depict Mykaylah.
49.	In relation to Charges 1 to 5, it was submitted that the offending is objectively serious, given the following factors:
a.	the offending took place over three months with five separate known victims – that was an extensive and ongoing course of conduct;
b.	despite being advised and acknowledging on multiple occasions that the victims were disgusted by your messages, you continued to send child abuse material and depraved descriptions of sexual activity with your 'daughter';
c.	you sent multiple images and videos depicting child abuse material, including prepubescent children engaging in sexual activity with adults;
d.	there was an expressed attempt by you to normalise this type of conduct by purporting that the child images and videos sent were your daughter.
50.	It was further submitted that the sexually explicit material, explicit nature of the language and descriptions used in communications increases the seriousness of the offending, as these assisted your objective of engaging in these discussions with other individuals, by not only introducing them to and normalising the content, but by testing whether the material sent provoked an adverse reaction in the recipients.
51.	It was also submitted that the objective seriousness of your offending is also heightened when the nature of the material is examined.  You clearly wanted to normalise material to convince each victim that the request for them to engage in acts with a child were not unusual and that, at the very minimum, to continue role playing as individuals with paedophilic interests.
52.	Counsel for the prosecution noted that the acts which encompass the offending conduct contrary to s 474.22 of the Criminal Code are varied and result in wide-ranging circumstances which determine criminality and seriousness.  In particular, you have not transmitted material to likeminded individuals, as is a common feature of this kind of offending.
53.	It was submitted that the offending conduct has involved you initially fabricating a scenario where you engage in sexual activity with your 10 year old daughter and then requested that the victims also engage in that activity.  When the victim refused and expressed disgust at such request, you would then send child abuse material in the form of images or videos, purporting that the child in the material was your own.  In each instance of the offending, this resulted in the victim becoming distressed for the safety of the child.
54.	It was submitted that due to the abovementioned circumstances that this is a highly serious example of offending of this kind.  The dissemination of materials has exposed individuals to highly depraved material unwillingly and caused distress in the course of their employment.  Sex workers are particularly vulnerable and are required to place a degree of trust in people who engage their services which can be easily abused.  
55.	In relation to Charge 6 on the Indictment, counsel for the prosecution notes that you engaged in similar offending to the conduct outlined in relation to Charges 1 to 5 and it was submitted that such offending is also a serious example for offending of this kind, as it involves a minimum of 63 separate individuals, with police authorities not being able to determine how many individuals you transmitted material via the WhatsApp application.
56.	Again, it was submitted that the offending should be regarded as a very serious example of its kind in light of the fact that the charge is a rolled-up charge encompassing many separate instances of offending.
57.	In relation to Charge 7 on the Indictment, it was submitted that the offending material relates to 5,216 images of which 3,534 are unique and videos depicting child abuse material across four devices seized at your residence.  The material located by police had been saved in 10 separate encrypted folders within the devices.  In order to access the folders, the police were required to enter passwords which were also located on the device.  Furthermore, you utilised the Onion router to access the dark web and obtained the material when concealing your online activity from law enforcement.  It is submitted that there was a significant degree of interaction with the material.
58.	In particular, it was noted that material depicted prepubescent children as young as infants in sexually explicit poses and having sexual acts performed on them.  They also included pubescent children engaged in sexual activities with adults, and images of a deceased teenager.
59.	It was ultimately submitted that the number of files falls at the higher end of the scale and given the highly depraved nature of the material as outlined above, such is a very serious example of offending of this kind.
60.	In relation to Charge 8 on the Indictment, it was accepted by the prosecution that you possessed methylamphetamine for a personal use and that offence is on the lower end of such offending.
Conclusion
61.	You have pleaded guilty to six charges of using a carriage service to transmit child abuse material (Charges 1 to 6 on the Indictment), one charge of possessing or controlling child abuse material in the form of data held in a computer or contained in a data storage device (Charge 7 on the Indictment) and the possession of a controlled drug – methylamphetamine (Charge 8 on the Indictment).
62.	The offending in relation to Charges 1 to 7 is serious offending, as made plain by the maximum penalty of 15 years and because of the inherent nature of the offending involving the sexual abuse and exploitation of children, sometimes of a very young age.
63.	In relation to Charges 1 to 5, each charge involved you contacting an identified victim who was either employed as a sex worker or working in the sex work industry.  Contact was made by you using a mobile phone number attached to an Amaysim SIM card and the subject number subscribed to user 'Brendon Wilson'.
64.	When you contacted each of these identified victims, you used the alias 'Brendon Wilson' when communicating with the recipients, fabricating sexual interactions with your daughter 'Mykaylah'.  During such conversations with the recipients, you requested the sex workers to attend your residence to engage in sexual activity with you and 'Mykaylah'.  When the recipients ended the call (in disgust) you sent images and videos containing child abuse material to the recipients, which were purported to depict 'Mykaylah'.  You further attempted to see the recipients and claimed that you were located in the respective country or State that they were in, asking them to attend 'your residence'.  You were persistent with your communications and would continue to send child abuse material and extensive descriptions of sexual offending against 'your daughter', despite pleas from the recipients to stop doing so.
65.	Charge 6 involved you, between 5 May 2022 and 22 August 22, utilising multiple cellular applications, including WickrMe, WhatsApp and Skout, to transmit child abuse material to 52 separate unidentified recipients.  During such conversations, you again referred to you having a sexual relationship with your daughter 'Mykaylah' and also transmitted various images to such recipients in circumstances where the recipients had not requested to receive any material.
66.	Charge 7 arises out of the execution of a search warrant at your premises on 25 August 22, when police located and seized the following devices – an Opel mobile device, a Latitude Dell laptop and a 1TB Seagate hard drive and a Toshiba 16GB USB.  Forensic analysis was completed, which revealed that such devices retained both images and videos involving child abuse material.  Such material was categorised pursuant to the Interpol Baseline 4-Tier Categorisation System, details of which are set out hereunder:
Category	Guide	
Category 1 – real child prepubescent perceived to be under 13 years of age	Media depicting a real pre-pubescent child/very first signs of puberty and the child is involved in a sex act, witnessing a sex act or the material is focused/concentrated on the anal or genital area of the child/	
Category 2 – other illegal content, child under 18 years of age	Other child abuse material that is illegal within Australia but does not fit within Category 1. Media may include images of children which are likely to cause offence to a reasonable adult where a child is subjected to sadism, torture, bestiality, or humiliation. Images may depict a child as the person conducting the activity, or observing other persons.	
Category 3 – investigative interest	Material that is neither illegal not child abuse material, however it is of a type that may be of interest from an investigative position. This material may assist in the identification of victims used in the production of child abuse material or assist in the identification of perpetrators involved in the production of child abuse material.	
Category 4 - ignorable	Material that does not fall within any of the other three categories.	
67.	In total, you were in possession of 5,216 (3,534 unique) files depicting child abuse material.  In particular, in relation to the Opel mobile device, there were 121 Category 1 images and videos; in relation to the Latitude Dell laptop, there were 36 Category 1 images and videos and eight Category 2 images and videos; in relation to the Seagate 1TB hard drive, there were 3,857 Category 1 images and videos and 1,153 Category 2 images and videos; and in relation to the Toshiba 16GB USB, there were 13 Category 1 images and videos and 28 Category 2 images and videos.
68.	The type of material was varied and included the following:
a.	children aged between six months and teenagers engaged in sexual activity with other children and/or adults;
b.	images and videos from the 'April Blonde' series, the subject of Charges 1 to 6, which depicted females aged 10 years engaging in sexual activity with an adult male;
c.	males and females under the age of 13 engaging in sexual activity with adult males;
d.	pubescent males and females engaging in sexual activity, including solo masturbation and sexual intercourse with adults;
e.	images of a deceased teenager.
69.	Charge 8 relates to seizing during the execution of a search warrant, a clip-seal bag containing 1 gram of methylamphetamine.
70.	In relation to Charge 8, as already recorded, it is common ground that the methylamphetamine seized by police was for personal use, which was consistent with the history that you have given to others about your drug use.  In all the circumstances, I consider such offending to be on the low end of drug offending and I intend to convict you to such an offence, but sentence you to a fine.
71.	One of the issues noted by both parties is that the offending constituted by Charges 1 to 6 – that is, using a carriage service to transmit child abuse material ꟷ although covering a wide spectrum of events, is generally seen in circumstances where an offender transmits material to a likeminded individual, with files being exchanged between collectors of such material, and sometimes the sale of such material between parties.  In relation to Charges 1 to 6 on the Indictment, although clearly there has been transmission of various images and videos, and indeed, child abuse material spoken by you, the recipients of such material were not willing recipients and indeed, expressed their repugnance to you most times contact was made.  In this respect, it was submitted by those acting for you that the objective seriousness of such offending was diminished to some degree, to the extent that, in relation to Charges 1 to 5, such offending can be characterised as mid-level offending.  
72.	I should add that, as I understand the submission of your counsel, it is accepted, in relation to Charge 6 that the very number of transmissions and the number of images and videos transmitted, together with the comments made by you, give rise to serious offending.  I consider that Charge 6 does give rise to objectively serious offending.
73.	Furthermore, although Charges 1 to 5 were each of relatively short duration and although the transmission of images and videos (on occasion) were not in large numbers, the contents of those videos was graphic.  Furthermore, although the recipients were not willing recipients, it must be borne in mind that they were confronted with these images and your conversations give rise to repugnance, frequently resulting in reports to the relevant authorities.
74.	I consider such offending to be beyond mid-range, but certainly not at the highest level of this type of activity.
75.	In relation to Charge 7, I consider this to be objectively very serious offending, bearing in mind the number of files and more particularly, that the majority of files fall into Category 1 of the Interpol Baseline 4-Tier Categorisation System.  Such files were retained in a variety of devices and, in certain cases, needed expert knowledge of detecting where the files were retained.  
76.	It is to be remembered also that the psychologist Dr Barth, was of the opinion that you met the DSM-5 Criteria for the diagnosis of 'Unspecified Paraphilic Disorder', for which intensive specialist sex offender treatment was required.
77.	I do accept that your moral culpability is somewhat reduced as a result of the horrific and sad background you experienced during your growing up period and in particular the prolific sexual abuse which occurred in relation to the actions of your stepbrother.
78.	I also accept that you have some understanding of your offending and that you have some remorse as to both the various recipients of your communications and also have an understanding as to why such child abuse material is so abhorrent, given that it ultimately causes exploitation of children, and as I say, some of them have been of very young years.
79.	I have already recorded that I believe your prospects of rehabilitation are 'guarded' given the depth of your psychosexual issues and that you are a potential risk to the community in your present state.  However, you are on all accounts an intelligent man, and are doing things to understand your condition better and reading as many books to explain why you acted in the way you did in relation to the offending.
80.	As is made clear by the authorities, general deterrence is the most important aspect of the sentencing matrix – even to the extent that other personal mitigatory matters, for example an early plea, remorse and prospects of rehabilitation, are overshadowed by this to some extent.  Having said that, I give the weight which I have expressed earlier in these Reasons in relation to the various mitigating factors, but do highlight that general deterrence is of the utmost importance, and in your case, protection of the community and specific deterrence.
81.	I intend to convict you of all the offences, and sentence you to various periods of imprisonment.  I am conscious of the issue of totality and indeed note that Charge 7, being the possession of various child abuse material, does encompass the various files involving images and videos that you transmitted to the various recipients in relation to Charges 1 to 5, and 6, on the Indictment.  Although clearly an independent crime, I am conscious of issues of double punishment.
82.	Furthermore, I do take into account proportionality in coming to an appropriate sentence, which is this:
a.	in relation to Charge 6 on the Indictment, you are convicted and sentenced to three years' imprisonment, commencing on 1 August 2024;
b.	in relation to Charge 7 on the Indictment, you are convicted and sentenced to one years’ imprisonment, commencing on 1 June 2027;
c.	in relation to Charge 1 on the Indictment, you are convicted and sentenced to four months' imprisonment, commencing from 1 April 2028;
d.	in relation to Charge 2 on the Indictment, you are convicted and sentenced to four months' imprisonment, commencing from 1 June 2028;
e.	in relation to Charge 3 on the Indictment, you are convicted and sentenced to a period of four months' imprisonment, commencing from 1 August 2028;
f.	in relation to Charge 4 on the Indictment, you are convicted and sentenced to four months' imprisonment, commencing from 1 October 2028;
g.	in relation to Charge 5 on the Indictment, you are convicted and sentenced to four years' imprisonment, commencing from 1 December 2028;
h.	in relation to Charge 8 on the Indictment, you are convicted and sentenced to a fine of $300;
i.	the total effective sentence is four years and eight months and I order that there be a non-parole period of three years;
j.	I declare that you have served 708 days' pre-sentence detention and such days should be administratively deducted from the sentence ordered today;
k.	I further order that you be registered as a 'registrable sex offender' pursuant to the Sex Offenders Registration Act 2004 and that you will be required to comply with the reporting obligations of that Act for the rest of your life;
l.	pursuant to s6AAA of the Sentencing Act 1991, I declare that, save for your pleas of guilty, I would have ordered a period of imprisonment of six years and two months.
83.	No doubt you will check those things, we've looked at it many times, we think that's clear.
84.	MR HOGAN:  As Your Honour pleases.
85.	HIS HONOUR:  If there is any doubt to it - yes, my just associate's raised with me, should I say in relation to the fine, do I have say anything to Fines Victoria or anything like that?
86.	MR HOGAN:  No, Your Honour., it will be dealt with by the Commonwealth authority.
87.	HIS HONOUR:  That's enough is it?
88.	MR HOGAN:  Yes.
89.	HIS HONOUR:  Yes what I'm leading to, ladies and gentlemen, is that if you do, look we've checked this and you know how difficult Commonwealth offending is.
90.	MR HOGAN:  Yes.
91.	HIS HONOUR:  But we think we've got it right.  As you can understand essentially 1 to 5 are all four months and effectively two months of those four months are cumulated effectively and the first, well Charge 6 is three years' imprisonment.  Now take Charge 7 which is the next which is one year's imprisonment which starts on 1 June 2027, I think that the cumulation there was six or something I don't know but I think you'll find it's right but look if there are any difficulties the only thing I would ask, you get back to us pretty quickly.  I am supposedly retiring tomorrow although I'm coming back in September for matters which just haven't caught up with things.  I'll be back then but I'd like to get this resolved if there is any issue.  
92.	MR HOGAN:  Yes, Your Honour.
93.	HIS HONOUR:  Is there anything to raise?
94.	MS BROUGHTON:  No, Your Honour, not at this point but yes we will make sure that it's correct.
95.	HIS HONOUR:  XYZ, there's probably a lot to take in from what I said today.  I've given a lot of consideration to your situation.  I think I described or I did describe during my sentencing comments, you had a sad and horrific background that cannot be doubted and indeed based on the psychological evidence it would appear that has played a role in a variety of ways as to what your, how you have evolved sexually I suppose over the time and that is not an excuse but it is an explanation and I've taken that into account to some degree.  But you've probably heard me say several times for this type of offending general deterrence is paramount.  
96.	And the reason why it's paramount is as I think you are beginning to have an appreciation, the protection of young children is just so important in our society and indeed when you as you would be aware and as I've seen over the years in my role as a judge, some of the videos and photographs and images of some of the things which involve young children and sometimes very young children is sickening and degrading and just horrible.  And society rightly in my view does put great weight on generally deterring people and indeed that has been a major factor in sentencing you.  
97.	That's not to say other things are in your favour.  You have made an early plea, that's important.  I think you have remorse to a fair degree.  I think you are beginning to have an understanding of why it's so important that these sort of offences are dealt with the way they are and I think you are making probably in prison a reasonable effort to try and understand why you offended like you did and perhaps more importantly to avoid this occurring again in the future.  
98.	And if I can say anything to you at all and it's not for me to give you advice, but it's very important you keep on following through with that because the last thing you would want and the last thing the community would want, that when you're released that this sort of activity starts again.  That would be just, well for you it would be a horror because you'd go to prison for a long time I daresay.  So it's very much in your interest to try and work that out, and I'm not suggesting you haven't but you're on that road, hopefully it will lead somewhere.  So I think that's important too.  
99.	But as you would probably appreciate I haven't worked out you've still got a bit of time to go.  There's a non-parole period of three years and I think, I forget the days how many it is but you've got a bit of time to go.  But as I say to anyone who's got some time left, make the most of it.  Make the most of it, keep on going with your reading and keep on going with the things you can get yourself involved in.  So yes that's all I've got to say.  No doubt your counsel and solicitors will advise you of anything you're in any doubt about.  
100.	Anything arising out of that please?
101.	MS BROUGHTON:  No, Your Honour.
102.	MR HOGAN:  No, Your Honour.  There's just one more matter and that's of the forfeiture order in relation to the four devices that contain the child abuse material.
103.	HIS HONOUR:  Is there any issue about that?
104.	MS BROUGHTON:  No, Your Honour, there isn't.
105.	MR HOGAN:  I have a draft order.
106.	HIS HONOUR:  Yes I'll make a final order, the forfeiture orders sought by the prosecution will be granted.  Now have they been made available?  I can't remember seeing them.
107.	MR HOGAN:  I will email a draft through.
108.	HIS HONOUR:  Yes if you'd get onto that.  So that's just for all those, I think there's four devices ID if I recall?
109.	MR HOGAN:  Yes, Your Honour.
110.	HIS HONOUR:  Yes.
111.	MS BROUGHTON:  Sorry one final thing, Your Honour announced that there would be a pseudonym order and that, that's all that - - - 
112.	HIS HONOUR:  What I'll do I'll make a footnote that an order is, right now it is set in concrete.
113.	MS BROUGHTON:  Yes.
114.	HIS HONOUR:  This is, it's referred to as XYZ.
115.	MS BROUGHTON:  Yes.
116.	HIS HONOUR:  His name doesn't appear in the sentence whatsoever, not does her name.  I don't think there is her being the wife, I don't think there's any basis for any identification but I'll put that firmly, I'll say the court has ordered that under, look I'll make that formally now.  
117.	MS BROUGHTON:  As Your Honour pleases.
118.	HIS HONOUR:  For the record, the court orders that the name of the offender will be by way of a pseudonym, the pseudonym being XYZ.
119.	MS BROUGHTON:  As Your Honour pleases.
120.	HIS HONOUR:  Yes, anything else to raise?
121.	MR HOGAN:  Nothing further, Your Honour.
122.	MS BROUGHTON:  No, Your Honour.
123.	HIS HONOUR:  Yes very well.  We'll adjourn sine die.
---