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

Case No. CR-21-01523

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS		
		
v		
		
JAMES WILLIAM TREASURE		

---

JUDGE:	HER HONOUR JUDGE HOGAN	
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne	
DATE OF HEARING:	8 November 2021 and 11 April 2022	
DATE OF SENTENCE:	11 April 2022	
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Treasure	
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2022] VCC 488		

REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---

Subject:	CRIMINAL LAW
Catchwords: 	One charge of production of child pornography, two charges of committing an indecent act with a child under the age of 16 years, one charge of producing child abuse material, and one charge of possession of child abuse material – former primary school teacher – part of offending involves victims who were students at the school where the offender had worked.
Legislation Cited:	
Cases Cited:	DPP v D’Alessandro [2010] VSCA 60; DPP (Cth) v Garside [2016] VSCA 74; Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59; 
Sentence:	Total effective sentence of 4 years and 8 months’ imprisonment with non-parole period of 1 year and 7 months. s.6AAA: 6 years and 6 months’ imprisonment with non-parole period of 4 years and 4 months.

---

APPEARANCES:
	Counsel	Solicitors	
For the DPP	Ms F Holmes
(8 November 2021)

Mr A Grant
(11 April 2022)	Solicitor for Public Prosecutions	
			
For the Accused	Mr P Dunn QC	Doogue + George	

HER HONOUR:

1	James William Treasure, you have pleaded guilty to one charge of producing child pornography, two charges of committing an indecent act with or in the presence of a child under the age of 16, one charge of producing child abuse material, and one charge of possession of child abuse material.  The maximum penalty for each of the five offences is 10 years’ imprisonment.
2	The circumstances of your offending are detailed in the Amended Summary of Prosecution Opening for Plea (Exhibit “A”).  All charges, with the exception of Charge 3, are rolled-up charges compromising more than one offending act.
3	The background to the detection of your offending by police in Victoria is that you were arrested whilst holidaying in Noosa Heads, Queensland, on 6 July 2018.  This arrest took place after Queensland police had been alerted to you covertly filming female children on a beach by using a camera within your watch.  You were charged with two charges of making child exploitation material and one charge of possessing child exploitation material and remanded in custody.  You were ultimately sentenced for those offences in Queensland on 23 September 2019.
4	After Queensland police notified Victorian police, search warrants were executed at your Victorian residential address on 7 July and 9 July 2018.  At that date, you were still employed as a classroom and Physical Education teacher at Sconeglen Primary School.  From your address, police seized material which included the following: a quantity of CDs and DVDs labelled with different school trips and excursions; a child-like sex doll wearing the uniform of Sconeglen Primary School; 10 masks depicting the faces of children, six of whom were current or former students at Sconeglen Primary School; photographs of children who were current or former students of yours at primary school or in basketball teams coached by you; a diary with extracts revealing your thoughts and interactions with students; a red bag containing children’s clothing; a laptop; a personal hard drive; and three covert watch cameras.
5	Charge 1, producing child pornography between 14 September 2007 and 30 June 2017 is a rolled-up charge comprising 92 videos on one hard drive.  These videos focus on the genitals, breast area and buttocks of children, several of whom were known child victims who had been your students, including Madison Salting, Kaitlyn Streeton and Eve Lemberg, as well as another file which had been found on your hard drive located in Queensland which had been created on 19 December 2010.  All of the material is Category 1 within the ANVIL categorisation system.
6	Charge 2, committing an indecent act with or in the presence of a child under the age of 16 involved you touching one of your students, Erin Heymann, in the area of her vagina and buttocks over the top of her school clothing.  This occurred when the student was either at the end of Grade 2 or at the start of Grade 3.  She and a few of her friends would be permitted to help you in your classroom during lunchtime, during which you would tickle the girls.  This charge involved some five or six occasions upon which you commenced to tickle Erin in her stomach area and then moved your hands down to touch her buttocks and vagina for 5 to 10 seconds over the top of her school uniform.
7	Charge 3, committing an indecent act with or in the presence of a child under the age of 16, involved you indecently touching Madison Salting, who was a friend of your victim on Charge 2.  Madison was helping you in your classroom during lunchtime.  Apart from tickling the girls, you would also give them chocolates.  In or about 2016, when Madison was in Grade 4 and aged 9 to 10 years old, she was sitting on a bean bag near your desk when you knelt down in front of her and began tickling her around her stomach area.  The skirt of her school uniform lifted up and you began touching her vagina outside her bicycle shorts which she had on underneath.  She yelled out the word “shit” and you told her to leave the classroom and to meet you at lunchtime, at which time you criticised her for having yelled out as she did, as there were younger students in the classroom who could have overheard.  Your victim did not tell anyone because she thought she would get into trouble.
8	Charge 4, producing child abuse material between 1 July 2017 and 1 July 2018, comprises 32 videos found by police on the hard drive of your laptop which had been seized by Queensland police.  The co-ordinates of the videos indicate they were produced in Victoria.  Sixteen of these videos were sexual acts which had been digitally-edited by you to superimpose your face upon the face of an adult male and the face of some of your students on the bodies of young girls.  The other sixteen were videos taken at your address.  These depicted you having sexual intercourse with a childlike sex doll dressed in the uniform of Sconeglen Primary School with a photograph of a student’s face on a mask which was covering the face of the sex doll.  Several files depict some six known child victims, including your victims on Charge 2 and Charge 3, as well as some of the children featured in the offending material which forms the subject of Charges 1 and 5.  All 32 videos came within Category 2 of the Interpol Baseline Categorisation System.  As a matter of fairness, and in the interests of totality, it should be noted that all 32 videos which form the basis of this charge had been the subject of Charge 3, possession of child exploitation material, for which you were sentenced in Queensland.
9	Charge 5, possessing child abuse material, comprises you possessing 105 files on a hard drive located at your residential address by police on 9 July 2018, and also 12 further files located by police on the SD card from one of three covert watch cameras seized at that same address.  As a matter of fairness and in the interest of totality, it should be noted that seven of the videos included in this charge of possessing child abuse material had been included in Charge 1, making child exploitation material, for which you were sentenced in Queensland.  As the material had been retained after production and was found on the hard drive of your computer, it was thus possessed by you in Victoria.  However, it should be noted that, by the date of the possession charged to have taken place in Victoria, you had been taken into custody in Queensland and did not actually have access to those seven videos.  Also, 92 of the videos are the same 92 videos comprising the bulk of Charge 1 on the indictment for which I must sentence you.  There were also 2 images of a child posing erotically in underwear, which had been accessed via the internet.  All of the material to which I have referred (namely, 99 videos and two images) came within Category 1 of the ANVIL categorisation system.  In addition, included in Charge 5 are 4 videos of a female child being sexually penetrated by an adult male, which had been accessed via the internet.  They came within Category 4 of the ANVIL categorisation system.
10	You are presently aged 42 years, having been born in September 1979.  You come before the Court with no prior convictions, although obviously the offending for which you were sentenced in Queensland is of a similar style to much of the offending for which I must sentence you.  The first date of the between dates specified in Charge 5 is the day after your last date of offending in Queensland, namely, the date upon which you were arrested by police on 6 July 2018.
11	A plea hearing commenced before me on 8 November 2021.  Mr Dunn of senior counsel, who appeared on your behalf, noted that when you were arrested by police in Queensland, you admitted to filming children for “gratification” purposes and that you had a problem.  Mr Dunn submitted that this admission, and your cooperation with the police by providing information that led them to the material on your computer in your Queensland apartment and, subsequently, at your residential address in Victoria, had identified the problem of your Paedophilic Disorder. Mr Dunn submitted that, prior to your arrest in Queensland, for some years, your undiagnosed Paedophilic Disorder had caused you to live a lonely, introverted existence in which you experienced problems forming adult relationships and resorted to the abuse of alcohol.  At that stage, your own family did not know anything about your problems or your disorder.  Mr Dunn submitted that, since your issues had been identified, you had gained increasing insight into the fact that you needed professional help and, since being arrested in Queensland, with the assistance of family support, you have sought such help.
12	Whilst incarcerated in Queensland awaiting sentence, you had undergone psychological counselling at your own expense.  This is apparent from a report of Dr Paul Bowden, psychologist, dated 10 July 2019, who diagnosed you as suffering from a Social Anxiety Disorder and a Paedophilic Disorder, which were linked.  He stated that your Paedophilic Disorder involves sexual attraction to prepubescent girls, and recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies and sexual urges and behaviours involving children younger than 13 years.  He considered that you had become addicted to pornography and had likely developed a Paedophilic Disorder by the time you began making child pornography, which would have significantly hindered your judgment and rational decision-making capacity.  Dr Bowden noted that, although the frequency and intensity of those thoughts had decreased over the 12 months during which he was treating you prior to the date of his report, your thoughts continued to cause you marked distress and you presented a risk to the community, albeit that you had been open and honest during the course of your treatment from him. 
13	Mr Dunn submitted that you have sought help and appear to genuinely want to change and have positive influences in your life, particularly the support from your parents, your brother and his wife, and another family friend (all of whom provided character references which comprise Exhibit “4”).  He noted that, following the date of Dr Bowden’s report, you had continued to seek treatment from Dr Bowden for the duration of your time in custody in Queensland, which was a period of approximately 18 months, before you were granted parole on 14 January 2021.
14	Mr Dunn submitted that Dr Bowden had helped you gain insight into the harm caused by your offending, why you behaved in the way that you did by offending, and assisted you with strategies to not offend again.  After being released on parole in Queensland on 14 January 2021, you were arrested on 1 February 2021 and extradited to Victoria.  You have remained in custody since that time.  Mr Dunn stated that, whilst in custody in Victoria, you had continued to engage in psychological treatment provided by Mr Geoffrey Burrows.  This had taken place by video conference during the restrictions imposed because of the COVID-19 pandemic.  
15	A report from Mr Burrows dated 8 October 2021 was tendered in evidence.  This report confirms that you voluntarily participated in the sex offenders treatment program at your own expense on 14 occasions, each of 60 minutes duration, between 22 February 2021 and 5 October 2021.  Mr Burrows stated that you had engaged in a cooperative manner and expressed your desire to continue with treatment and, apparently, you have done so.  He stated that the treatment assisted you to gain insight into the underlying motivations for your offending and the impact of it upon your victims.  Through structured exercises, you had identified the factors which contributed to your non-contact offending behaviour, namely deviant sexual arousal patterns, a distorted understanding of female psychosexual development, unmet intimacy needs and low self-esteem.  He stated that you demonstrated a good understanding of how those factors motivated your non-contact offending.  However, you had found it considerably more difficult to develop insight into your contact offending and had denied any sexual motivation for it, stating that it occurred in the context of tickling the complainants and wanting to make them happy.
16	Mr Burrows stated that you had made some initial progress in the sex offenders treatment program but it had been relatively slow, which underlines the severity of your psychosexual problems, and he expressed concern about your poor insight into your contact offending.  He considered that you required continued specialist sex offender treatment if your risk of recidivism is to be reduced, and had expressed a desire to continue being treated by him.
17	Also tendered on your behalf was a forensic assessment evaluation embodied in a report from Dr Angela Sorotos, clinical and forensic psychologist and behaviour support practitioner, dated 23 October 2021.  This is a lengthy and comprehensive report in which Dr Sorotos expressed her opinion that you are at high risk for sexual recidivism, and it is highly possible that you would commit these offences again.  If you were to offend again, it would most likely involve grooming and offending against female victims of prepubescent to pubescent age, which may be either known to you or might be strangers.  She stated that you are likely to be motivated by deviant sexual arousal and an inability to connect or engage with peers of your own age due to your impaired emotional functioning.
18	Dr Sorotos noted that you described yourself as being socially isolated with few interpersonal relationships that could be described as “close and warm”, and a tendency towards avoidance of intimacy, submissiveness, withdrawal, social detachment and anxiety.  She stated that your interpersonal style was best characterised as withdrawn and introverted.  However, you reported a positive attitude towards personal change, the value of therapy, and the importance of personal responsibility, and noted that you had a number of other strengths that were positive indications for a relatively smooth treatment process and reasonably good progress.  She observed that, from your early adult life, you had begun to misuse alcohol which escalated as you experienced increasing social anxiety and were eventually consuming six cans of beer each day, which had persisted for some five to eight years.  Overall, Dr Sorotos found that you fit the criteria of Paedophilic Disorder, with a preferential deviant sexual arousal for female children, and also present with a severe Alcohol Use Disorder, which is in sustained remission (greater than 12 months) and in a controlled environment where access to alcohol is restricted.
19	Dr Sorotos noted that you had relied upon alcohol to manage your social anxiety and distress, which you endured from interacting with your external world.  You had engaged in sexual offending to manage feelings of isolation and loneliness, which were a product of your social anxiety.  However, you also acknowledged numerous incidents of offending where no alcohol use was implicated.
20	Dr Sorotos stated that you had a problematic personality structure in that you prefer to be alone and avoid intimacy, and had suffered profound anxiety from being rejected by peers of a similar age.  You had struggled with a fractured sense of self from a very young age, and this had perhaps worsened with age so that you found solace and safety in the validation you received from child victims who were not yet mature enough to stand up to you and reject you.  She stated that you had deliberately sought out child victims because, aside from your sexual attraction to them, you understood that their young age rendered them vulnerable.  Overall, she found that the fact that you were able to continue to attend your workplace or other high density settings meant that you were below the threshold for diagnosis for a Social Anxiety Disorder, although you certainly had features of it.  She opined that you did not meet the criteria for any major mental illness or impairment at the time of offending.
21	Dr Sorotos considered that you suffered from a Paedophilic Disorder (non-exclusive type, sexually attracted to females), in that you previously had an adult relationship, but there was strong evidence that you preferred prepubescent children to adults.  She noted that you had found a variety of Child Abuse Material and online fantasy behaviours to be arousing and had gone to extreme lengths to enliven your fantasies, as child abuse material constructed by others was not enough for you.  You needed to insert yourself into that reality to get as close to the feeling of a real, live act as possible.  She considered that, despite having engaged in various sex offender therapeutic programs, you are still largely consumed by your extremely high sex drive which, as your offending demonstrates, has been mostly associated by exploiting child victims.
22	Dr Sorotos considered that you were hypersexual and had a higher level of sexual compulsion in general, such that you meet the criteria for Compulsive Sexual Behaviour Disorder.  This is characterised by your persistent pattern of failure to control intense, repetitive sexual impulses or urges resulting in repetitive sexual behaviour.  She stated that your symptoms appear to include repetitive sexual activities becoming a central focus of your life to the point of neglecting other interests, activities and responsibilities, and that this pattern of behaviour has manifested itself over an extended period of time.  She considered that there was an interaction between your compulsive hypersexuality, your deviant sexual interests, your maladaptive personality features and your socially anxious, if not awkward, predisposition.  She stated that your impoverished social skills, low self-esteem and proclivity to find safety in your own solitude, has contributed to the cultivation of a fantasy world which has continued to escalate over time.
23	Dr Sorotos noted that you had admitted to police immediately upon being apprehended that your intentions were sexually deviant and that you felt a sense of relief in finally being apprehended, and had engaged with therapeutic intervention consistently, albeit that you apparently lack insight in relation to your contact offending.  She thought that your maladaptive personality features were likely to be difficult to address, and your overarching compulsive hypersexuality is unlikely to change without pharmacological intervention in the form of anti-libidinal medication.
24	Dr Sorotos concluded that you require treatment that targets your risk for sexual re-offending whilst being sensitive to your maladaptive personality features and mood difficulties.  She considered that a combination of pharmacological and psychological treatment was warranted, and that the only service in this State that can provide such integrated treatment is the problem behaviour program at the Victorian Institute of Forensic Mental Health (Forensicare).
25	Mr Dunn urged that you should be given credit for having seized the opportunity for treatment in the context of ongoing support from your family, but noted that the assessment by Dr Sorotos, attested to the limitation of treatment available in a custodial setting.  In particular, Dr Sorotos had suggested that chemical treatment by way of anti‑libidinal medication might be indicated in your case, and you had indicated that, if this is what is required to treat your problem effectively, then you are prepared to undertake it.
26	Mr Dunn stated that you are truly remorseful and genuinely want to address what had been a dark secret which consumed you in your lifestyle, which was marked by anxiety, social awkwardness and isolation, all of which were ongoing whilst this offending was occurring.  He urged the Court to note that, while a lengthy sentence of imprisonment would punish you, it would not be effective in rehabilitating you in the way that Dr Sorotos has suggested, which requires not only psychological counselling but pharmacological intervention, as well.  Given that the suggested pharmacological intervention is only able to be administered by Forensicare, it was submitted that the matter should be adjourned so that you could be assessed by Forensicare for suitability for the treatment recommended by Dr Sorotos which would necessitate devising a treatment plan.  
27	Accordingly, the matter was adjourned for further plea hearing to 31 January 2022 with an order that you be assessed by a forensic psychologist for an appropriate treatment plan.  It was further ordered that you undergo an extended Community Correction Order assessment.  Subsequently, on 12 November 2021, due to the fact that the Forensicare report would not be available for some time beyond the adjourned date, a further plea hearing date was vacated and the matter was adjourned to 15 March 2022.  Unfortunately, due to a combination of matters, including my own unavailability, the matter had to be further adjourned to 11 April 2022.
28	In response to the Court’s request, a report was provided from Forensicare by Dr Rajan Darjee, consultant forensic psychiatrist, dated 23 February 2022.  Dr Darjee had consulted with you for about 90 minutes on 17 February 2022 via video link.  He noted that you described having struggled in intimate relationships.  The failure of the one relationship that you had had led to a decrease in confidence and increased your anxiety, and led to you avoiding relationships for fear of rejection.  This led to a further lack of confidence and loneliness and, over the period of the last 10 years, you had been drawn more towards stimulation by fantasies of young girls aged 8-13 years rather than to adult females.  You admitted that you used sexual arousal and masturbation to cope with stress and improve your self-esteem, but afterwards felt guilty and worthless.  You admitted your primary fantasy when viewing such material was to have sexual intercourse with a student you had taught, and acquired the child-like sex doll to achieve this fantasy.  You also admitted to having acquired devices to surreptitiously take photographs of girls.
29	Dr Darjee considered that you had a long history of anxious and avoidant personality traits which have developed in adulthood into a Social Anxiety Disorder and Avoidant Personality Disorder, both of which relate to each other and have led to you struggling to form close adult relationships and turning towards vulnerable young girls who are less threatening and rejecting.  He considered that you meet the criteria for Paedophilic Disorder, given your sexual preference for young girls.  Also, given your high level of sexual pre-occupation, hypersexuality and use of sex to cope with your anxiety and stress, he considered you met the criteria for Compulsive Sexual Behaviour Disorder.  
30	He agreed with Dr Sorotos in her assessment of risk, and stated that you are more likely than the average man convicted of a sexual offence to commit another sexual offence in the long term.  However, he considered that, if you were to offend, it would be more likely to be a non-contact than a contact offence and, despite your sexual fantasies, he considered that you are unlikely to commit a penetrative offence against a young girl.
31	Dr Darjee noted that you accept that you committed all the offences with which you were charged and, although there was a degree of minimisation in relation to the contact offences, he considered that this was normal at this stage and not a barrier to treatment.  In your favour, he noted that you had already been through a structured treatment program for men who have sexually offended with Dr Bowden, as well as having engaged with Mr Burrows for counselling in relation to both your offending and your own emotional and interpersonal difficulties.  He stated that you engaged well during the interview with him and seemed anxious, reticent, lacking in confidence and ashamed of your offending.  He noted that you showed a greater level of insight into your offending at this stage of the criminal justice process than most men who have committed similar offences, and had a reasonable preliminary understanding of factors that had led to your offending.  You were willing to engage in further psychological treatment and to take medication to reduce youR level of sexual pre-occupation.
32	Dr Darjee considered the most effective approach to treat you would be to integrate pharmacological treatment with individual psychological treatment by attending Forensicare’s Problem Behaviour Program at the Community Forensic Mental Health Service.  He stated that this integrated approach to treatment would not be available in prison.  Moreover, you were prepared to undergo anti-libidinal medication as you now understand the nature of your sexual problems.  Also, you do not have any medical issues which would mean that such treatment would be contraindicated.  He considered that such treatment is very likely to be effective and to significantly reduce your risk of re-offending.  The medication could be effective in removing your sexual urges and fantasies so that you could undergo psychological treatment for your emotional and interpersonal difficulties and, later, you could come off the medication under supervision.  He stated that, in prison, although you could attend a sex offender treatment program, this would not be integrated with medical treatment and nor would it be integrated with individualised help for your social anxiety and intimacy problems.  He considered that the most effective medication which has the least side effects is Triptorelin, which is only available by private prescription.
33	Mr Treasure, there can be no doubt about the adverse impact that your offending has had on your victims and the wider community at Sconeglen Primary School.  Your victim of the contact offence comprising Charge 2, in a Victim Impact Statement made in excess of six years after the offending, describes how she felt when your offending came to light and she realised that it was a sexual assault.  She describes nightmares and feeling scared that she was going to bump into you, drifting away from her primary school friends because she did not want any connections with the incidents, and of how she felt uncomfortable showing parts of her body and had a lack of trust in male adults.
34	The mother of Madison Salting, who was the subject of the contact offence of indecent act on Charge 3, but whose images also featured in the child pornography made by you comprising Charge 1, the child abuse material produced by you comprising Charge 4, and the child abuse material possessed by you comprising Charge 5, made a Victim Impact Statement on behalf of her daughter.  She stated that her daughter had been a bright, happy and confident child but, once your offending came to light, she was moved to another school and she became sad, angry and confused.  Later, her emotional state and her behaviour deteriorated so that she has been required to seek a great deal of professional help and continues to take anti-anxiety medication and engages in self-harm.
35	A Victim Impact Statement from the principal at Sconeglen Primary School, which was read aloud by the prosecutor, Mr Grant, on the adjourned plea hearing today, states that you failed to uphold the key values of the school.  The staff and families, who placed their trust in you, are devastated by your conduct, which has created a lot of pain and anxiety in the school community.
36	The Victim Impact Statements to which I have just referred highlight what are understandable consequences of your conduct which involved a grave breach of trust of your position as both a classroom teacher and a sports teacher.  You were charged with the responsibility of nurturing young children so that they could undergo crucial developmental milestones in a safe and appropriate environment.  It was completely inappropriate to use your position as a teacher to lure young girls into your classroom at lunchtime to ostensibly help you with tasks, to even contemplate physical contact by way of tickling, and then to transgress into indecent assault.  To have utilised your position to film students during school activities in order to later make use of those images for your own sexual gratification or to covertly film students or other unidentified young girls in public places in order to use them to satisfy your sexual needs shows a serious departure from appropriate moral standards.  It is entirely understandable that victims or their families who became aware of the manner in which you used the images of innocent young children for your sexual pleasure would be sickened by your conduct.  To use the images of innocent young girls to whom you owed a duty of care to serve your aberrant sexual fantasies is a serious aggravating feature of your offending.
37	It is tragic for your sake and the sake of all who have been the victims or otherwise adversely affected by your offending that your personality and sexual and psychological problems could not have been identified earlier.  However, I accept as genuine your comments to police when you were arrested in Queensland that you were relieved by that event.  To my mind, this is an indicator of the extreme stress that you were under in trying to manage very significant problems on your own and keeping them secret so that you progressively cut yourself off from any possible areas of support.  
38	It is to your credit that, since being taken into custody in Queensland, you engaged in psychological treatment there and have undertaken ongoing sex offender counselling whilst in custody here in Victoria.  I accept that you do genuinely feel guilty and ashamed of what you have done, and that your pleas of guilty are remorseful ones.  
39	It is here pertinent to quote from what you told Dr Sorotos when she assessed you on 8 October 2021.  You stated that you felt guilty about:
“all of my offending. At the time my thought process was no one will know, so no one will get upset or hurt.  Obviously, that wasn’t the case, people know, the fact that I’ve hurt people, upset people, had a very negative impact on their lives, is horrible for me.  It is the opposite of what I thought was the meaning of my life … to make people happy.  It doesn’t make sense that I did that.  I felt like I was a caring person.  Someone who would wanna make people happy.  I might have caused lifelong issues for these people and that is something I have to live with for the rest of my life.  If I can find a way to make the most of this then maybe that is how I can try to redeem myself in society …”
40	I consider that your remorse is also evident in that you have indicated a willingness to undertake further counselling, as well as the administration of invasive and confronting anti-libidinal medication.  To my mind, this demonstrates that you are seriously wanting to address the problems which caused you to offend in the way that you have done.  In each of the expert reports which have been tendered on the plea, you have openly discussed your issues with the psychiatrist or psychologist, and I am satisfied that you have developed a greater level of insight into your offending through the treatment which you have undertaken with both Dr Bowden for some 18 months, and subsequently here in Victoria with Mr Burrows.  Indeed, as previously mentioned, Dr Darjee, in his assessment in February of this year, noted that you show a greater level of insight into your offending at this stage than most men who have committed these type of offences.  
41	It is also in your favour that you do not have any other conditions or an attitude which is assessed as being a barrier to effective treatment.  Dr Sorotos and Dr Darjee agree that you have a high risk of sexual re-offending albeit that Dr Darjee opined that it would be more likely to be a non-contact offence and would unlikely be a penetrative offence.  They agree that you meet the criteria for a Paedophilic disorder.  Also, given your high level of sexual pre-occupation, hypersexuality and use of sex to cope with problems arising from your social anxiety and avoidant personality traits, you also satisfy the criteria for a Compulsive Sexual Behaviour Disorder.  Dr Sorotos also considered that you suffered an Alcohol Abuse Disorder, albeit currently in remission.  
42	In the light of these factors, I consider it imperative to seize the opportunity as soon as possible to have you undertake both psychological and pharmacological treatment to address your significant issues.  Both Dr Sorotos and Dr Darjee agree that the Victorian prison system does not offer an integrated treatment program that would best address your needs.  I am firmly of the view that the opinions of Dr Sorotos and Dr Darjee should be adopted to maximise the opportunity of your rehabilitation in the context of you being willing to undertake such treatment.  The only service which can provide such integrated treatment is the Problem Behaviour Program at the Victorian Institute of Forensic Mental Health, and it is in the interests of the protection of the community that you be given the optimal treatment available to assist with your rehabilitation.  Clearly, it is in your own interests as well.
43	Through 18 months of treatment from Dr Bowden in Queensland, followed by in excess of 12 months of regular counselling from Mr Burrows here in Victoria, you have covered much of the content of the Sex Offender Program which is available in prison.  A recent report from Mr Burrows, dated 4 March 2022, confirms that you have continued to participate under his guidance in the Sex Offender Treatment Program and engaged in a positive manner.  He notes that you have made additional progress relating to your contact offending, enhancing your social and coping skills, victim empathy and relapse prevention.  You also continue to express remorse and told Mr Burrows that you were “shattered to recognise the harm [you] caused” and that you “should have quit teaching as soon as [you] first recognised [your] problems.”  However, he noted that you continue to have significant difficulty abstaining from deviant sexual fantasies and he considers that this underpins the entrenched nature of your psycho-sexual pathology. 
44	In the light of the comments by Mr Burrows and those made by Dr Sorotos and Dr Darjee, I consider that the sex offender treatment available in custody is unlikely to be of great assistance to you because it would not be integrated with medical treatment or geared towards giving you individualised assistance for your social anxiety and intimacy problems.
45	I must say that despite the long-term nature of your offending, now that your problems have been identified and have been the subject of treatment over a period in excess of three and a half years since you were first treated by Dr Bowden in Queensland on 30 August 2018, and despite the fact that a paedophilic disorder is difficult to treat, I consider that the material before me supports the opinion expressed by Dr Bowden back then that you can be rehabilitated.  Dr Darjee considered you to be an ideal candidate for anti-libidinal medication which he considers “is very likely to be effective and to significantly reduce [your] risk of reoffending.”   He also considered that your prospects are more positive because of your high level of intelligence, willingness to engage in treatment, excellent insight, deep remorse and positive social support systems.
46	Each of your parents have stood by you, as demonstrated by their letters of support tendered at the plea hearing.  Each of them is prepared to offer you accommodation upon your release.  Your brother, Christopher, like your parents, has been in regular contact via telephone and Zoom meetings since you have been in custody.  Like your parents, he also attests to the more positive aspects of your personality and the generous volunteering that you had undertaken as a basketball coach in the community.  In addition, your former sister-in-law, Dayane Candido Dos Santos, states that, by nature, you are a helpful and supportive person and she would be willing to offer you a cleaning job in her business.  In addition, Susan Kellock, who is a nurse and who knew you from your secondary school and lived in the same suburb close to your family home, states that she has known you all your life and comments on your sincere and deep remorse for your offending in the communications which she has had with you during your time in custody.  She states her view that you have always been a very caring, kind and gentle person, and a conscientious and generous coach and mentor in basketball, as well as volunteering at the local church.  She states that you continue to have her full support.
47	In sentencing you, I am mindful of the sentencing principles applicable to Child Abuse Material offences of this kind as outlined in DPP v D’Alessandro and DPP (Cth) v Garside and I have had regard to the descriptions of the material found on your personal hard drive which is annexed to the prosecution opening.  Your overall offending spans a period in excess of a decade; the total number of images involved overall by you is 241, albeit that there is an overlap between charges, particularly the 92 files which form part of Charge 1 and Charge 5; the bulk of the material falls into Category 1 of the ANVIL categorisation scheme, however, it is clear that the lower classification of images or videos does not necessarily reduce the objective gravity of offending which must be assessed in its entire context.  The material depicts a number of different children, many of whom appear to be of infant or primary school age.  Approximately six of the victims appear to have been students at a school where you taught, and the others are unknown; leaving aside charges 2 and 3, none of the children depicted in the images were actually subjected to sexual acts which have been superimposed by you editing film, but the disturbing impact of the knowledge that you filmed yourself sexually penetrating a child sex doll dressed in the school uniform of Sconeglen Primary School with photos of your students on a mask worn by the doll, should not be underestimated.  Clearly, the purchase of covert filming devices, the child sex doll and clothing and the filming and editing undertaken by you demonstrate a great deal of planning and organisation by you in committing the offences.
48	As I have previously stated, there is no suggestion that the material was produced by you other than for your personal use, and there is no evidence that you proposed to further distribute it or make any profit from your production of child pornography.  The images possessed by you which you had accessed via the internet still comprise an offence because it is recognised that, were it not for people like you providing a market, then the distributors of child pornography would not have an outlet for their deviant material.  
49	I have already commented upon the fact that the 92 files which comprise almost the entirety of the charge of production, Charge 1, are also a significant part of the possession charge, Charge 5.  Also, seven videos which are part of Charge 5, which had been produced by you, had already been the subject of a charge of production of child abuse material in Queensland for which you had already been sentenced.  The possession of it was of a somewhat technical nature insofar as you had already been arrested in Queensland for such production and were unable to access it, although you technically possessed it.  However, it is relevant that the 92 files comprising the charge of production, Charge 1, had been produced over almost a 10-year period from 14 September 2007 to 30 June 2017.  I have also noted that all 32 videos forming part of Charge 4 had been the subject of a possession charge in Queensland.
50	The principle of totality must be recognised in relation to a number of factors:  both of the commonality of material on charges on the indictment and also with respect to Queensland charges for which you have been sentenced.  Also it must be recognised, in relation to the fact that, since the bulk of the offending for which I must sentence you occurred, you have served a total of two and a half years in custody in Queensland for similar offending between 6 July 2018 and 14 January 2021.  Indeed, you still have a period of parole attached to that Queensland sentence which will not elapse until 22 September 2023.
51	Whilst the charges of indecent act (Charges 2 and 3) involve touching of the vaginal area or buttocks over the top of your victims’ clothing, it is an aggravating feature of that offending that you were a teacher at the school of your two victims, and Charge 2 involves some six incidents of offending over a six-month period.  It was brazen offending in the presence of other students.  Charge 3 involved inducements or rewards by way of chocolates, was persistent for a short time, in that you did not cease immediately when your victim asked you to do so, and, you later remonstrated with your young victim for shouting “shit” after the incident of offending, which apparently made your victim feel that she was unable to tell anyone because she would get into trouble.
52	In sentencing you, I note that you have no prior criminal history, although this carries less weight in your favour than it might otherwise have done given the period of time over which the offending for which I must sentence you has taken place.  Indeed, you would not have been in a position to be employed as a teacher and have access to your students who were the subject of your offending, had it not been for your prior good character.
53	Nevertheless, you have cooperated with police and admitted your offending from the outset, and pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity.  I have already indicated that I regard your pleas as being truly remorseful ones.  Further, I note that they were entered during a period where restrictions occasioned by the COVID-19 pandemic made it almost impossible to conduct criminal trials in the State of Victoria.  Accordingly, your pleas of guilty in these circumstances have a higher utilitarian value than otherwise.  For these reasons, you are entitled to a high discount upon the sentence which otherwise would have been imposed.
54	In addition, I take into account that for the entire period that you have been in custody in Victoria you have been subject to the restrictions occasioned by the pandemic.  This necessitated an initial period of 14 days of isolation, a lack of contact visits with family and friends, and a severe restriction on the availability of programs, as well as restrictions on out of cell time.  I take these matters into account, as well as the fact that I consider your time in custody is likely to have been moderately more difficult because of your social anxiety and preference for isolation, as opined by Dr Sorotos.
55	In sentencing you, I note that pursuant to s6C(3) of the Sentencing Act 1991, your convictions in Queensland are factors relevant to a consideration of whether you are a serious offender, and you fall to be sentenced as a serious sexual offender on all the charges for which I must sentence you.  Pursuant to s6F, I cause to be entered in the records of the court that in sentencing you for each offence you are sentenced as a serious sexual offender.  Further, pursuant to s6D, having determined that the gravity of your offending is such that only an immediate custodial sentence is justified, in determining the length of that sentence I must regard the protection of the community from you as the principal purpose for which it is imposed, although clearly, denunciation, general and specific deterrence and just punishment obviously are important sentencing considerations.  Although s6D enables a disproportionate sentence to be imposed,  I do not consider that this is an appropriate course in this case.  I note that the prosecution does not submit that such a course should be adopted.  You have shown remorse and a preparedness to address your problems which arise from a complex interaction of personality and psycho-sexual factors.  It should be acknowledged that your hyper-sexual arousal and deviant fantasies continue to cause you personal distress and you have indicated that you are willing to take anti-libidinal treatment for them.  Finally, s6E provides that unless otherwise directed by a court, each sentence is to be served cumulatively.  However, I do not consider this to be just in the circumstances, taking into account in particular the principle of totality to which I have already referred.
56	It is plain that over a 10-year period the complexity of your psychosocial make-up led to you becoming increasingly obsessed with satisfying your hypersexual needs by use of child pornography.  This obsession escalated in intensity and frequency to the point where child abuse material constructed by others was not enough for you.  You went to extreme lengths of enlivening your fantasy by inserting yourself into images in order to get as close to the feeling of a real live act as possible.  Although this, alarmingly, involved children entrusted to your care in your role as a teacher, there has not been any escalation in actual contact offending to involve penetrative offending and Dr Darjee considers that this would be unlikely in your case.  It is pertinent to note that, since the end date of offences comprising Charge 3, namely 31 August 2016, there was no contact offending prior to you being arrested by police in Queensland nearly two years later on 6 July 2018.  Nor is there any escalation over the period of offending, up until your arrest, of you actually subjecting any child to the degradation of being actually filmed in a pornographic way or of you distributing the child pornography that you had made, either in exchange for other child abuse material or for profit.
57	I have already expressed my concern that you be given the most efficacious treatment as soon as possible.  Although the gravity of your offending is not such that I consider a combination sentence would be a suitable disposition, it is my carefully considered hope that by setting a relatively low non-parole period, you may be eligible for parole which would enable you to be released to embark upon integrated pharmacological and psychological treatment by attending the Forensicare Problem Behaviour Program at the Community Forensic Mental Health Service for which you have been assessed as suitable by Dr Darjee.  Clearly, you will require a great deal of support if the Parole Board grants you parole, but the fact that you have family support and accommodation and an offer of employment are positive factors for your rehabilitation, as is your willingness to engage in treatment.  I consider that the interests of the community will not be best served by simply punishing you by a long sentence of imprisonment.  That end is best served by the only effective rehabilitation program available which is in the community, not in prison.  Hence, the relatively low non-parole period.
58	On Charge 1, production of child pornography, you are convicted and sentenced to be imprisoned for a period of three years and three months.
59	On Charge 2, committing an indecent act with a child under the age of 16, you are convicted and sentenced to be imprisoned for a period of 12 months.
60	On Charge 3, committing an indecent act with a child under the age of 16, you are convicted and sentenced to be imprisoned for a period of three months.
61	On Charge 4, producing child abuse material, you are convicted and sentenced to be imprisoned for a period of 20 months.
62	On Charge 5, possession of child abuse material, you are convicted and sentenced to be imprisoned for a period of nine months.
63	The base sentence is that imposed on Charge 1.  I direct that three months of the sentence imposed on Charge 2, one month of the sentence imposed on Charge 3, 12 months of the sentence imposed on Charge 4, and one month of the sentence imposed on Charge 5 be served cumulatively upon the base sentence of three years and three months.  
64	The total effective sentence is thus four years and eight months.
65	I direct that you serve a period of 19 months before becoming eligible for parole.  I declare a period of 434 days pre-sentence detention to be time reckoned as already served under the sentence imposed this day.
66	As you have been found guilty of three or more Class 2 offences, pursuant to the provisions of the Sex Offenders Registration Act 2004, you are a registrable offender and attract a reporting period pursuant to that legislation for the rest of your life.
67	Pursuant to s6AAA of the Sentencing Act, I state that had it not been for your pleas of guilty, the total effective sentence imposed would have been six years and six months with a non-parole period of four years and four months.
68	On Charges 1, 4 and 5, I order, pursuant to section 78(1) of the Confiscation Act 1997, the forfeiture to the State of the property referred to in the Schedule, namely a personal hard drive, a childlike sex doll in school uniform, ten childlike masks and three covert watch cameras, and I further direct that it be placed in the custody of the Chief Commissioner of Police and be held by him until 28 days from this date or the conclusion of any appeal proceedings where it may be tested and/or analysed and then destroyed.
69	I further order on those charges, pursuant to section 78(1) of the Confiscation Act 1997 that the property referred to in the Schedule, namely 17 School CD's/DVD's, several photographs of children, the accused’s diary, a black laptop and charger, a red bag containing children's clothing and a GoPro camera with selfie device be forfeited to the Minister.
---