A sentencing judge who determines that imprisonment is appropriate must separately and expressly consider alternatives to full-time custody, including ICOs and home detention, before imposing a sentence to be served in full-time custody. Failure to do so constitutes appellable error even where the judge has adequately addressed the threshold question of whether imprisonment (as opposed to a non-custodial penalty) is appropriate. The 'anti-short sentence' provision in s 5(2) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) requires separate and express reasons when imposing a sentence of 6 months or less, and compliance with s 5(1) does not constitute compliance with s 5(2). The proposition that child pornography offences should 'ordinarily' attract full-time custody does not relieve a sentencing judge of the obligation to consider each case individually, including the practical availability of alternatives to full-time custody.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 22 later cases that cite this judgment.
7 of the 22 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.