The Court of Criminal Appeal held that the sentencing judge did not err in grouping procurement offences into differing bands of objective seriousness based on victim ages, duration of offending and number of files, even where the offences shared broadly similar characteristics. The Court confirmed that the possession offence involved additional criminality beyond the procurement offences, including the depiction of four additional victims and the manner of storage, justifying a separate and partly accumulated sentence. The effective total head sentence of nine years with a three-year non-parole period was found not to be crushing or disproportionate to the totality of the offending, with the non-parole period representing considerable leniency.
The full text is available to signed-in members.