The Court of Criminal Appeal held that the sentencing judge erred in assessing the objective seriousness of a CAM possession offence (sequence 77) as mid-range where the images were all category 2, significantly less serious than category 1 material in related counts, involved some duplication, and substantially overlapped with a separate production offence. The same indicative sentence should not have been fixed for sequence 77 as for sequence 74 given the marked disparity in the nature and volume of material. On re-sentence, the aggregate term was reduced from 10 years to 7 years and 6 months, with the non-parole period reduced from 7 years 6 months to 5 years 3 months, reflecting a below mid-range assessment for sequence 77 and more favourable findings on rehabilitation and remorse.
The full text is available to signed-in members.