R v Pollard [2023] NSWDC 36
Given the high objective seriousness and moral culpability of the offences, the quantity and depraved nature of the child abuse material, the use of encrypted messaging and concealment, the offender's prior sexual offending and continuing risk, and the paramount need for general deterrence and significant need for specific deterrence, no sentence other than full-time imprisonment was appropriate. The late guilty pleas warranted a 10% utilitarian discount and the offender's childhood abuse diminished moral culpability only moderately. Applying totality, an aggregate sentence of 5 years and 6 months imprisonment with a non-parole period of 3 years and 6 months was appropriate.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 24 February 2023
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Sentence / Sentencing After Pleas of Guilty
- Outcome
- The offender was convicted and sentenced to an aggregate full-time custodial sentence of 5 years and 6 months imprisonment with a non-parole period of 3 years and 6 months, and his mobile phone was forfeited to the Commonwealth.
- Legal Topics
- ['child Abuse Material' 'use of Carriage Service to Transmit Child Abuse Material' 'possession or Control of Child Abuse Material' 'reporting Obligations' 'general Deterrence' 'specific Deterrence' 'aggregate Sentence' 'forfeiture']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentence / Sentencing After Pleas of Guilty
Legal Issues
- 1 ['What sentence should be imposed for transmitting child abuse material using a carriage service contrary to s474.22(1) of the Criminal Code 1995 (Cth).' 'What sentence should be imposed for possessing or controlling child abuse material in a data storage device after using a carriage service to obtain or access it contrary to s474.22A(1) of the Criminal Code 1995 (Cth).' 'How the objective seriousness of each offence should be assessed, including the nature, quantity and concealment of the material.' "What weight should be given to the offender's pleas of guilty, insight, prior criminal history, childhood trauma, risk of reoffending and prospects of rehabilitation." 'Whether an aggregate full-time custodial sentence, accumulation between counts, a non-parole period, rehabilitation recommendation and forfeiture order should be made.']
Ratio Decidendi
Given the high objective seriousness and moral culpability of the offences, the quantity and depraved nature of the child abuse material, the use of encrypted messaging and concealment, the offender's prior sexual offending and continuing risk, and the paramount need for general deterrence and significant need for specific deterrence, no sentence other than full-time imprisonment was appropriate. The late guilty pleas warranted a 10% utilitarian discount and the offender's childhood abuse diminished moral culpability only moderately. Applying totality, an aggregate sentence of 5 years and 6 months imprisonment with a non-parole period of 3 years and 6 months was appropriate.
Court Disposition
The offender was convicted and sentenced to an aggregate full-time custodial sentence of 5 years and 6 months imprisonment with a non-parole period of 3 years and 6 months, and his mobile phone was forfeited to the Commonwealth.
Orders
- ['The offender is convicted of Count 1, an offence pursuant to s474.22(1) of the Criminal Code of transmitting child abuse material using a carriage service.' 'The offender is convicted of Count 2, an offence pursuant to s474.22A(1) of the Criminal Code of possessing or controlling child abuse material in a data...
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment