R v Purves (No 2) [2020] NSWDC 211
The offender's conduct involved multiple very young overseas victims, repeated Skype communications, requests and payment, and child pornography material, making full-time custody necessary and general deterrence significant. However, counts 1 to 7 were assessed as low to mid-range rather than mid-range, count 8 as below mid-range because the offender's prospects of travelling overseas were remote, the s 16BA matters had a relatively limited impact because they formed part of the same course of conduct, and the offender's early pleas, remorse, insight, lack of prior similar convictions, deprived childhood, PTSD, depression and alcoholism moderated sentence to a limited degree. Applying...
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 13 March 2020
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Sentence for Commonwealth Child Sex and Child Pornography Offences / Fresh Sentence Hearing After Remittal by the Court of Criminal Appeal
- Outcome
- The offender was convicted of each offence and sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 7 years commencing on 24 May 2018, with a non-parole period of 4 years and 2 months expiring on 23 July 2022.
- Legal Topics
- ['child Sex Offences' 'child Abuse Material' 'using Carriage Service for Child Pornography Material or Child Abuse Material' 'federal Offenders' 'objective Seriousness' 'general Deterrence' 'section 16 BA Schedule Matters' 'aggregate Sentence' 'non Parole Period' 'guilty Plea Discount' 'mental Illness' 'alcoholism' 'deprived Childhood']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentence for Commonwealth Child Sex and Child Pornography Offences / Fresh Sentence Hearing After Remittal by the Court of Criminal Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 ['What sentence should be imposed for multiple Commonwealth child sex and child pornography offences committed over Skype with children overseas.' "How the objective seriousness of counts 1 to 8 should be characterised, including the relevance of the children's ages, vulnerability, multiple victims, payment, planning and live Skype communications." "What effect should be given to the offender's early guilty pleas, remorse, lack of prior convictions, deprived childhood, alcoholism, post-traumatic stress disorder and depression." 'How the s 16BA schedule matters should affect the overall sentence.' 'How totality, accumulation and the need for general deterrence should be applied in imposing an aggregate sentence and non-parole period.']
Ratio Decidendi
The offender's conduct involved multiple very young overseas victims, repeated Skype communications, requests and payment, and child pornography material, making full-time custody necessary and general deterrence significant. However, counts 1 to 7 were assessed as low to mid-range rather than mid-range, count 8 as below mid-range because the offender's prospects of travelling overseas were remote, the s 16BA matters had a relatively limited impact because they formed part of the same course of conduct, and the offender's early pleas, remorse, insight, lack of prior similar convictions, deprived childhood, PTSD, depression and alcoholism moderated sentence to a limited degree. Applying...
Court Disposition
The offender was convicted of each offence and sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 7 years commencing on 24 May 2018, with a non-parole period of 4 years and 2 months expiring on 23 July 2022.
Orders
- ['The offender is convicted of each offence.' 'Count 1, taking into account the s16BA schedule matters: indicative sentence of 4 years, 6 months after a 25% discount.' 'Count 2: indicative sentence of 3 years, 7 months after a 25% discount.' 'Count 3: indicative sentence of 3 years, 7 months after a 25% discount.'...
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