Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) v WT [2013] NSWLC 33

Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) v WT [2013] NSWLC 33

The defendant possessed material sent and implied to be of a 15 year old girl; Parliament intended possession of material so implied and offensive to be caught regardless of whether it depicted an actual child; none of the statutory defences applied; offence proved.

Parties
Prosecutor: Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW); Defendant: WT
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 December 2013
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Trial Judgment on Liability
Outcome
charge of possession of child abuse material proved; grooming charge dismissed; incite charge previously pleaded guilty; matter adjourned for sentencing
Legal Topics
Child Abuse Material, Interpretation of 'implied to Be', Community Standards, Possess Child Abuse Material, Criminal Liability

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW)

Prosecutor

WT

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Trial Judgment on Liability

  1. 1 Whether the defendant possessed 'child abuse material' as defined by s91FB of the Crimes Act 1900
  2. 2 Legal meaning of 'implied to be' a child in the context of child abuse material
  3. 3 Application of statutory defences under s91HA

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant possessed material sent and implied to be of a 15 year old girl; Parliament intended possession of material so implied and offensive to be caught regardless of whether it depicted an actual child; none of the statutory defences applied; offence proved.

Court Disposition

charge of possession of child abuse material proved; grooming charge dismissed; incite charge previously pleaded guilty; matter adjourned for sentencing

Orders

  • Charge of possess child abuse material (s91H(2) Crimes Act 1900) proved against defendant
  • Charge of grooming (s66EB(2A) Crimes Act 1900) dismissed