STATE OF TASMANIA v KAINE ALLEN JENKINS 22 NOVEMBER 2022
COMMENTS ON PASSING SENTENCE WOOD J
Kaine Allen Jenkins has pleaded guilty to possession of child exploitation material contrary to s 130C of the Criminal Code, possess a prohibited firearm when not the holder of a firearm licence of the appropriate category contrary to s 9(1A)(a) of the Firearms Act, and two summary offences, a charge of possess bestiality product contrary to s 74(b) of the Classification (Publications, Films and Video Games) Act 1995, and possession of prohibited visual recording contrary to s 13C of the Police Offences Act 1935.
On 10 June 2021 police executed a search warrant at the accused’s home at Mount Direction. His parents telephoned him at work and told him to return home. After the phone call, the defendant smashed his mobile phone and then while driving to house threw it from the car window. The police searched his bedroom and found the following:
- a Lenovo ThinkPad with a non-standard hard drive
- a Seagate ITB HDD
- a Toshiba 128GB SSD
- a 5TB Seagate backup Plus
- a white Lenovo Yoga 300 laptop
- an Apple Ipad
- a realistic gel blaster replica of an M4 carbine rifle
- a realistic gel blaster replica of a Kriss Vector submachine gun
The defendant admitted ownership of all the items which were then seized by police. He admitted downloading some images of child exploitation material onto the laptop. He told police he had also used his phone to download such images and he agreed that he had smashed his phone and thrown it out of the car window. He admitted the “backup Plus” had movies and images on it and that he had downloaded child exploitation material on the ThinkPad, stating he did not do it often.
Police utilised advanced software and located on most of the devices numerous images and videos involving prepubescent children involved in sex acts with adults (Interpol baseline category 1), and other images and videos which were also child exploitation material (Interpol baseline category 2).
The defendant was interviewed by police. He admitted that he had downloaded child exploitation material onto the Lenovo ThinkPad from links from a file sharing website “Mega” which was sent via the social media site “Kik”. He admitted downloading sexualised anime images to the Ipad, stating that he did not know that they were illegal.
He told police he had suffered from periods of blackouts and possibly a multiple personality disorder but that he had not sought medical assistance with respect to these conditions.
In relation to the two gel blasters, the defendant stated that they were his and that he had purchased them over the internet and that he did not know that they were illegal. They were later examined and found to be realistic replicas of firearms capable of fully automatic fire. Therefore as replicas of such firearms they were prohibited firearms to which a licence could not be issued. In any event, even if they were not replicas of prohibited firearms, they qualified as air rifles, for which a licence was required and the defendant was not the holder of a firearms licence.
The devices were later forensically examined. The Ipad was protected by a personal identification number which the defendant provided to police.
The Ipad was found to contain 44 pdf files which contained written material describing sexual intercourse between adult males and children, mostly under 12 years of age. The stories featured themes including incest, rape and grooming of children some of whom were as young as three years old. It also contained 16 unique cartoon images depicting children involved in sexual activity (all category 2 under the Interpol baseline scale).
The Lenovo Yoga 300 contained 431 images of real prepubescent children involved in sexual activities (Interpol baseline category 1) of which 285 were visually unique. Some of these images were of babies or infants involved in sex acts with adult males. It also contained 511 images of which 388 were visually unique (Interpol baseline category 2). These included animated images as well as depictions of children aged approximately 13 years, but below 18 years, engaged in either solo sex acts, acts with other children or with adults. The child exploitation material found on this device, contained file path data linking the material to an Apple account and had been downloaded to or stored on an Apple device such as the phone destroyed by the defendant.
There were 105 images of adult bestiality on this device of which 94 were visually unique.
The Toshiba SSD drive was found to contain 67 images of category 2 child exploitation material, of which 66 were visually unique. These images were mainly, but not all, cartoon images depicting children. There were 85 images of adult bestiality on the drive.
The Lenovo ThinkPad contained 55 images of real prepubescent children involved in sex acts (Interpol baseline category 1) and 16 unique images of pubescent children involved in sex acts (Interpol baseline category 2).
Three images and 22 videos were recovered from this device which depicted covertly recorded images of the defendant’s younger adult sister, including a video of her naked in the family bathroom, recorded without her knowledge. These images and videos are the subject of the summary charge concerning prohibited recording.
The defendant was 21 years of age at the time of offending and is now 23. He has no prior convictions. He has disclosed to his parents the nature of his offending including the conduct relating to his sister. He continues to live with his parents and he has their support. He has no social connections outside his family.
He has a steady employment record. His most recent employment was as a driver of heavy equipment with an engineering company. He lost that job as a result of these charges.
He is described by his counsel, Mr O’Halloran, as having been in a holding pattern since his offending came to light, unemployed and experiencing ongoing depressive symptoms.
He has been assessed by clinical psychologist Dr Georgina O’Donnell and I have her report dated 10 June 2022. She notes the defendant has poor social functioning. She found no clinical evidence to support his assertions of blackouts and possible multiple personality disorder. She has identified the need for “intensive psychological therapy”. She states that in the absence of intensive treatment for his paraphilic interests, Mr Jenkins remains at risk of re-offending.
It should be pointed out, to the defendant’s credit, that he has recognised he needs specialist intervention, and he made significant efforts to arrange that help, starting in October 2021, before Dr O’Donnell’s assessment. However this intervention was very difficult to organise, due to a lack of suitably qualified specialists in the North, compounded by difficulties associated with COVID-19. Finally, in August this year, therapy was able to be organised and the defendant has now attended a number of appointments. These have been provided by an accredited social worker, Laura Cowley, at a youth centre. Whilst beneficial it is not the specialist intervention that Dr O’Donnell has said was necessary. This specialist intervention has recently been arranged by Ms Cowley with clinical psychologist Mr Ian Campbell. Community Corrections have confirmed with the defendant that he is willing to pursue a course of intensive treatment with Mr Campbell.
In the case of all the charges before the Court today, the defendant has either pleaded guilty or given an indication that the charge would resolve by a plea of guilty at an early stage. He co-operated with police. He has shown insight into the need to address the underlying causes of his offending.
I have a report from Community Corrections provided by Mr William Palmer dated 4 November 2022. It is a very useful report and refers to information provided by the defendant which expresses a genuine disgust at his offending behaviour, a wish to be punished and a desire to access treatment. This information is a positive sign for his reform. He is facing up to his wrong-doing, taking responsibility for it and looking to take steps to ensure he never behaves like this again.
Mr Palmer assesses the defendant as suitable for community service and recommends that a period of community supervision be provided to address underlying issues concerning his offending. While I expect that the defendant will be diligent about his treatment, it is appropriate, for a matter such as this, that Community Corrections provide supervision and oversight of that treatment to ensure that he is compliant and doing all he can to address the causes of his offending.
The offending relates to conduct which gives rise to real concern and the need for treatment and supervision. The crime of possess child exploitation material is a very serious matter. The act of possessing that material is a form of encouragement to criminals to abuse children. When such content is viewed and downloaded it perpetuates the harm that is caused to the abused child. General deterrence is a dominant consideration and generally gaol sentences are imposed. In this case, the goal of rehabilitation should also be given weight. The defendant’s youth and his willingness to engage in comprehensive treatment indicate that he has prospects of reforming and of course this in the community’s interest as well as the defendant’s interests. Punishment is needed, but in this particular case an actual gaol sentence is not required.
I record a conviction. In relation to the charge of possession of child exploitation material. I impose a term of imprisonment of eight months, wholly suspended on condition that he not commit an offence punishable by imprisonment for a period of two years from today. As a condition of that suspended sentence he must complete 84 hours of community service work within two years. As a further condition, he is to be subject to the supervision of a probation officer for a period of 18 months. He must comply with the statutory conditions that apply when community service and supervision of a probation officer are imposed as conditions of a suspended sentence. As a further condition of the suspended sentence, he must comply with the community correction order that I impose today on other offences.
For possession of a prohibited firearm, I record a conviction and I impose a community correction order for the operational period of 18 months from today. The statutory core conditions of a community correction order are imposed. These include that the defendant must not during the period of 18 months from today commit an offence punishable by imprisonment. He must report to a probation officer or supervisor at 111-113 Cameron Street, Launceston no later than 4pm today. He must submit to the supervision of a probation officer for a period of 18 months. He must report to a probation officer as required by a probation officer and comply with the reasonable and lawful directions of a probation officer or supervisor for that period, again 18 months. On the remaining summary offences, I record a conviction on each and I impose a community correction order on the same conditions and for the same period.
I make the forfeiture orders sought with respect to the devices seized, described above.