THE KING v KARAN KUMAR 5 JUNE 2026
COMMENTS ON PASSING SENTENCE CUTHBERTSON J
Karan Kumar, you have pleaded guilty to an indictment charging you with a combination of State and Commonwealth crimes. The State crimes are 14 counts of involving a person under the age of 18 years in production of child exploitation material. The Commonwealth offences are 67 counts of engaging in sexual activity with a child using a carriage service, two counts of using a carriage service to transmit child abuse material to yourself, one count of using a carriage service to procure a person under 16 years of age, and one count of possessing or controlling child abuse material obtained or accessed using a carriage service.
In addition, I have been asked to take into account 13 other Commonwealth crimes in accordance with s 16BA of the Crimes Act (Cth), namely one count of causing child pornography material to be transmitted to yourself using a carriage service, five counts of causing child abuse material to be transmitted to yourself using a carriage service, and seven counts of using a carriage service to procure a person under 16 years of age. Each of these other crimes relate to conduct the subject of a Commonwealth charge on the indictment. The result of taking these crimes into account is that a more severe sentence should be imposed on the primary offence than would have been imposed if the additional matter or matters were not taken into account.
These charges relate to offending occurring between 26 August 2018 and 25 May 2023. Your offending principally involves the livestreaming and recording of sexual activity with children. There are 83 separate and identifiable victims of your offending, some of whom reside in Australia and some of whom reside overseas.
The charges of utilising a carriage service to engage in sexual activity involved 67 separate child victims and occurred between 1 October 2018 and 22 May 2023. In respect of these offences, you would engage in livestream videos with the victim children, where they would perform various sexual acts, often at your direction. In respect of this offending, you utilised various social media applications, including Snapchat and Instagram, to communicate online with these victims. You predominately used fake social media profiles and often posed as a teenage boy or girl. You left your microphone and camera turned off on most occasions and told the victims that they did not work.
As noted, there is evidence that on a significant number of occasions you provided direction to the victims while the livestreaming was occurring, including directing them to perform specific sexual acts, insert objects or to direct their camera to film the sexual activity in a particular way. On five occasions, you induced a child victim with money. On one occasion you offered vapes in return for the child engaging in specific live sexual acts. On five occasions you threatened to distribute private sexual material, or to leak videos of private sexual material, if the child did not comply with your request for sexual activity. One of the State charges of producing child exploitation material is a rolled up charge relating to the recordings you made of the offending against these 67 child victims.
The remainder of the State charges of producing child exploitation material relate to an additional 13 child victims. Again, this offending involved your screen recording of interactions with child victims on social media platforms.
In total, 551 videos comprising such material were located on your mobile phone and laptop computer. Of those, 85 were categorised as Category 1 (real pre-pubescent children), and 466 were categorised as Category 2 (all real pubescent or post-pubescent children under 18, the vast majority under 16) in accordance with the Australian Child Abuse Categorisation System. Your possession of these 551 videos is the subject of the charge of possessing child abuse material.
The charge of using a carriage service to procure a child to engage in sexual activity relates to one additional victim. The two charges of cause child abuse material to be transmitted to you relate to two further victims.
The facts of your offending have been provided to me in writing by the prosecution. It is 49 pages long. In addition, prosecution have provided me with detailed sentencing submissions. Those submissions describe your offending as “breathtaking in its volume”. The Commonwealth were unable to identify any directly comparable case due to the significant number of victims and recorded interactions that are involved.
Your offending first came to the attention of Queensland police on 3 June 2021. In August 2020, you set up an Instagram account in the name “Daniel.farell11” using an email address Daniel.farrell****** which was created by you in June 2013. Between 1 January and 3 June 2021, you communicated with a 13 year old girl, V11 using that Instagram account and Google Hangouts. The conduct you engaged in with this child is the subject of the charge of using a carriage service to procure a person under 16 years of age to engage in sexual activity (count 11). There is also a s 16BA charge of using a carriage service to solicit child abuse material associated with this count (item C). You exchanged messages with the child, during which you repeatedly requested video calls with her, and/or a video of her, so you could ejaculate to get rid of your “pain”. You referred to the child as your “life partner” and your “love”. You requested to do a video call with her so you could masturbate. You discussed getting the child to run away with you and told her you had a bag full of money. You sent a photograph of the purported bag of money. On two occasions you asked the child to send videos to you. One of those was a request for the child to send a video of her breasts. These requests for videos are the subject of the s 16BA offence.
The matter was reported to Queensland police. The child participated in a recorded interview with police and told them she met you on a chat site called “Omegle” before moving to Instagram. She appeared to consider that you were both in a relationship.
Investigations ultimately determined that the IP address used to contact the victim indicated that the person responsible for the offending resided at your residential address. A warrant was executed at that address on 25 May 2023. You were asked about the Daniel Farrell email address. You told police your personal email address had been hacked about two years prior and the name was changed to “Daniel Farrell”. You said you did not know Daniel Farrell and had never used that address.
During a search of your home, police located your mobile phone in the bathroom. It required facial recognition of your face to unlock it. The Snapchat application was located on the phone. Your phone was connected to two Snapchat accounts, one of which appeared to be mostly innocuous. There was a second profile with a name “Jason Perkins” and a username “Jason_perk22”. This profile had been used to contact a number of girls, many of whom appeared to be young. In one conversation, “Jason Perkins” asserted he was 15. The conversations sighted also indicated that “Perkins” was offering vapes to children.
Police also located a secure folder on your phone. It required your fingerprint to unlock it. There were a number of photographs and videos stored within that folder. Of note, there was an image of your wife and a short video showing you engaging in intimate acts with another adult.
In the same folder, police saw at least 18 videos depicting pubescent females exposing their genitals or performing solo sexual acts, including with the use of objects, to camera. The child abuse videos were located across three separate folders within the secure folder. They appeared to have been screen recorded from social media applications, believed to be Snapchat and Instagram. The beginning of at least one of those screen recordings showed a background identical to the startup screen of your mobile phone, suggesting they had been recorded from your phone.
You eventually provided your PIN to your mobile phone. You told police that you did not know the PIN for the secure folder, which was not the same as that for your phone. You did, however, assist police to reset the phone using your Samsung account which ultimately facilitated the examination of the phone. Two laptop computers were located during the search. All devices were seized by police.
At the conclusion of the search, you were arrested for possession of child abuse material obtained using a carriage service. You were interviewed. You admitted that the phone was yours and that you were the only user of the phone. You told police you only used Facebook for work and Whatsapp to chat with family. You also told police that you only used Snapchat to communicate with your wife. You again denied any knowledge of the “Daniel Farrell” accounts and repeated your hacking explanation. You were unable to explain how your mobile phone had been linked to those accounts, or how they had been accessed from an IP address geo-located to your residential address. You could not, or perhaps more accurately in light of your pleas, would not explain the “Jason Perkins” profile on your Snapchat account. You denied contacting children.
You agreed your fingerprint was required to unlock the secure folder on your phone, but said you had never used it. You were unable, or unwilling, to explain how the picture of your wife found its way to the secure folder or, indeed, the intimate video of yourself with the other adult. You acknowledged it was a video of you that had been recorded before your wife came to Tasmania and before you had owned the phone. You claimed to have no idea how the phone worked.
The subsequent investigation identified that you utilised software to screen record the contents of your mobile phone screen so that you could retain your interactions with children over applications such as Snapchat or Instagram. These recordings were then stored on either your mobile phone or laptop. Utilisation of this software meant that the messages and images sent by applications such as Snapchat (which by default become inaccessible to recipients) were able to be recorded and retained without alerting the sender. On a number of occasions, you inadvertently captured your own face in the recording prior to turning off your camera. On other occasions, the recording shows that the phone user is receiving telephone calls from your wife. You also recorded yourself receiving emails at an email address in your name.
Tokens related to another Snapchat account in the name of “Laney Laney” were identified on your phone. This account was also used to communicate with some of the victims. Your computer also showed use of the “Daniel Farrell” email account.
The outline of your offending in the Statement of Facts runs to 260 paragraphs. You have not disputed the facts. The Crown’s statement of facts includes detailed descriptions of the recordings. It is not desirable for the purposes of these Comments on Passing Sentence to set those descriptions out in full. I have had regard to them. It is, however, necessary to set out some of the details of your conduct in order to expose the grave nature of your offending and explain the reasons for the imposition of the significant custodial sentence that I intend to pass.
In dealing with the facts of this offending, I will deal with them in groups starting with the State offences of producing child exploitation material contrary to s 130 of the Criminal Code (Tas). Thirteen of those offences do not overlap with the Commonwealth charges of engaging in sexual activity with a child using a carriage service. All charges relate to you making video recordings of your live interactions with a child over social media. Each of these 13 charges concerns a separate child victim. By your pleas of guilty, you have admitted that in respect of each count you have involved a person under the age of 18 years in the production of child exploitation material in circumstances where you knew or ought to have known that the material is or will be child exploitation material. Child exploitation material relevantly means material that depicts a person who is or who appears to be under the age of 18 years engaged in sexual activity, or in a sexual context. The video recordings you made constitute child exploitation material due to the sexualised depiction of children involved. In respect of counts 1, 14, 17, 23, 27, 34 and 37, you produced multiple recordings amounting to child exploitation material of the relevant child victims.
Count 23 concerns a pubescent child aged under 16 named V23. On 10 November 2021, you recorded two videos of your interactions with her via Instagram. The content of these videos meets the definition of child exploitation material.
The videos relating to counts 1, 3, 17, 34, 37, 40, 44 and 59 depict the children exposing their breasts. In respect of five of those charges, this has occurred at times at your direction or with your encouragement. Two of the children involved were pre- or barely pubescent. The period of offending covered by these charges took place between 26 August 2018 and 22 July 2022.
The videos relating to counts 27, 51 and 67 depict the children exposing their breasts and genitals. The offending in count 67 involved you using a profile image of two female cheerleaders with your microphone and camera off for the most part. The child victim of that offence was barely pubescent. Count 27 relates to multiple recordings made over the course of a three week period. The period of offending covered by these charges took place between 28 November 2021 and 2 October 2022.
The five recordings related to count 14 were made between 26 July and 14 November 2021 and depict a young person under the age of 18 engaged in solo sex acts, including at your direction.
As previously noted, the Commonwealth charges of utilising a carriage service to engage in sexual activity with a child contrary to s 474.25A(1), concern 67 separate child victims. By your pleas of guilty, you have admitted that, in respect of each count, you engaged in sexual activity with a child under 16 years of age using a carriage service. You engaged in sexual activity with the relevant children because they engaged in activity of a sexual or indecent nature in your presence, namely by way of a means of communication which allowed you to see and/or hear the children while they were engaged in that activity. The activity engaged in by the children in your presence included the sexualised presentation of their bodies to camera, exposure of their breasts, genitals and anus, masturbation (with and without objects) (14 counts), solo sexual activity (with and without objects) (42 counts), penetration of the vagina or anus with objects (11 counts), sexual activity with other children (4 counts), including, in one case, fellatio, and sexual and/or indecent activity with a dog (2 counts). 56 of the charges involve multiple interactions of a sexual or indecent nature with the relevant child. Each of the interactions is the subject of a recording. In respect of one child victim, you made 41 recordings of your interactions. The children involved were as young as 10 years old. Eleven were pre-pubescent or barely pubescent. There is evidence of you providing direction to children in respect of 41 of these counts, at times in extremely explicit terms. You used inducements and pressure to ensure the child engaged in the conduct you sought in respect of 19 of the counts. The inducements included promises of money and vapes. On a number of occasions they involved threats to make available intimate images or videos or to notify others if the child did not comply. You exerted extreme pressure in some cases to force compliance with your demands, including when a child victim told you the act you directed was causing them pain. The offending encompassed by these charges took place between 1 October 2018 and 24 May 2023. Another Commonwealth s 16BA crime is required to be taken into account in relation to ten of these counts.
Count 2 on the indictment, which is a further State offence of producing child exploitation material, is a rolled up charge relating to the 67 victims of the offences of engaging in sexual activity with a child using a carriage service. It concerns your production of the videos using the screen recording software to film the contents of your mobile phone screen when you were engaging in sexual activity with the children. This offending occurred between 1 October 2018 and 22 May 2023.
Count 19, one of causing child abuse material to be transmitted to yourself, concerns a pubescent child aged under 16, named V19. On 2 October 2021, you interacted with the child via Instagram and recorded two videos, which included one where the child transmitted child abuse material of herself to you. The video records that you were using the “Daniel.Farrell123” Instagram account.
Count 49 is a further charge of causing child abuse material to be transmitted to yourself, which involves a pubescent child under the age of 16, known as V49. On 10 June 2022, you recorded two videos of your interactions with her via Instagram. One showed a series of messages where you asked what she would send you if she loved you. The child sent you two videos of herself exposing her breasts.
By your pleas of guilty to these two charges, you admit that you intended to cause material to be transmitted to yourself and were at least aware of a substantial risk that the material would constitute child abuse material. The definitions of child abuse material relevant to these charges include: material that depicts a person who is or appears to be under the age of 18 years engaged in or appearing to be engaged in a sexual pose or sexual activity in a way that reasonable persons would regard as being offensive in all the circumstances; and material the dominant characteristic of which is the depiction, for a sexual purpose, of the breasts of a female person who is under 18 years of age in a way that reasonable persons would regard as being offensive in all the circumstances. The circumstances suggest that you were well aware that the material you sought would be of that character.
The final charge on the indictment, count 85, is one of possessing child abuse material. It concerns your possession of 551 videos, comprising child abuse material over the two devices, namely your mobile phone and laptop. These are also the videos that are the subject of producing child exploitation material charges.
Your offending is objectively extremely serious. There are a large number of individual victims of your offending, namely 83 girls aged between 10 and about 15. Many of those children are aged around 10 or 12 years old. The children were pre-pubescent, as well as pubescent. In addition, the offending occurred over a substantial period of time, that is over a period of four years and nine months. It only appeared to have ceased on your arrest.
Some of the individual charges are in and of themselves extremely serious given the nature of the conduct engaged in by you, and, in some cases, over an extended period of time. Many of the individual charges involve multiple instances of offending, including over lengthy periods of time. In the case of the offending involving V45, there are at least 20 occasions, across 20 video calls, over a period of approximately one month.
At other times, offences were committed against several children over a similar period of time. For example, over a 15 day period in April 2022, you offended against five children on 13 occasions (charges 40-44). You also offended against one child on numerous occasions, over a period of approximately 12 months (charge 29). During that period of time, you also offended against approximately 50 other children (charges 30-79).
The age disparity between you and your victims was substantial. You clearly took advantage of the power you had as a result of that age disparity. The children, by virtue of their young age, were especially vulnerable to you. At times, you secured their compliance with your demands with threats, aggression and inducements: see count 75 by way of example.
You were demanding on occasions in the face of the child’s fear of being interrupted by family members, or in circumstances where they were experiencing pain. You induced a child to engage in a sexual activity by offering money, and on another occasion, vapes: see charges 82 and 39. There is also evidence of you offering a play station to one of the children.
It is also apparent that you principally used deception to secure the children’s compliance. It appears you lied about your age by representing you were a child to several victims and, on a number of occasions, purported to be a young female. By keeping your microphone and camera off during offending, this made sure the children could not tell that you were an adult.
On at least one occasion, you recorded the conduct, despite expressly assuring the child involved that you would not do so (count 79). Your use of the screen recording software meant that it was unlikely the children realised they were being recorded.
As to the conduct itself, as I have already noted, much of it was very serious in and of itself. A large number of the children sexually penetrated themselves in the video calls and did so expressly at your direction on many occasions. You directed the children on many occasions on how to engage in sexual activity, including how to penetrate themselves, how to position their bodies and where to place cameras. You sent V84 pornographic images or videos to demonstrate what you wanted the child to do.
The offending involving animals is also extremely serious. On at least one of those occasions, you provided some direction on what to do. On one occasion, the offending involved a child urinating and defecating (count 77).
The offending also included ones where children would perform sex acts on other children: counts 29 and 64.
By recording the children engaging in sexual activity, a record of your abuse was created. This is aggravating. You possessed a large amount of child abuse material in the form of 551 videos. The nature of that material is depraved and serious, as was your offending. The videos, in particular, are a very serious form of child abuse material, given they depict abuse in real time. The offending involved the humiliation, degradation and sexual exploitation of these young girls. There is no question this offending was committed solely for your sexual gratification. This is evident from the explicit nature of your messages captured by the recordings, as well as the instances where you are recorded masturbating during the course of your offending.
There is a presumption of harm that applies to these victims by virtue of their young age, and their exposure to premature sexualisation, including to the making of sexualised imagery over the internet. The harm to one particular victim, V45, has been described in a victim impact statement provided by her mother. In that statement, she outlines that prior to this offending, V45 was “a confident, bubbly and extremely social girl who was well liked amongst her circle of friends and peers. She had a number of interests, both at school and at home. During the course of this offending, she began to withdraw from social settings, often becoming emotional, overwhelmed and aggressive, which was out of character for her. She completely isolated herself from her friends, her family and activities that brought her much joy.” Her mother noted that her demeanour changed drastically. She presented with her head down, her hood up and her long hair covering her face. Once the offending was discovered, it transpired that V45 was terrified to be seen and was having to deal with her experiences alone as she was too scared and ashamed to speak up. Now, as a teenager, noting that V45 was 10 at the time of your offending, her mum explains that she experiences bouts of anxiety, which affects her confidence. She struggles in social settings and has trust issues, which were not present prior to any of this. Her family is working together to try and support each other to deal with these impacts, whilst ensuring that V45 feels safe, comfortable and happy in life again. It goes without saying that no child and no family should have to deal with aftermath of such heinous conduct.
What is particularly serious about your conduct is that it involved you directly engaging with a large number of children, albeit online, and causing them to engage in sexual activity. Your conduct was not only depraved and revolting, but it constituted an horrendous breach of each of these children’ s privacy and trust. You have clearly set about engaging in a course of conduct which involved you exploiting the anonymity of the internet and manipulated the children via deceit, inducements and threats. The fact you were able to access so many children in this way highlights the very real dangers faced by children and young people when accessing social media platforms. You were able to trap them into engaging with you sexually. Some of the children involved clearly felt powerless, afraid and anxious about what you were demanding they do. You callously exerted significant pressure and resorted to sextortion type threats on occasion that must have been utterly terrifying to the children unfortunate enough to have been the victims of your conduct. The apparent ease with which you were able to satisfy your revolting sexual interest in these children only serves to highlight the reasons why it has been necessary for our Government to take steps to attempt to limit children’s unmediated access to social media platforms. The conduct of people like yourself makes the online environment an incredibly unsafe space for children who often lack the sophistication to identify the sorts of ruses you engaged in and the power to take steps to remove themselves from harmful engagements. It is clear that a number of your victims were distressed and unwilling participants in this activity. The information before me does not allow me to conclude that was the case in every instance. The laws that criminalise your conduct are there to protect children from premature sexualisation and recognise the harm that such conduct causes. The fact you produced a record of your offending is a particularly aggravating feature of your conduct. Your conduct was predatory and depraved.
You are 34 years old. You are married. You are a citizen of India and currently hold a Bridging Visa to reside in Australia. I understand you are a dependant of your wife in a visa sense. Immediately prior to me remanding you in custody, you had not been working. Over the previous period, you had worked as an Uber Eats driver and had been working in the car rental industry. You were born and grew up in India. Your mother died in 2009 from a heart attack, in her 40’s. Since you have lived in Australia, your wages have not been particularly high. You experienced considerable pressure from your family to provide large sums of money back to them in India. I have been told that your family have now disowned you and want nothing to do with you following your arrest for these offences.
Your counsel accepts that it is inevitable you are going to face a very lengthy period of imprisonment as a result of this offending. The main mitigating factor in your case is your plea of guilty. It has a significant utilitarian value, sparing the need to embark on a lengthy and complicated trial and exposing the jury to confronting and traumatising material. It also spares the victims from the knowledge that the material has to be viewed again, albeit by a jury.
Your Counsel submitted that you are remorseful for your conduct and that this is reflected in your acceptance of the conduct that is contained in the s 16BA Schedule. It is also submitted that your pleas have been entered at an early stage. I accept that the pleas have been entered at a relatively early stage, albeit not at the earliest reasonable opportunity. You were first charged with these offences in May and September 2023. A plea offer was made by the Crown. It was indicated you accepted that offer in November 2024. A new complaint was filed to reflect that offer. You ultimately advised that the matter would resolve by way of plea of guilty after you were committed to this Court on the new complaint. The Crown do not accept that there is any evidence independent of your plea of guilty demonstrating remorse. In light of the strong prosecution case, the plea of guilty alone is not particularly persuasive as evidence of remorse. This is particularly so in circumstances where you have failed to provide any explanation for your offending or anything other than a bare expression of remorse through your counsel. It is also significant that you did not acknowledge your conduct at all during the record of interview.
I am told you accept that it is inevitable that you will be deported from this country at some point in the future. Counsel submits that this is a matter that is relevant to your sentencing. I note, however, that you have never held permanent residency or a right to reside in this country on any ongoing basis. It is difficult to assess whether losing the prospect of ever gaining that right is one that is truly mitigating in circumstances where it is a matter of speculation whether it would ever crystalise. Further, nothing has been put to me to demonstrate that return to your country of birth would result in any particular hardship to you. It is a matter to which I have had regard, but in my view it is of little moment in this case where considerations of general and specific deterrence, denunciation, punishment and vindication of the many child victims of your offending are the most predominant factors in the sentencing exercise.
As to your offending generally, there is no evidence that you made the child abuse material available to any other person. It was stored on your phone and laptop computer. You used a secure folder on your phone that could only be accessed with your thumbprint. This reduced the likelihood of the material being seen by others. I have otherwise been provided with no explanation for your conduct.
You cooperated with law enforcement agencies in the investigation of the offending but only to a limited extent. You made no admissions when interviewed and denied knowledge of the use of relevant email and snapchat accounts and of the secure folder on your phone. Your admissions that you were the only person with access to your phone was of some assistance to the ultimate proof of your involvement in these crimes. You also provided your PIN to your phone and other assistance that enabled the examination of your devices to take place. These are matters that I will take into account in the sentencing process.
As I am required to sentence you for State and Commonwealth matters, two distinct sentencing regimes are engaged. I have determined that I should sentence you for the State crimes, and then for the Commonwealth crimes with the latter sentences ordered to commence on the expiration of the non-parole period I intend to impose in respect of the former.
Each of counts 7 to 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 18, 20-22, 24-26, 28-33, 35, 36, 38, 39, 41-43, 45-48, 50, 52-58, 60-66 and 68-84 (64 counts in total), namely the offences of engaging in sexual activity with a child using a carriage service contrary to s 474.25A(1) committed on or after 23 June 2020, attract a mandatory minimum sentence of imprisonment of five years: s 16AAA of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth). Each of those charges also attracts a maximum period of imprisonment of 20 years. The minimum term of imprisonment set by s 16AAA of the Crimes Act, serves the double function of generally restricting sentencing power as well as providing a yardstick, corresponding with the maximum term of imprisonment, for the exercise of the sentencing discretion. The “yardstick” minimum term is for the “least worst possible case” deserving of imprisonment. A court may impose a sentence below the specified minimum where it is taking into account in the sentencing process that the person pleaded guilty or cooperated with law enforcement agencies in the investigation of the offence. If that is the case, the maximum reduction below the specified minimum for either a guilty plea or relevant cooperation is 25%, or 50% for both: s 16AAC of the Crimes Act. A legitimate procedure for the application of this provision of the Crimes Act involves determining a prima facie sentence with the use of the prescribed minimum sentence as a yardstick, prior to giving transparent consideration to the discount for those two factors. As to this offence generally, it was first introduced in 2010 for the purpose of ensuring that engaging in sexual activity with a child online is criminalised in a comparable way to equivalent activity engaged in in real life. This purpose has been further emphasised by including the offence in the mandatory minimum sentencing regime.
In respect of all of the Commonwealth offences committed on or after 23 June 2020, it is presumed that any term of imprisonment imposed be ordered to be served wholly cumulatively to any other term of imprisonment imposed for another Commonwealth child sex offence or for a State registrable child sex offence. This presumption is relevant in this instance to all Commonwealth offences from count 7 on the indictment. The Court may, however, make orders for concurrency or impose aggregate sentences if satisfied that it will result in sentences that are of a severity appropriate in all the circumstances. In that case, the Court must state it reasons for doing so.
The Crown submits that of the offences you committed which attract the mandatory minimum sentencing regime, many do not fall in the least serious category of offending. I agree. I do not need to repeat my comments about the offences. Some of the individual charges encompass a large number of interactions of a particularly grave quality accompanied by circumstances of explicit direction and threatening conduct and accordingly represent a more serious category of offending. Where an individual offence is absent some of the more aggravating of the features of your offending, it remains the case that it forms part of a course of conduct consisting of an extremely large number of criminal acts of a same or similar character. That an individual offence forms part of a course of conduct is a matter that is must be taken into account (see s 16A(2)(c) of the Crimes Act) and increases its seriousness.
Given the large number of offences which attract the mandatory minimum sentence of imprisonment and the operation of the presumption of cumulation, it is appropriate to impose aggregated sentences or make provision for concurrency or partial cumulation. I have decided to do the former, that is impose an aggregated sentence. Dealing with the 64 counts attracting the mandatory minimum penalties alone, if I were to do otherwise, the minimum total effective sentence that could be imposed for those charges would be 160 years. And that sentence could only be imposed if I took the view each offence was in the least serious category of offending and attracted the maximum discount for guilty plea and cooperation.
Section 11A of the Sentencing Act 1999 (Tas), is relevant to the sentence to be imposed for the State offences. It is not necessary to decide whether it is “picked up” for the purposes of the sentencing exercise required to be undertaken for the Commonwealth crimes as I consider it appropriate to have regard to the aggravating circumstances set out in the section and do not detect any incompatibility with the matters required to be considered under the Crimes Act (Cth). A number of the victims of your offending were under 13 years of age. On many occasions you caused the children involved to carry out acts that were likely to seriously and substantially degrade or humiliate them. Any acquiescence of the children involved is not a mitigating factor. As I will utilise aggregation in order to arrive at a result which is of an appropriate severity in all the circumstances, I am required to identify the sentence that would have been imposed for each of the State offences had separate sentences been imposed. The Crown argues that this provision is “picked up” and must be utilised where an aggregate sentence is imposed for any of the s 474.25A(1) or 474.22 offences. Again, I do not consider it necessary to decide the point as I have determined it is appropriate to engage in that process in any event.
As you fall to be sentenced for 14 Class 3 offences within the meaning of the Community Protection (Offender Reporting) Act 2005, I am required to make an order pursuant to s 6(1) of that Act for the remainder of your life or such lesser period unless I am satisfied that you do not pose a risk of committing a reportable offence in the future. I am not so satisfied, and you have not submitted that you do not pose such a risk in the future. Clearly, the extent and nature of your offending suggests a clear sexual interest in young children. Nothing has been put to me to suggest that you have taken any steps to address this issue. I am told you ceased offending after detection. Apart from that fact, and the deterrent effect of the penalty I will impose, there is no other information before me which allows me to assess your prospects of rehabilitation. I order that the Registrar cause your name to be placed on the Register and that you comply with the reporting obligations under the Community Protection (Offender Reporting) Act for a period of 25 years on your release from prison.
I turn now to sentence you for the State charges. The offending involving the 13 victims not the subject of a Commonwealth charge are objectively serious. It is not, however, of the same level of seriousness as the Commonwealth counts. The sexual activity engaged in is generally of lesser order and the number of interactions also lower. Taking into account all of the matters I have outlined, on counts 1, 3, 14, 17, 23, 27, 34, 37, 40, 44, 51, 59 and 67, that is the 13 counts with the individual victims, I impose a sentence of 4 years imprisonment, backdated 13 November 2025. But for your pleas of guilty, I would have imposed a sentence of five years imprisonment. In light of the totality of your offending, I do not consider it appropriate to impose the minimum non-parole period in relation to any of the State offences. I order that you not be eligible for parole until you serve two and a half years of that term.
On count 2 which is the State offence relating to the screen recordings of your interactions with the victims of the 67 Commonwealth offences of engaging in sexual activity with a child using a carriage service, I note that you are to be separately sentenced to those offences and the minimum period of imprisonment applicable to 64 of those charges. Nevertheless, there is an additional level of criminality involved in the production of the recordings and the humiliation and degradation that is apt to cause the children involved. On this charge, you are sentenced to two years imprisonment. I order that one year of that term be served concurrently with the sentence previously imposed. I also order that you not be eligible for parole until you have served 18 months of that term of imprisonment.
The total effective State sentence is one of five years imprisonment with a three year non-parole period.
The indicative sentences I would have imposed on count 23 is one of 6 months. On counts 1, 3, 17, 34, 37, 40, 44 and 59, nine months. On counts 27, 51 and 67, 12 months. Count 14, 18 months.
As to the Commonwealth counts, I take into account the matters in s 16A(2) of the Crimes Act (Cth) to the extent they are relevant. I have also taken into account the other provisions I have noted in my comments so far. In arriving at the sentence, I have determined it is appropriate to discount the sentences I would otherwise impose by 20% taking into account your pleas of guilty and cooperation. The bulk of that discount reflects your pleas of guilty. Otherwise, there is little that mitigates your offending.
In respect of the s 474.25A(1) offences attracting the mandatory minimum penalty of five years imprisonment, I have determined that none represents the least serious category of the offence. They form part of a course of conduct, one you had been engaging in for almost three years prior to the first of the offences attracting the mandatory minimum penalty. You had offended against five other children before that date, that is 23 June 2020. I indicate I would have imposed the following sentences (including the discount for your plea of guilty and cooperation in each case) had separate penalties been imposed:
In relation to counts 7, 12, 13, 25, 35, 38, 42, 43, 48, 50, 53, 56, 57, 58, 60, 62, 63, 66, 73, 76, 79, 80 and 82, these relate to offending against a particular victim occurring over a single day or over a few days. They involve a lower number of interactions and recordings. The sexual activity is of a lower level compared to the other counts. I would have imposed a sentence of five and a half years imprisonment for each of those offences. With a 20% discount, the sentence is reduced to 4 four years and 4 four months imprisonment (rounding down).
In relation to counts 16, 18, 21, 24, 28, 32, 36, 41, 46, 52, 54, and 55, they related to similar sexual activity but are offences committed over a longer period of time or involving a greater number of interactions or involving a pre-pubescent or younger child. I would have imposed a sentence of six years imprisonment for each of those offences. With a 20% discount, the sentence is reduced to 4 four years and 9 nine months (rounding down).
Counts 20, 33 and 39, also involve similar conduct but a greater number of interactions or are counts for which a s 16BA offence is required to be taken into account. Two of these offences also involve the offering of money and vapes as an inducement. I would have imposed a sentence of six years three months for each of those offences. With a 20 % discount, the sentence is reduced to five years.
Counts 22, 26, 30 and 47 involve similar conduct but involved inducing the activity by promising to delete intimate videos or by threats to post or publish such images online. That is an aggravating feature of these offences. I would have imposed a sentence of six and a half years for each of those offences. With a 20 % discount, the sentence is reduced to five years and two months (rounding down).
I would have imposed that same sentence of five years and two months in respect of the following:
Count 8 arises from interactions over a single day resulting in two video recordings, but involves more grave sexual activity, including focus on genitalia. A s 16BA offence causing child abuse material to be transmitted is also required to be taken into account (item B). The s 16BA offence involved the transmission five additional videos which include four during which the child masturbated.
Count 78 which involved a single recording but also is accompanied by a s 16BA offence of causing child abuse material to be transmitted (item J).
Count 83 is of a similar nature. I would have imposed the same sentence in respect of that count also.
Counts 9 and 10 relate interactions over the course of 10 days with V9. Count 10 involves the recording of an interaction with V9 and another female child, V10, engaged in sexual activity. You offered money for that sexual activity.
Counts 71 and 72 are of a similar nature and would attract the same sentences.
Count 31 involves 13 interactions over the course of a month and a half. Two s 16BA offences using a carriage service to communicate with a child with the intention of procuring sexual activity and soliciting material are also required to be taken into account (items D and E). The child was pre-pubescent. The sexual acts were induced by agreeing to delete material. You are captured masturbating during at least one of these interactions.
Count 68, 69, 77, and 84 involves sexual activity including masturbation and penetration across a number of interactions. I would have imposed seven years on each count, reduced to five years and seven months with the discount (rounded down).
Count 15 involved 41 interactions over a three and a half month period. The sexual activity included penetration. I would have imposed a sentence of seven and a half years. With the discount that is reduced to six years.
I would have imposed the same sentence on count 75 which involved recordings of four interactions of sexual activity including masturbation. The child’s compliance was secured by the use of the threats to send videos to her family.
Count 29 involves eight recordings of interactions with a child over the course of over 11 months. One of the interactions included engaging in a sexual act (fellatio) with another young person. Other sexual activity included penetration and masturbation. I would have imposed a sentence of eight years. With the discount that is reduced to six years and four months.
I would have imposed the same sentence on count 70 involving a similar number of recordings of sexual activity also involving penetration and masturbation.
Counts 61 relates to 16 recordings of interactions over the course of six days, including the involvement of a dog in the sexual activity. I would have imposed a nine year sentence of imprisonment on this count. With the discount that is reduced to seven years and two months.
I would have imposed the same sentence on counts 74 and 81 and which involve sexual activity including penetration over a number of interactions. Significant pressure was also applied, including where the child was expressing pain or concern. A s 16BA offence of causing material to be transmitted or procuring is also required to be taking into account in respect of each offence (items I and K).
Count 64 and 65 relate to interactions with V64 over a single day. The sexual activity included penetration. In three of the recordings a dog is involved in the sexual activity, including at your direction. Penetration is also involved. V64 is barely pubescent. Count 65 relates to three recordings of interactions with V64 involved in sexual activity with another child, V65. I would have imposed a period of nine and a half years’ imprisonment on count 64 and six and a half years’ on count 65. With discounts they are reduced to seven years seven months (rounding down) and five years and two months respectively.
Count 45 involved 20 recorded interactions over the course of little over a one month with a 10 year old child. The sexual activity was grave, including penetration and masturbation. Your direction was explicit. You were pushy and aggressive even when she was in pain. You threatened to show your cousin if she did not comply. A s 16BA offence of procuring is also required to be taken into account relating to your messages (item H). I would have imposed a 10 year sentence of imprisonment for this offence. With the discount, that is reduced to eight years.
As for the s 474.25A(1) counts that do not attract the minimum mandatory penalty, taking into account all relevant matters under s 16A(2), I would have imposed a sentence of three years on counts 4 and 6 which is reduced to two years and four months (rounding down). On count 5, I would have imposed four years imprisonment, which is reduced to three years and two months with rounding down.
Count 11, the procure charge, is also accompanied by a s 16BA offence of soliciting material (item C). I would impose sentence of two years reduced to one year and seven months with discounting.
On counts 19 and 49 causing material to be transmitted, and count 85 which is the possession charge, I would impose the same sentence. The sentence I would have imposed on count 85 is moderated, noting the overlapping nature of the conduct.
As this exercise demonstrates, each of the individual counts are objectively serious and some are especially grave.
I have determined it is appropriate to impose an aggregate sentence in respect of all of the Commonwealth charges of 25 years imprisonment to commence on the expiration of the non-parole period imposed on the State offences. I have determined that a non parole period of 15 years reflects what I consider to be the minimum period of time that is required to be served in the interest of justice given the nature of the offending and the period of time over which it occurred, and the very large number of victims involved. You will not be eligible for parole until you have served 15 years of that Commonwealth sentence.
The total effective sentence is one of 28 years. You will be eligible for release on parole after serving 18 years of that sentence.