STATE OF TASMANIA v MICHAEL JOHN LAMP 18 SEPTEMBER 2019
COMMENTS ON PASSING SENTENCE BLOW CJ
Mr Lamp has pleaded guilty to five charges relating to child exploitation material. The first charge relates to 50 still images that he had on a Samsung tablet that he left behind when he moved out of his former partner’s house in September 2017. For sentencing purposes, child exploitation material is divided into categories according to the level of seriousness of the material. The 50 images included 8 in Category 4, which covers penetrative sexual activity between adults and children; 4 images in Category 3, which covers non-penetrative sexual activity between adults and children, and 38 images in Category 1, which covers such things as nudity, underwear, sexually suggestive posing, or emphasis on genital areas, but not sexual activity. Mr Lamp’s former partner found the tablet, found child pornography on it, and contacted the police in April 2018.
As a result of the material found by the former partner, the police searched Mr Lamp’s home in June 2018 and found more child exploitation material on his mobile phone. Altogether that material comprised 230 images and 40 videos. There were 8 videos in Category 4 (penetrative sexual activity between adults and children); 3 images in Category 3 (non-penetrative sexual activity between adults and children); 2 images and 25 videos in Category 2 (non-penetrative sexual activity between children or solo masturbation by a child); and 234 images and 7 videos in category 1 (nudity etc without sexual activity).
Examination of Mr Lamp’s phone revealed that he had been using it from February to June 2018 to send and receive messages and photographs that constituted child exploitation material. He had done so by means of a messaging application called Kik, which permits messages to be sent anonymously. The remaining charges relate to material that Mr Lamp sent and received using the Kik application.
Count 3 is a charge of distributing child exploitation material. When interviewed by police officers in June 2018, Mr Lamp made a lot of frank admissions, including an admission that he had probably sent 20 child exploitation images and videos to other people.
Count 4 is a charge of producing child exploitation material. The definition of “child exploitation material” in the Criminal Code is not limited to images and videos. Text messages that describe sexual activity with a person under the age of 18 years amount to “child exploitation material” if a reasonable person would regard them as being offensive in all the circumstances. In May and June 2018 Mr Lamp exchanged messages with a 13 year old girl who said she lived in New Zealand. On three occasions he described imaginary sexual activity between him and her. On two other occasions he was criminally responsible for getting the girl to produce child exploitation material which she sent to him. That material included images of her that focused on her genitalia and breasts, and a video depicting her naked, touching her nipples and inserting her fingers into her vagina.
The fifth charge is a charge of making a communication with the intention of exposing a person under the age of 17 years to indecent material. This charge relates to a number of communications with the same girl and one communication with another person. In May and June 2018 Mr Lamp sent a number of images of his erect penis to the New Zealand girl. In May 2018, after an exchange of messages with a person who said she was a 16 year old virgin, Mr Lamp sent that person a picture of an erect penis.
Mr Lamp is now 30 years old. He has no significant prior convictions. He no longer has a partner. He does not have any children. He works in the construction industry. He fears that he will not get much work once this case is publicised.
Mr Lamp began looking at pornography many years ago. At some stage he started taking an interest in child pornography. He has expressed the view that he became addicted to pornography. From time to time he deleted all the pornographic material that he had, but at low times in his life he went back to his bad habits, and started accessing pornography, including child pornography, on line. On occasions he sought professional help to overcome his interest in pornography, but he did not find any professional person who was able to do anything to help him. After the police search he attempted suicide, and spent some time in a hospital as a psychiatric patient. A psychologist working at the hospital referred him to a private psychologist. He has been receiving treatment from that private psychologist ever since, with some success.
I have been provided with reports by his treating psychologist and a forensic psychologist. Mr Lamp has been diagnosed as suffering from a persistent depressive disorder and a social anxiety disorder. His mental state his stable. The psychologists see no need for him to take any medication for mental health purposes. He has not needed inpatient treatment since the time of his attempted suicide. He has a sexual interest in children, but does not want to have a sexual interest in children. He appears to be responding to therapy administered by his treating psychologist. He has been assessed as having a moderate level of factors indicative of sexual interest in children, and a low level of risk factors associated with re-offending.
The crime of possessing child exploitation material is a serious one because large numbers of children are exploited in the production of child pornography. Many suffer substantial psychological harm as a result. Some are compelled to endure painful sexual acts. Because of the harm that children suffer as the result of the production of such material, substantial prison sentences are often imposed on individuals with large collections of such material. Mr Lamp’s collection of child exploitation material was not enormous. The police often find much larger collections. However Mr Lamp’s material depicted girls as young as 8 years old. Mr Lamp also sent images and text messages to two teenage girls. It is possible that they were psychologically very vulnerable. He also sent a small quantity of child exploitation material to other child pornography enthusiasts. It is unlikely that he had any information about their mental health or about what they might have been encouraged to do as a result of receiving that material. It counts against Mr Lamp that some of his child exploitation material fell into the hands of an unintended recipient – his former partner – but it would have been worse if the material had fallen into the hands of someone who did not act responsibly upon finding it.
The only appropriate penalty in this case is a sentence of imprisonment. Because of Mr Lamp’s efforts to change his attitude towards children, I will suspend most of that sentence. As there remains some risk of him re-offending, the law requires me to order that his name be placed on the sexual offenders’ register.
Michael John Lamp, I convict on all charges and sentence you to 12 months’ imprisonment with effect from 11 September 2019. I suspend 8 months of that sentence on condition that you commit no offence punishable by imprisonment for a period of 3 years. I order that the Registrar appointed under s 42 of the Community Protection (Offender Reporting) Act 2005 place your name on the register under that Act, and that you comply with the reporting obligations under that Act for a period of 5 years from today. I order that the items referred to in paragraph 20 of the Crown statement of facts be forfeited to the State of Tasmania.