MERRY V C

STATE OF TASMANIA v VAUGHN CLARK MERRY                            ESTCOURT J

COMMENTS ON PASSING SENTENCE                                                    24 JUNE 2019

The defendant, Vaughn Clark Merry has pleaded guilty to one count of using a carriage service to transmit child pornography material, contrary to s 474.19(1)(a)(iii) of the Commonwealth Criminal Code 1995, and one count of using a carriage service to cause child pornography material to be transmitted to himself, contrary to s 474.19(1)(a)(ii) of that Code.

I have also been asked to take into account, pursuant to s 16BA of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), two matter which would qualify as breaches of s 474.19(1)(a)(iv) and s 474.27A(1) of the Commonwealth Criminal Code, namely, respectively, – using a carriage service to solicit child pornography material and using a carriage service to transmit an indecent communication to a person believed to be under 16 years of age.

In R v Cook [2018] TASCCA 20 at [27] Brett J noted that s 16BA of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) provides that a judge may take into account in sentencing for “a particular federal offence, other federal offences not included in the indictment”.  The process for doing so is prescribed by the section and requires the consent of the prosecutor and, in effect, the consent of the respondent, because before the judge can take into account the relevant offences, the respondent must admit his guilt in respect of them.  He is not to be convicted of those offences, nor separately punished for them, but the sentencing judge, in sentencing for the charged offences will take into account the matters “for which guilt has been admitted, with a view to increasing the penalty that would otherwise be appropriate for a particular offence”: see De Lorenzo v DPP (Cth) [2017] VSCA 270. The circumstances of that offending can result in a “significantly higher penalty in respect of the primary offence than that which would otherwise have been appropriate had the primary offence stood alone”: Le v The Queen [2017] NSWCCA 26.

The defendant has admitted his guilt in relation to the s 16BA matters.

On 18 October 2016 the Australian Federal Police and Tasmania Police executed a search warrant at the defendant’s residential premises. A LG Nexus mobile phone was seized.

The defendant told police, amongst other things, that:

  • All chats he engaged in regarding the travel to Sydney were fantasy, and he had not engaged in the sexual activity he had outlined.
  • That he does not have any nieces or nephews who are children and he does not have any current connection with any children.
  • That he uses the craigbarlow69@gmail.com email address for communications for Craigslist adverts and for playing out his fantasy chats through his assumed identity of Craig Barlow.
  • The defendant used the email account to place a number of advertisements on the Hobart section of Craigslist. The subjects of the advertisements were as follows:
    • “After young (legal) fun – m4w” (casual encounters)
    • “Massage, innocent at first … – m4w” (casual encounters)
    • “Anyone want to discuss fantasies? no matter how dark – email only – m4w” (strictly platonic)
    • “Gyno roleplay – m4w” (casual encounters)
    • “Anyone near Sorell want NSA oral ? – m4w” (casual encounters)
    • “Seeking a daughter – m4w” (casual encounters)

He also used the account to place the following advertisement on the Adelaide section of Craigslist: “Let me lick your pussy, no returns necessary. – m4w” (casual encounters)

And he used an email account benjcraig33@gmail.com to place a number of advertisements on Craigslist.  The subject of those advertisements were as follows:

  • “Forced/rape fantasy cum true (casual encounters)”
  • “Young inexperienced guy looking to learn”
  • “Submissive guy looking to eat your pussy – m4w”
  • “Home invasion or rape play – m4w” (casual encounters)
  • “Driving hobart to lonny and back – m4w” (casual encounters)
  • “Oral fun ? – m4w” (casual encounters)
  • “Breeding – m4w” (casual encounters)

The abbreviations contained within the Craigslist advertisements are as follows:

  • The term “man for woman” is abbreviated to “m4w”.
  • The term “gynecologist” is abbreviated to “gyno”.
  • The term “no strings attached” is abbreviated to “NSA”.

In relation to count 1, between about 24 July 2012 and 24 September 2016 the defendant transmitted material using a carriage service, the material being child pornography material.

In relation to count 2, on or about 17 September 2015 the defendant caused material to be transmitted to himself using a carriage service, the material being child pornography material.

In relation to the first offence listed pursuant to s 16BA, between about 10 August 2012 and 12 August 2012 the defendant solicited material using a carriage service, the material being child pornography material.

In relation to the second offence listed pursuant to s 16BA, between about 29 July 2012 and 6 September 2012 the defendant, being 40 years of age, used a carriage service to transmit a communication to the recipient, a person identifying as “KT”, being someone who the accused person believed to be under 16 years of age, which included material that is indecent.

Count 1 – use a carriage service to transmit child pornography material

The defendant’s conduct concerned the transmission of child pornography in the form of text based descriptions of sexual conduct. This kind of material has less commonly been the subject judicial consideration than photographs and videos. However, in the recent Queensland case of R v Edwards [2019] QCA 15, Acting Justice Morrison stated that despite real children not being used in the production of Category 6 material (descriptions), the viewing or accessing of Category 6 material (which is the present case, although text, not anime as was the case in Edwards), was not a victimless crime.

His Honour said at [61]:

“The capacity of child exploitation material, even that which does not depict real children, to affect the community goes beyond the tendency to normalise exploitive sexual activity involving children or even to stimulate potential participants in it. In my view, it serves to fuel the demand for such material, whether or not it involves real children. Further, such material has the capacity to groom not only the recipients of it, but those who may be affected by recipients of it. That is to say, its impact may well be that reflected in Godfrey, namely to normalise it with the recipients or to encourage the recipients to take a step further, moving from the cartoon world or anime world to that of the real world in the sense of involving real children.”

A review of the defendant’s Gmail accounts identified a number of exchanges which have been classified as CETS 6 according to the CETS/ANVIL schema. That is “Animated or virtual depictions of children engaged in activity covered by categories 1 to 5 including text describing children engaged in sexual poses or activity”.

Categories 1 to 5 are:

CETS 1 –         Depictions of children with no sexual activity;

CETS 2 –         Non-penetrative sexual activity between children; or solo masturbation by a child;

CETS 3 –         Non-penetrative sexual activity between adult(s) and child(ren);

CETS 4 –         Penetrative sexual activity between children or adult(s) and child(ren); and

CETS 5 –         Sadism, humiliation or bestiality.

Charge 1 consists of a number of rolled up charges. Between 24 July 2012 and 24 September 2016 the defendant exchanged messages with 31 other users on the online forum, “Craigslist”. In these exchanges the defendant sent descriptions of sexual acts he fantasised about performing on children, and sexual acts he claimed to have seen children engage in either with each other or adults, including himself.

The details of the exchanges are documented in a sanitised form in the Summary of Facts which was read to the Court, and forms part of MFIA. Selected sample extracts of entire email exchanges also form part of MFIA but were not published in Court. I have read them.

Recurring subjects of the defendant’s messages were:

a          his desire to “teach” a young girl (between 10 and 14) to perform sexual acts;

b          descriptions of a “rape fantasy” between him and a 16 year old in a park; and

c          sexual encounters between him and his ex-girlfriend’s daughter.

The descriptions of the sexual acts varied in length and detail. Some of them were particularly graphic, in particular, the ones involving the rape fantasy. They were all Category 6 material on the CETs scale.

In relation to charge 2, the defendant exchanged messages with a person who identified as 19 years old on Craigslist. The defendant accepted her offer of sending pictures of her breasts taken when she said she was 14 years old. He said he would “wank” over them. She sent two images. The images were classified as Category 1 on the CETS scale.

In relation to item 1 on the s 16BA schedule, between 10 and 12 August 2012 the defendant communicated with a person who indicated she was 15 years old. He requested photos of her “tits, pussy and ass“.

In relation to item 2 on the s 16BA schedule, between 29 July 2012 and 6 September 2012 the offender communicated with a person who indicated she was 15 years old. He described a rape fantasy involving her and sent a photo of an erect penis.

In the communications which are the subject of charge 1, the defendant stated that young girls are a “turn on” for him, particularly those in the age range between 10 and 14. He particularly expressed a desire to engage in sexual activities with a girl between the ages of 11 and 14, noting that he would prefer the girl to consent but would still want to do it even if she did not.

He often explained to others the ways in which they could teach a young child to become accustomed to engaging in sexual activities with them.

I accept the Crown submission that in considering the factors relevant to assessing the seriousness of the offences, the following matters are relevant to the present case;

a          the communications were ongoing and took place over a period of four years;

b          in relation to charge1 the defendant sent the material to 31 different persons;

c          the defendant communicated with individuals who said they had access to children and he encouraged them to abuse those children;

d          many of descriptions were very graphic and some involved children as young as 7. Rape scenarios were commonly the subject of the descriptions. The depravity of the material sent increases the gravity of the offending;

e          the defendant actively sought out other individuals to transmit this material to by placing numerous advertisements on Craigslist;

f           there was an appreciable risk that the persons he encouraged to engage in sexual activities with children would do so;

g          in relation to the two items on the s 16BA schedule, the defendant did engage in conduct with a person he believed to be a child to solicit child pornography and transmit an indecent communication. His conduct was therefore not limited to engaging with other adults.

The defendant’s conduct was a course of offending that involved a series of criminal acts of the same or similar character committed over a period of almost four years. I accept the Crowns submission that in those circumstances the offences are not isolated and cannot be viewed as spontaneous or impulsive.

The following paragraphs provide a sanitised summary of what I regard as some of the worst exchanges. Samples of the full text of some of these exchanges that I have read are far more graphic still. In place of email addresses, the other users communicating with the defendant have been identified as ‘Person 4, ‘Person 5’ etc.

Person 4

Between 11 October 2012 and 8 November 2012 the defendant exchanged emails with Person 4.  The defendant narrated a highly graphic story involving a rape/forced sex fantasy with a 16 year old female.  During the exchanges the defendant also indicated that he has had a fantasy about getting to play with a 12-14 year old female. He also described sexual acts he would love to see “horny young teens” (even as young as 11 and 12 year olds) perform on Person 4.

Person 5

On 11 October 2012 the defendant exchanged emails with Person 5. The defendant made statements to the following effect:

  • He fantasises about young woman and would really like to be with a young woman/girl, around the age of 12. He detailed what sexual acts he would like to engage in with them.
  • Incest turns him on.
  • The thought of a 14 year old girl with her brother or father was “just fucking hot”.
  • He described his desire to be the first to have a sexual encounter with a 14 to 15 year old female and the acts they could engage in.
  • He would donate a kidney to see a girl that was into dogs. He thought even just talking about it with a girl would be fantastic. He loved watching dog bestiality videos.
  • He described an online engagement he had with a 16 year old female who described sexual encounters she had at age 12 with her female friend and the friend’s father. He recounted the stories she told him.

Person 7

Between 1 November 2012 and 5 November 2012 the defendant exchanged emails with Person 7.  The defendant made statements to the following effect:

  • He was fantasising for a long time about finding a girl who was just starting puberty.
  • He described the types of sexual acts he would perform on her.
  • He loved the idea of being around a 10-11 year old girl, and encouraging her curiosity about sex and performing sexual acts on her.
  • He was “working on” a young looking 16 year old female through Craigslist.
  • He described a number of sexual acts he performed on his ex-step daughter when she was 7 to 13 years.
  • He could easily “see himself” with a 6-8 year old female and described the sexual acts he would perform on her. (The full descriptions are highly depraved).
  • He would like to combine a young (11-12 year old) female and a dog and described the sexual activities he would like them to engage in.
  • He described fantasies about 11 year old females while he was working in the IT section at a school.
  • He was still hoping Craigslist might find him a 12-13 year old one day.

Person 8

Between 9 November 2012 and 6 January 2013 the defendant exchanged emails with Person 8. The defendant made statements to the following effect:

  • He would love to get a willing 11-14 year old girl all to himself for a few days – a week even. He described the type of sexual acts he would like to perform on them.
  • He described a sexual encounter he had with a 14 year old female.
  • He would enjoy engaging in sexual activities with a child of 6 or 7 years of age and described such activities. He would prefer the child to be willing.
  • He indicated he was having a sexual relationship with a 35 year old mother and her 13 year old daughter. He described the sexual acts the daughter had been taught to perform on her mother.

Person 19

On 13 August 2014 the defendant engaged with Person 19. The defendant indicated he wanted a 10-12 year old female “to do with as… (he)…wanted”, and described the types of sexual acts he would perform on her.

Person 22

Between 10 September 2014 and 13 September 2014 the defendant exchanged emails with Person 22. The defendant stated that by about 7 or 8 years old, females should be taught how to perform certain sexual acts and provided examples. (Again, the full text of some of these exchanges are highly depraved).

Person 26

Between 14 and 15 September 2015 the defendant exchanged emails with Person 26. Person 26 indicated she was thinking about engaging in sexual activities with her son.  The defendant described a sexual encounter between his sister and him when he was 14 years old, and when she was 16 or 17 years old. The defendant encouraged the other user to engage with her son.

 

 

Person 28

Between 11 June 2016 and 25 July 2016 the defendant engaged with Person 28. The defendant made statements to the following effect:

  • He preferred 11-13 year old females, but 8-9 would be the lower limit and they could be sexually trained from the age of 6 years old.
  • He described the various sexual acts he would perform on young females.
  • He described fantasising about two 11 year old females he saw at a restaurant. He wondered about their sexual experience.
  • He described a sexual encounter with a 16 year old male that who he identified through a Craigslist ad.
  • He met a 16 year old girl through Craigslist. She told him about how her brother caught her masturbating and then he also started masturbating.

Person 29

Between 29 August 2016 and 17 October 2016 the defendant exchanged emails with Person 29.  The defendant made statements to the following effect:

  • He had seen pictures of 9 to 12 year olds engaged in sexual activities and he described the ones he enjoyed.
  • He had chatted with a 12 year old girl from Sydney and that they shared nude photos and videos of each other via Kik. He believed that it was safe on Kik so he was comfortable and loved it.
  • He had seen lots of photos and some videos of fathers engaging in sexual acts with their young daughters. He said it was easier previously because there was less oversight. He said naturist sites were a good place to find nudes of young girls.
  • If he had a daughter he would get sexual pleasure from looking at her naked. He would want to touch her and might touch her in her sleep. He said “what better way to show much you love your daughter than to make her orgasm?”

The defendant also participated in various role plays involving him being the father and the other user being the daughter in which both users engage in describing having sex together.  The other user was role playing a girl entering her teenage years in various scenarios.

Person 31

On 24 September 2016 the defendant exchanged emails with Person 31.  The defendant described sexual acts he performed on his step daughter from the age of 11 years old and described how to encourage children into performing sexual acts.

Count 2 – use a carriage service to cause child pornography material to be transmitted

On 17 September 2015 the defendant exchanged emails with Person 33. The following exchange took place over the course of the emails:

  • Person 33 identified herself as 19 years old.
  • Person 33 asked the defendant if he wanted her to send him photos of her breasts when she was 14 years old. The defendant indicated he wanted to see the photos and that he would “wank” over them.
  • Person 33 sent two images to the defendant which have been classified as CETS category 1.

Item 1 of s 16BA schedule – use a carriage service to solicit child pornography material

On two separate occasions between 10 and 12 August 2012 the defendant requested that Person 34, who had stated she was turning 16 years old later in the year, send him photos of her “tits, pussy and ass.

Item 2 of s 16BA schedule – use a carriage service to transmit indecent communication to a person believed to be under 16

Between 29 July 2012 and 6 September 2012 the defendant engaged with Person 34 where the following discussion took place:

  • Person 34 responded to the defendant’s Craigslist ad “forced rape”.
  • She initially identified herself as 17 years of age.
  • She asked if her age was an issue to which the defendant responded “no – love young….  and 16 is legal so we’re good‘”.
  • Person 34 then disclosed that she would not be 16 until the end of the year.  The defendant indicated he couldn’t do anything illegal as he would go to prison for a long time if he got caught.
  • Person 34 indicated she would find someone else to which the defendant responded “yup sorry – wish you’d lied and said 16 or 17.  Hope you have a great time…“.
  • In later conversations the user stated that the next time she gets raped, the guy is going to bring a friend and asks if the defendant was interested.  The defendant responded “I’ve got too much too lose with you being 15  or I would in a heartbeat“.
  • The defendant indicated he would engage in sexual acts with Person 34 when he returned from an overseas trip in three weeks.
  • The defendant stated that he wanted to rape the user when he was back in Melbourne.  He detailed how the rape would occur and sent a photo of an erect adult penis.
  • Throughout the duration of the communication, the defendant made a number of enquiries asking the user if she still wanted to be raped.

Mitigation

The defendant is a 47 year old New Zealand citizen who is on a subclass 444 Special Category Visa. That visa allows him to visit, study, stay and work in Australia for as long as he is a New Zealand citizen.

He is not recorded as having previous convictions in Australia but is in New Zealand where he was convicted of ten counts of possessing objectionable publications on 23 April 1998, and three counts of making available objectionable publication 30 November 1997.  Whether the convictions involve counts or publications is not entirely clear.

The 1997 prior the conviction involved 3 images, one of bestiality with a female, one of child pornography involving young children aged eight in a sexual act with a female, and one of a woman being raped by 5 men.

The 1998 conviction appears to involve possession of 10 objectionable publications. The conviction in New Zealand is in respect of a very small number of images of bestiality and child pornography however they are viewed.

The defendant was born in New Zealand on 2 May 1972. He grew up there. He has four brothers, two now deceased. He is the youngest in the family. He was apparently viewed as a “mistake” by his father. Both parents now deceased. His father was an alcoholic and extremely abusive to the defendant. The defendant suffered psychological and sexual abuse.

He has only had two significant relationships. His first relationship was of 17 years duration and towards end of it, in around 2009, he began to see other women and to play online non-sexual fantasy games.

His current partner, his wife, he met in 2011. She moved from United States and is strongly supportive of him. In particular she supported and encouraged the defendant to seek therapy from a psychologist, Mr Ernest Schall, in 2016.

The defendant was educated to Year 12 in New Zealand. He has tertiary qualifications in IT, and in 2018 he undertook a Graduate Certificate in Geographic Information Services at University of Tasmania.

He has worked in IT from 1996. In 2001 he relocated to Melbourne and then to Hobart in 2015 where he worked as a senior IT officer in DPEM.

His employment with that department was terminated because of the present offences when they were charged in 2016, and since then he has been consulting for an IT company in Melbourne.

His treating psychologist Mr Schall, and forensic psychologist Mr Cummins, both opine that the defendant, at the time of offending, and now, suffers from extremely severe depression and severe anxiety.

Mr Schall saw the defendant from 2016 – 2019 on a total of 14 occasions, although with a 22 month gap. He notes that the defendant struggled to accept that he had “a problem” with his sexual behaviour and interests. Mr Schall provisionally diagnosed Unspecified Paraphilic Disorder. Mr Schall’s treatment was mainly in the context of managing depression, anxiety and stress and not offence specific treatment.

Mr Cummins suggested the possibility of mild Autism Spectrum Disorder but also agrees with Mr Schall’s diagnosis of a paraphilic disorder.

The defendant is very fearful of imprisonment and Mr Cummins opines that his suicide risk will be elevated by it.

It is submitted on behalf of the defendant that given the consistency of diagnosis of Mr Schall and Mr Cummins the principles in R v Verdins are enlivened both in the context of the offending and in the context of imprisonment.

The Crown agrees but submits that little weight should be accorded to those considerations in this case because of the length of the offending and the volume of material and its very serious nature.

While the existence of a mental impairment will almost always be relevant to the sentencing of an offender, and will often result in a lower sentence, such modification is not always the case: GOK v The Queen [2010] WASCA 185 at [58] citing Gleeson CJ in Engert (1995) 84 A Crim R 67 at 68. I give this consideration some but not significant weight in the present case for the reason advanced by the Crown

As to rehabilitation, I note that the defendant has a strongly supportive wife and mother in law,  that he is highly employable and that Mr Cummins’ view is that his risk of reoffending is low to moderate now that the “penny has dropped” and he understands the relevant laws, but only so long as he undergoes offence specific treatment.

Sentencing principles

In Taylor v The Queen [2015] TASCCA 7, the Court of Criminal Appeal considered an appeal from a sentence I imposed in respect of child pornography offences which included two charges of using a carriage service to access child pornography, contrary to s 474.19(1) of the Criminal Code (Cth), and a further State charge of possession of child exploitation material.

Pearce J, with whom Blow CJ and Wood J agreed, collected the principles relevant to sentencing for possession of child pornography and the dissemination and transmission of child pornography. His Honour referred in particular to the cases of DPP v Latham [2009] TASSC 101, 19 Tas R 281; Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v D’Alessandro [2010] VSCA 60, 26 VR 477 and Minehan v The Queen [2010] NSWCCA 140, 201 A Crim R 243.

At [31] his Honour set out the list of considerations relevant to the objective seriousness of offences “involving the possession or dissemination or transmission of child pornography” taken from Minehan v The Queen. Those considerations can also be of relevance in the present case. I do not need to set them out in full.

With one exception, the present case is not one where the considerations of whether actual children were used in the creation of the material or the number of different children depicted is relevant. Nor is the consideration of the extent of any cruelty or physical harm occasioned to the children that may be discernible from the material.  I also note that the defendant did not profit from the offending.

The considerations that are relevant to the defendant’s criminality as to charge 1, are however, the number of items of material, the nature and content of that material, including the age of the children depicted and the depravity of the sexual activity portrayed. Also relevant is whether the offender acted alone or with like-minded persons.

I have already alluded to what was said about text based pornography in R v Edwards.

Given the length of time over which the offending comprising charge 1 occurred, the considerations of the number of persons to whom the material was disseminated or transmitted, and any risk of the material being seen or acquired by persons susceptible to act in the manner described or depicted are also relevant.

The nature and content of the material is utterly appalling and for a long period of time the defendant was in communication with a significant number of like-minded individuals. Although the material was text it nonetheless puts children at risk. The possibility of someone to whom the material was transmitted going on to acting in the manner written about must be assessed as a real risk, notwithstanding the defendant’s view that they were all fakes.

The encouragement of the defendant’s expression of the views and actions he wrote about as well as his express encouragement where that occurred, could easily be the catalyst for others to progress from deviant fantasy to reality.

The language used by the defendant in the sanitised summaries of the emails I have set out relative to charge 1 demonstrate a significant level of depravity, and the samples of the full text of some of the emails are highly sexually explicit, graphic and highly depraved.

In my view, these facts and considerations make the defendant’s use of a carriage service for the purposes he admits, serious criminal conduct. His offending requires strong denunciation. The maximum sentence for the two counts and the first of the s 16BA matters is 15 years’ imprisonment.  For the second of the s 16BA matters it is 7 years’ imprisonment.

Charge 2 involves an exchange of emails with an apparently adult female on a single day. It is by far the less serious of the two counts and on its own would potentially not have warranted a sentence of actual imprisonment, notwithstanding the defendant’s prior convictions.

The two s 16BA matters are also, relatively speaking, somewhat less serious than the charged counts particularly charge 1 with which I am concerned, notwithstanding that the second of those matters involved communications with a child, and extended from 29 July 2012 and 6 September 2012.

Always being wary of using comparative cases as an aid to sentencing, overall, the defendant’s level of criminality is plainly not of the order involved in R v Cook where the Court of Criminal Appeal increased a sentence of 15 months’ imprisonment, with release on a recognisance release order after serving 10 months, to one of in effect, 4 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 2 years.

There the serious aspect of the respondent’s conduct was his criminal use of the internet to target, manipulate and abuse vulnerable persons, including children by its use to directly contact persons who purported to be real children for the purpose of soliciting those children to create and transmit to him pornographic images of themselves.

Equally though, the defendant’s offending involves, to my mind, a higher level of criminality than that in R v Edwards, where a large proportion of the material comprised sexually explicit stories of children and adults, it occurred over a period of only some 5 weeks. In the present case there is a large amount of material, communicated over a period of years with over 30 persons.

I am satisfied that the only appropriate sentence is one of imprisonment, but I will make provision for release on recognisance after serving part of that sentence to assist with the defendant’s stated desire to rehabilitate.

I take into account the impact of the delay on the defendant, his mental health generally to the extent noted, and what the Crown accepts as his relatively early plea of guilty. I also take account of the punishing effect of the loss of the ability for permanent settlement in Australia resulting from the cancellation of the defendant’s visa which I would regard, as a matter of common knowledge, as being far from unlikely. However, the length and serious nature of the offending nonetheless calls for a substantial sentence of imprisonment by way of denunciation of the defendant’s conduct.

The defendant is convicted of the two counts to which he has pleaded guilty, and taking into account all matters, including the effect of the s 16BA matters, the defendant is sentenced to a single sentence of imprisonment of 2 years. I order that the he be released after serving 12 months of that sentence upon giving security by way of recognisance in the sum of $5,000 to be of good behaviour for a period of two years.

The defendant’s name is to be placed on the register in accordance with the Community Protection (Offender Reporting) Act 2005, and he is to comply with the reporting conditions as required by that Act for a period of five years after his release from prison.