NETTLETON, J O

STATE OF TASMANIA v JOHN OLDFIELD NETTLETON            30 AUGUST 2024

COMMENTS ON PASSING SENTENCE                                                         JAGO J

The defendant, John Oldfield Nettleton, has pleaded guilty to 55 counts across two indictments.  They are four counts of engaging in sexual intercourse with a child under 16 years of age outside Australia, contrary to s 272.8(1) of the Commonwealth Criminal Code; five charges of encourage offence of engage in sexual intercourse with child outside Australia, contrary to s 272.19(1) of the Commonwealth Criminal Code; seven charges of procuring child to engage in sexual activity outside Australia, contrary to s 272.14(1) of the Commonwealth Criminal Code; two charges of producing child pornography material outside Australia, contrary to s 273.5(1) of the Commonwealth Criminal Code; 11 charges of using carriage service to transmit child pornography material contrary to s 474.19(1) of the Commonwealth Criminal Code; 1 charge of use carriage service to transmit child abuse material contrary to s 474.22(1) of the Commonwealth Criminal Code; seven charges of use carriage service to solicit child pornography material contrary to s 474.19(1) of the Commonwealth Criminal Code; 1 charge of use carriage service to cause child pornography material to be transmitted to self contrary to s 474.19(1) of Commonwealth Criminal Code; 12 charges of preparing for or planning offence of engage in sexual intercourse with child outside Australia contrary to s 272.20(1) of the Commonwealth Criminal Code; 3 charges of use carriage service to transmit indecent communication to a person under 16, contrary to s 474.27A(1) of the Commonwealth Criminal Code; 1 charge of fail to comply with order contrary to s 3LA(5) of the Crimes Act 1914; and 1 charge of possess child exploitation material, contrary to s 130C(a) of the Tasmanian Criminal Code.

Additionally, the Court is asked to take into account pursuant to s 16BA of the Crimes Act 1914, ten additional charges contrary to s 474.19(1) of the Commonwealth Criminal Code of use a carriage service to transmit child pornography material.  The defendant has admitted his guilt in respect to the s 16BA charges.

I note in considering the impact the s16BA charges have on the sentence the following principles apply:

  • The defendant is not to be punished for the additional admitted offences that are being taken into account;
  • The practical effect of taking the additional offences into account is that a more severe sentence, or a sentence of a more severe type, will usually be imposed on the primary offence than would have been imposed if the sentence had stood alone. This is because there is a greater need for specific deterrence and retribution to be reflected in the sentencing order;
  • The additional offences are a relevant consideration in the “instinctive synthesis” of the consideration of all relevant sentencing principles; and
  • The fundamental focus for the sentencing Court remains on the primary offences.

The defendant’s offending occurred between 6 March 2016 and 3 April 2018.  It involved in-person and online offending in the form of:

  • Engaging in oral sexual intercourse with four children under 16 years of age in the Philippines between 14 and 19 November 2017;
  • Encouraging others to engage in sexual intercourse with children overseas;
  • Procuring children under 16 years to engage in sexual activity outside Australia;
  • Preparing or planning the offence of engaging in sexual intercourse with children overseas;
  • Producing child pornography material and transmitting child pornography material and child abuse material to others;
  • Causing child pornography material to be transmitted to himself;
  • Soliciting child pornography material; and
  • Possessing child pornography material.

The online communication offending involved the defendant using the social media application Facebook to communicate with 38 victims and like minded recipients.  To do so, he created and used two Facebook accounts in the name of “John Latte” and “John Summer”.

The production of child pornography material charges relates to the defendant’s recording of the contact offending he engaged in with the four children whilst in the Philippines in November 2017.  The defendant possessed these recordings on his phone on 3 March 2018 when he was intercepted by authorities.  When requested to so, he refused to provide authorities with details to access his phone and it is this behaviour that grounds the fail to comply with order charge.

The s 16BA offending involves the defendant sending online communications to ten different recipients.  During these communications, the defendant discussed the procuring of children for sexual intercourse and encouraged or planned sexual intercourse with male children.  The communications clearly suggested the defendant received sexual gratification from child pornography material.

The Crown statement of facts was lengthy and detailed.  Some detail of the respective counts is necessary to properly convey the nature and gravity of the defendant’s offending.  A summary of the relevant charges is as follows:

  • Charge 1 – Procuring child to engage in sexual activity outside Australia

Between 6 March and 11 April 2016, the defendant used his “John Summer” Facebook account to send online communications to a young boy named Bernardino, with the intention of procuring Bernardino to engage in sexual activity with him outside of Australia.  At the time the defendant believed Bernardino was under the age of 16 years.  He offered 6,000PHP (approximately $154.00 AUS) for a photograph of Bernardino’s bottom.  Bernardino sent him such a photograph.  Three days later the defendant suggested he visit Caloocan in the Philippines to meet with Bernardino.  The communications included the defendant describing sexual acts that he wished to engage in with the child and enquired as to whether there was a resort nearby which they could rent so they could “have fun”.  On 11 April the defendant sent an image of an erect adult penis to the child and stated “I need your mobile number okay…it’s important if we are to meet”.

  • Charge 2 – Transmit child pornography material

Between 18 March 2016 and 24 February 2017, the defendant again used his “John Summer” Facebook account to transmit child pornography material to a child called Nerk Nerk.  Nerk Nerk identified his age as 16.  During the period, the defendant sent messages asking the child a number of sexualised questions and describing sexual acts they could engage in together.  For example, the defendant asked how many fingers he might insert into the child’s anus?  Nerk Nerk replied “two”.  The defendant responded with  “Can I try four?”.  Nerk Nerk replied “You know I’m just a kid”.  At Nerk Nerk’s request the defendant sent him an image of an adult penis.  I do not stay to repeat the full details of the communications the defendant engaged in with Nerk Nerk.  It is sufficient to say the defendant made a number of explicit comments describing what sexual behaviours he wanted to engage in with the child.  On 12 February 2017, Nerk Nerk sent the defendant an image of his buttocks.  The defendant twice sent an image of himself with his penis exposed.  On 24 February 2017, the defendant sent Nerk Nerk child pornography material of another young boy.

  • Charge 3 – Preparing for or planning an offence of engaging in sexual intercourse with a child outside Australia

Between 11 and 24 April 2016, the defendant sent online communications to a child named Merced.  Merced’s Facebook profile indicated he was 16, but subsequent images sent to the defendant depicted a child no older than 12 years of age.  The defendant asked about Merced’s location, phone number and sexual experience.  He offered to pay Merced money to engage in sexual activity with him.  They discussed a date, time and location and the defendant described in explicit detail the type of sexual acts he wanted to engage in with Merced and told Merced how much he would pay him for certain sexual acts.  During the discussions, the defendant sent Merced an image of himself and an image of an adult male penis.  Merced sent the defendant four images of child pornography material, depicting a young boy in a bath room.  The defendant travelled to the Philippines between 30 April and 8 May 2016 but the evidence does not establish if the pair actually met.

  • Charge 4 – Transmit indecent communications to a person under 16

Between 15 May and 25 October 2016, the defendant used his “John Summer” Facebook account to send indecent communications to a child, Nathaniel Lara.  At the time he believed Nathaniel to be under 16 years of age.  The defendant told Nathaniel he was looking for a boyfriend, asked for his phone number and requested images of him wearing underpants.  Nathaniel sent an image of himself and said he was 13 years of age.  The defendant commented that he thought he was sexy.

  • Charge 5 – Preparing for or planning an offence of engaging in sexual intercourse with a child outside of Australia

Between 10 June and 17 October 2016, the defendant offered to pay a person named DoMo to arrange a child for the defendant, and for the defendant, DoMo and the child to engage in group sexual intercourse together.  He offered to pay good money “especially for younger” and sent sexualised messages about a 13 year old boy that was proposed by DoMo.  When DoMo sent an image of a young male, the defendant replied “Be nice to share him” and then engaged in sexualised communications about the types of sexual acts which DoMo and the defendant could perform upon the boy.  He offered to pay 6,000 PHP (approximately $154.00Aus) plus bonus money depending upon the sexual activities the child performed.  He agreed to purchase a new phone for DoMo.  DoMo said the boy had agreed to intercourse with the defendant and the defendant asked for photographs to confirm the deal.  The defendant also asked whether the boy was a virgin and whether the boy could ejaculate.  In describing the sexual acts the defendant wanted to perform with the 13 year old child, he said things like, “Should I bring handcuffs” and “Handcuffed boy is hot”.  The defendant also suggested they obtain another young boy to be involved in the sexual activities.  The defendant told DoMo he had engaged in sexual intercourse with a 10 year old boy previously and enquired whether certain acts would be “too much for the boy”.

  • Charge 6 – Preparing for or planning an offence of engaging in sexual intercourse with a child outside Australia

The defendant sent messages to a person, Garcia, between 12 and 26 June 2016.  He told Garcia he would travel to the Philippines and asked if they could meet.  He offered 8,000 PHP (approximately $205.00) for a threesome with a young boy aged 10 or 11.  He asked Garcia if the boys would be “his property and he could do anything to them”.  He asked Garcia about being involved and holding the boys heads down.  He said he would hire a condo or apartment because hotels would not allow young boys in.  Garcia later said that he had a 13 year old boy and the defendant asked for a photograph and enquired whether the boy would “suck him”.  During the communications with Garcia, the defendant offered to “pay more money for younger boys”.  He asked whether he could have “both in one night”.

  • Charge 7 – Encourage offence of engage in sexual intercourse with a child

When engaged in communications with DoMo, that I have previously referred to, the defendant asked DoMo if he had taken photographs of the boy in question.  He requested photographs of sexual activities between DoMo and the boy be sent to him.  He offered payment upon receipt of the material.  DoMo sent the defendant child pornography images which depicted DoMo engaged in sexual activities with the boy, including oral sex.  The defendant requested that more activities, including sexual intercourse, be photographed and provided to him.  DoMo told the defendant the boy had agreed to do so because his family had “less money”.  He also said the conduct had been painful for the boy.  The defendant provided his credit card details to DoMo and gave instructions as to what activities he wanted depicted.  DoMo subsequently provided further photographs and a video of the young boy engaged in the sexual activities that the defendant had requested.  The defendant expressed his gratitude to DoMo and offered to buy him a new camera.  DoMo and the defendant discussed what sexual activity would be performed and recorded with their “next target”, who was described as a 12 year old boy.  The defendant told DoMo to take “many blow job photos” and added “he’s our very own play toy”.

  • Charge 8 – Preparing for or planning an offence of engaging in sexual intercourse with a child outside Australia

Between 6 September 2016 and 15 November 2017, the defendant communicated with a person named Tiozon.  He said he would book a trip to the Philippines if Tiozon helped arrange a threesome with a young boy.  Tiozon explained there was a price of 3,000 PHP (approximately $77.00) for sexual and oral intercourse with a young boy for one hour.  The defendant agreed to the price and said he would book the next day.  The discussion extended to include negotiations around the price for two boys and Tiozon together in a room.  The defendant asked whether he would need a condom.  There were discussions as to a particular nine year old boy.  The defendant made comments about wanting to see a video of an underaged boy “twerking and kissing towards the camera”.  Tiozon said he had booked a particular hotel because it was safe and he had used it before.  There were further communications discussing the proposed sexual activities the defendant would engage in with the young boys.  Tiozon confirmed a longer period of sexual activity would increase the price.  The defendant asked whether the nine year old child had “been with a man yet”.  In November 2017, the defendant told Tiozon he was in Vietnam and could easily get to Manila if Tiozon was free to meet him.  He asked if the boy was still available and enquired whether Tiozon had any “new boys”.  Tiozon confirmed the boys were available and the defendant responded the “younger the better”.  They negotiated the payment of money.  They arranged a location, hotel and time and the defendant instructed Tiozon to buy certain clothes for the boys.  The defendant transferred money to Tiozon.  The evidence does not establish whether the meeting eventuated but I am satisfied the defendant clearly had the intention of engaging in various acts of sexual abuse with these young boys in the Philippines.

  • Charge 9 – Transmit child pornography material

During communications with DoMo, the defendant transmitted child pornography material to him between 25 October 2016 and 24 February 2017.  The material comprised sexualised text messages, six child pornography images and one child pornography video.

  • Charge 10 – Solicit child pornography material

Between 19 January and 1 March 2017, the defendant used his “John Summer” Facebook account to request child pornography material from Marko Oval, who appeared to be under 18.  The defendant offered to pay Oval for a photograph or a “twerk” video.  He sent messages to Oval, including saying “I pay for sex with a cute gay boy”.  In addition, the defendant sent Oval child pornography material in the form of four images and text based communications.  The images sent to Oval included one category three image depicting the anal area of a young person and an adult hand, and three category one images depicting young people in underwear where the focus was on their buttocks.  The transmission of this child pornography material is one of the s 16BA offences.

  • Charge 11 – Solicit child pornography material

In addition to the offending referenced in charge 8, the defendant requested child pornography material from Tiozon between 20 and 23 January 2017.  These requests related to videos of young males twerking in their underpants, taking off their shorts, kissing the camera and having their bottoms touched.  After receiving a video, the defendant requested a second video and gave explicit instructions as to what he wished to be depicted.  He offered money for the second video.

  • Charge 12 – Encouraging offence of engaging in sexual intercourse with a child outside Australia

In addition to the offending in charges 8 and 11 already referenced, the defendant sent messages to Tiozon between 23 January and 23 February 2017 encouraging Tiozon to engage in sexual intercourse with a nine year old child in the Philippines.  They negotiated a price for a video of Tiozon engaging in oral intercourse with the child, whilst the child was blindfolded.  Tiozon later stated that the boy was “only 13 years old”.  On 23 February 2017, the defendant said he wanted a video of Tiozon and the boy kissing, touching and engaging in oral, penetrative intercourse.  The defendant sent a screen shot of a payment he had made to the Philippines representing payment for the video.

  • Charge 13 – Transmit child pornography material

On 24 February 2017, the defendant sent two category one images of child pornography material to a person called Dellera.  The first depicted a young adolescent male with his mouth against the buttocks of a young person.  The second depicted the same two males with the tongue of the older male appearing to rest on the younger male’s buttocks.

On 1 March 2017, the defendant used his “John Summer” Facebook account to send a category one image to a recipient named Tan.  This is one of the s 16BA offences.  On 1 March 2017, he sent a category three image to a recipient named Roldan.  This another of the s 16BA offences.

  • Charge 14 – Transmit child pornography material

In addition to the offending I have referenced in respect to charge 13, the defendant also sent child pornography material to Dellera between 11 November 2017 and 28 January 2018.  The material consisted of text based child pornography material about Dellera, whom the defendant believed to be under 18, and also included a category one image which depicted two young males where the focus was on the buttocks and underwear.  It was accompanied by a message from the defendant which said “who is your friend…I pay a lot if I can have both of you”.

As to the physical in person offending in respect to Charge 1 on Indictment 4011/2023 –the following occurred:

On 13 November 2017, the defendant asked a child, Gabrielle, if he wanted to meet for money because he wanted to kiss him.  On 14 November 2017, the defendant travelled to Manila and later that day, engaged in sexual intercourse with Gabrielle, who was aged 14-15 years, in a hotel room.  Gabrielle performed oral sexual intercourse on the defendant and the defendant gave him instructions as to what he was to do.  He also provided instructions via a third person, who was present in the room.  At one point the defendant told Gabrielle to “suck my balls really hard so it hurts”.  He told Gabrielle to lick the ejaculate from his penis.  Gabrielle did so before walking away and gagging.  At one point the defendant told Gabrielle “if you tell your Dad, I’m never meeting you again and never paying you again”.

The defendant made five recordings of the sexual activity he engaged in with Gabrielle.  This amounts to the criminal conduct outlined in charge 2 on Indictment 4011/2023, namely produce child pornography material outside Australia.

As to the other acts of physical contact offending, the criminal conduct associated with the three further charges of engage in sexual intercourse with a child are as follows:

On 19 November 2017, the defendant engaged in sexual intercourse with three young male children in a hotel room.  At times another person was present.  The youngest child performed oral sexual intercourse upon the defendant.  At one stage, the child asked if he was “performing a blow job”.  The defendant pushed the child’s head down towards his penis.  There were negotiations about prices for sexual activities to be performed between the defendant and the children.  One child performed oral sexual intercourse upon the defendant whilst another child engaged in sexual intercourse with that boy.  At one point, the three children took turns to sit naked on the defendant’s face.  Two of the boys also performed oral sexual intercourse on the defendant and whilst this was happening, the third child masturbated the defendant’s penis.  The defendant instructed the boys to “suck his balls hard”.  Later that same day, the defendant again engaged in oral sexual intercourse with the first child.  The defendant pushed the child’s head down onto his penis whilst the oral sexual intercourse was occurring.  The defendant again engaged in discussions with the children about payment.

  • Charge 17 – Produce child pornography material outside Australia

The defendant recorded the sexual activity he engaged in with the 3 children just mentioned.  There were eight recordings of the first occasion involving all three boys, and five recordings of the latter occasion involving only one child.  During the first occasion with all three boys, the defendant positioned the recording device to capture the three boys on the bed.  During the second occasion with one child, one of the other boys appeared to be recording the activities and requested payment for doing so.

The retention and possession of the 18 videos found on the defendant’s phone on 3 March 2018 constitutes the charge of possess child exploitation material.

  • Charge 21 – Preparing for or planning an offence of engage in sexual intercourse with a child outside Australia

Between 7 December 2017 and 1 January 2018, the defendant sent messages to a person named Borromeo.  He offered to pay Borromeo well if Borromeo could provide a place and a “chupa” boy (The Filipino translation of “chupa” is “suck”).  The defendant told Borromeo that boys aged 9 to 12 were nice and that he liked them “slim and smooth – no hair – tight arse”.  Borromeo offered to provide many boys.  There were discussions as to when the defendant would travel to the Philippines.  He asked Borromeo to find out the suburb where a particular boy lived and said that he had transferred money for a “twerk dance video”.  At one point the defendant said to Borromeo, in reference to the Philippines, “I like how the people that drive past don’t budge an eye…if it was in Australia, they would stop and think exploitation and not how they naturally are…it’s more different in the Philippines…it’s in the DNA”.

  • Charge 22 – Preparing for or planning an offence of engage in sexual intercourse with a child outside Australia

Between 7 December 2017 and 7 January 2019, the defendant used his “John Latte” Facebook account to send online communications to Ace, who was a 17 year old boy.  The defendant told Ace that he would like to meet him and “share a boy in Manila”.  He said he liked boys aged 10 and offered 4,000 PHP (approximately $102.00) for a threesome.  He described sexual acts he would like to engage in, and asked Ace whether he liked it if the boys cried, and if certain degrading and forceful acts could be performed on the boy, despite the boy’s protests and pleas.  For example, he described having boys tied to the floor and engaging in forceful sexual intercourse.  On 6 January 2018, the defendant sent an image of two males, who appear to be aged under 16, to Ace and asked him if he wanted one.  He described that one was aged nine.  The defendant suggested a place to meet and asked how much money he should give to Ace to join in.  He offered to pay 6,000 PHP (approximately $154.00) to the nine year old boy and suggested Ace could steal that money off him later during the sexual activities.  He described wishing to engage in acts that involved physical force and pain for the boy, including gagging and handcuffing him so that he could not get away whilst they slept, and taping his mouth and blindfolding him so they could not hear or understand any requests the child might make to stop.

  • Charge 23 – Procure a child to engage in sexual activity outside Australia

The defendant sent messages to Jainal, whose social media profile indicated he was 14 years of age.  The defendant offered to send a cell phone to the child in exchange for the child meeting him in the Philippines and engaging in sexual acts with him.  On 9 December 2017, the defendant asked Jainal how far he was from Malate and asked what date and time they should meet up.  The defendant asked Jainal to send him photographs of his bottom.

  • Charge 24 – Solicit child pornography material

Between 10 December 2017 and 3 January 2018, the defendant requested child pornography material from a person, Emilson Torre, via his “John Latte” Facebook account.  Torre told the defendant he was 15 and sent a photograph of himself.  The defendant asked Torre to film himself and a younger friend twerking and offered money.  He later transferred money and requested a video of Torre’s spanking and touching his friend’s bottom.  He made repeated requests for such material to be sent to him.  He offered additional money depending on the quality of the video.  During this time, Torre sent to the defendant a category 1 video of the male undressing, and a category 1 image of a naked young male on a bed.

  • Charge 25 – Transmit child pornography material.

Between 13 and 20 December 2017, the defendant communicated with a child, Alcaide, who was under 18 years.  He sent Alcaide two category 1 child pornography images of pre-pubescent males and asked whether Alcaide was top or bottom, and asked if Alcaide wished to engage in sexual activity with the male depicted in the image.

  • Charge 26 – Transmit child pornography material

On 14 December 2017, the defendant sent child pornography material to Kenneth Monde, via his “John Latte” Facebook account.  The defendant believed Monde to be under 18 years.  He sent a category 1 image of a pre-pubescent male, focusing upon the anal and testicle areas, and sent to Monde the following message, “Next time I want have threesome with boy with small penis, no hair” and asked Monde to organise that threesome.  He offered to pay him 1,000 PSP (approximately $25.00) if he found a “cute, young 10 year old boy”.

  • Charge 27 – Cause child pornography material to be sent

On 23 December 2017, the defendant caused child pornography material to be transmitted to himself by a Facebook user known as Sheandy Futra.  Futra appeared to be under 18 based on images sent to the defendant.  The defendant told Futra that he liked his pictures and said he was going to be in Jakarta in January and would pay well if Futra was gay.  He offered to meet Futra in Jakarta and give him money.  Futra replied, “You have money, please help me.  Send money for Christmas and happy new 2018.  Me have no money”.  The defendant replied that he could send Futra money if he made a twerk video for him.  Futra subsequently sent the defendant three category 1 images depicting exposed buttocks and penises.

  • Charge 28 – Preparing for or planning an offence of engage in sexual intercourse with a child outside Australia

Between 26 December 2017 and 3 January 2018, the defendant sent online communications to Jerry Bondoc.  In these communications, there was discussion as to the defendant travelling to Manila for a week.  The defendant said he would pay for a threesome with Bondoc and a young male.  The defendant said he wanted pictures before he booked.  He told Bondoc that if the pictures were good, he would meet them in late January.  He discussed with Bondoc getting “young males” that he could play with.  Bondoc sent four images of under age Filipino children.  The defendant asked whether he could meet the boys and asked whether the boys could perform certain sexual acts upon him.

  • Charge 29 – Preparing for or planning an offence of engage in sexual intercourse with a child outside Australia

Between 28 and 29 December 2017, the defendant sent online communications to Christian Dominice, via his “John Latte” Facebook account.  He told Dominice that he was looking for a gay friend and would pay money.  Dominice said that he had a lot of boys and offered them to the defendant.  The defendant asked for photographs so he could “make a choice”.  He discussed the price for certain sexual acts to be performed.  Images were sent to the defendant, but the defendant asked for younger boys, particularly those aged 10 to 12 years.  When Dominice said he had engaged in intercourse with a five year old child, the defendant said that was too young for him but commented that “10 is nice”.

  • Charge 30 – Encourage offence of engage in sexual intercourse with a child outside Australia

Between 2 and 6 January 2018, the defendant engaged in communications with Gabrielle.  He instructed Gabrielle to take photographs and videos of Gabrielle engaging in sexual intercourse with a 9 to 10 year old child.  The defendant told Gabrielle, “I want to watch him suck you next time…I want to see you suck it so crazy and…take photo of boy with money in hand”.  He also sent messages stating “Can you make video of you sucking him…and if you spank him hard while he lays on tummy, I give you more money”.  At one point during the communications, Gabrielle reported to the defendant that the young boy was crying.

  • Charge 31 – Transmit child abuse material

In addition to Charge 22, the defendant sent child abuse material to Ace between 3 and 7 January 2018 in the form of text based descriptions of the physical abuse of the nine year old boy, and two category 5 images of child abuse material.  Those images involved bondage.  The messages included the defendant saying he wanted to see the boy having tears in his eyes whilst a particular sexual act was being performed, and hearing the boy say “Please, no more”.

  • Charge 32 – Solicit child pornography material

In addition to Charges 22 and 31, the defendant requested child pornography material from Ace between 3 and 4 January.  It comprised requests for photographs of Ace’s bottom and of Ace in his underwear.  The defendant offered money for such material.

  • Charge 33 – Encourage offence of engage in sexual intercourse with a child outside Australia

Between 3 and 10 January 2018, the defendant sent messages to Airtsua.  Airtsua identified his 12 year old brother in a photograph and told the defendant an American adult had intercourse with his brother.  The defendant and Airtsua discussed the defendant paying for videos of his brother having intercourse with older men.  They talked about the defendant paying Airtsua to make videos depicting the sexual intercourse between the American male and the 12 year old child.  Airtsua offered to include his seven year old brother in the video.  The defendant initially said that was a “bit young” but then asked for a photograph.  He said he wanted a video of the American having sexual intercourse with the seven year old boy and said he would pay money for it.  When the video was not forthcoming, the defendant sent further requests for it.  Some of the messages included comments like, “Happy to send money.  You know I have to others…I would pay 4,000 for good video”.

  • Charge 34 – Transmit indecent communication to person under 16

On 3 January 2018, the defendant sent indecent communications to Clint Loyola, who was under the age of 16 years.  Loyola told the defendant he was 12 and was still at school.  The defendant told Loyola he was “very sexy” and asked him whether he had “been with a guy before”.  He also asked if Loyola was a virgin.  The defendant told Loyola he wanted to hold him and have him sit on his lap and said he would pay money for Loyola to twerk for him.

  • Charge 35 – Solicit child pornography material

Between 5 and 6 January 2018, the defendant requested child pornography material from a Yuri Padilla, via his “John Latte” Facebook account.  On 5 January 2018, Padilla sent the defendant images of an underage male.  The defendant responded, “He is so sexy.  Is it okay to meet him”.  Padilla said he had a nude picture of the underage male but could not send it via Facebook so the defendant asked him to email it to him.

  • Charge 36 – Encourage offence of engage in sexual intercourse with a child outside Australia

In addition to Charge 28, the defendant sent messages to Bondoc instructing him to take images of himself engaging in sexual intercourse with a child.  He asked Bondoc to take a photograph of Bondoc performing oral sexual intercourse on the child whilst grabbing his bottom.  Bondoc sent an image and the defendant instructed Bondoc to perform oral sexual intercourse on the boy whilst simultaneously the boy performed oral sexual intercourse on  him, and requested further photographs of this sexual interaction.  He offered to pay for the images.  There was also discussion of Bondoc performing other sexual acts with other children and sending pornographic material to the defendant.

  • Charge 37 – Procure a child to engage in sexual activity outside of Australia

Between 6 and 27 January 2018, the defendant used his “John Latte” Facebook account to communicate with a child, Jiminez.  Jiminez told the defendant he was 14 and then later told him he was 15.  The defendant told Jiminez he was coming to the Philippines and asked whether Jiminez would like to meet and participate in sexual activities with him and other young boys aged 10 to 12.  He offered to pay Jiminez 4,000 PHP (approximately $102.00) for Jiminez to engage in sexual behaviours with him and other young boys.  He asked Jiminez what sexual behaviours he was prepared to engage in.

  • Charge 38 – Preparing for or planning an offence of engaging in sexual intercourse with a child outside Australia

Between 15 and 16 January 2018, the defendant sent online communications to a 15 year old boy, Lagajino.  The defendant told Lagajino that he was travelling to Manila and he was looking for a gay or bi-sexual boy to have sexual intercourse with.  He said he would pay well.  He offered 5,000 PHP (approximately $128.00) to have sexual intercourse with Lagajino.  Lagajino sought to negotiate the price.  The defendant asked Lagajino if he could “Find a boy for me” and told him where he would be and when.  He asked Lagajino to meet him the following month and engage in sexual intercourse with him for 4,000 PHP (approximately $102.00).  He went on to discuss paying Lagajino specific sums of money in return for specific sexual acts.  He told Lagajino he would be staying for two weeks and a friend would be providing an apartment.

The defendant also requested child pornography material from Lagajino.  He asked him to take “sexy photos” and offered 1,000 PSP (approximately $25.00) for the videos and photographs of Lagajino’s bottom.  This constitutes an act of soliciting child pornography material and comprises charge 44 on the Indictment.

  • Charge 39 – Transmit child pornography material

On 16 January 2018, the defendant sent child pornography material to a person called Lnrd via his “John Latte” Facebook account.  The defendant asked if Lnrd liked “young boys” and sent Lnrd a category 1 image of a pre-pubescent male.  He asked Lnrd whether he liked the male depicted in the image and said “Want to meet you and share this young boy and pay you 4,000 (approximately $102.00)…we can share boy I buy…we can both fuck him”. On the same date, the defendant sent child pornography material via his “John Latte” Facebook account to a person named Fadillah.  It was a category 1 image of a pre-pubescent male.  He told Fadillah “If you like guys, I can pay you money”.  This later behaviour constitutes a relevant s 16BA Offence in respect to this charge.

  • Charge 40 – Transmit child pornography material

On 16 January 2018, the defendant sent child pornography material to a person known as Nikkie Alcantar via his “John Latte” Facebook account.  He sent two child pornography images.  The first was a category 1 image of a pre-pubescent male.  The second was a category 5 image depicting bondage.  When he sent the images he said to the recipient, “How many fingers would you put in”.  On the same date, the defendant sent a category 1 image of a pre-pubescent male to a person by the name of Cheab.  This act constitutes a relevant s 16BA Offence in respect to this charge.

  • Charge 41 – Transmit child pornography material

Between 16 and 30 January 2018, the defendant used his “John Latte” Facebook account to communicate with a Mark Green.  Green’s profile indicated he was American and 22 years of age.  The defendant sent two category 1 child pornography images, which depicted a young male’s buttocks, anus and testicles, and a category 3 image of a young male’s anus and testicles with a penis being held against it by an adult hand.  When he sent the images, he also made a number of sexualised comments about his sexual desires and what sexual acts he would like to perform with young males.  The messages included comments like, “Love to tag fuck our little bitch honey”; “I can provide secure nice private apartment with some local fuck boys, young and tight and be a good friend”; “8,000 for all night (approximately $205.00) and you can use whips or ropes to tie if like … it’s okay, their owner lets us go hard for extra money and two of them have been fucked before…and he fucked hard apparently”.

  • Charge 42 – Preparing for or planning an offence of engage in sexual intercourse with a child outside Australia

Between 16 and 17 January 2018, the defendant sent online communications via his Facebook account to a person by the name of Baldia.  Baldia told the defendant he was 18.  The defendant sent two category 1 images of a pre-pubescent male and asked Baldia a series of sexualised questions about the male in the images.  He said he would be in the Philippines on 1 February and could arrange for he and Baldia to engage in sexual acts with the young child.  He asked Baldia a number of questions about what sexual acts he would like to, or be willing to, perform in respect to the child.  He described the boy as their “sex slave”.  He said he would buy the boy from the slums and that Baldia could do anything to him.  He said the boy might cry as he was only 10.  He discussed gagging the boy and tying him up.

  • Charge 43 – transmit child pornography

Between 17 and 29 January 2018, the defendant sent child pornography material to Crockett Gille via his “John Latte” Facebook account.  The material comprised four category 1 images, which depicted the buttocks and penises of young boys.  When he sent the images, the defendant made comments saying he liked 13 to 15 year old boys and that he was lucky because every boy wanted it and was gay and into it. On 17 January 2018, the defendant sent a category 1 image of a pre-pubescent male to a person known as Allie Allie and asked if he liked the boy.  The sending of this image constitutes a relevant s 16BA offence in respect to this charge.

  • Charge 45 – Preparing for or planning an offence of engage in sexual intercourse with a child outside Australia

On 21 January 2018, the defendant sent online communications to a person known as Ryannarendra, via his “John Latte” Facebook account.  The defendant said he was going to Jakarta and was looking for a gay friend.  He told Ryannarendra that he liked “younger, 10 to 12” and asked for photographs.  Ryannarendra sent an image of a young boy but the defendant said he did not like him.  Ryannarendra sent a further nine images of boys aged between 10 to 14 years.  The defendant said he liked them and asked if they had all had sex before.  The defendant said he was travelling to Jakarta on 10 February.  The defendant, in fact, departed Australia for Jakarta on 3 March 2018 but he was denied entry to Indonesia.

  • Charge 46 – Procure a child to engage in sexual activity outside Australia

On 26 January 2018, the defendant sent online communications to a Joshua Jayco, who was 15 years.  The defendant asked Jayco if he wanted to make money, said that he was going to be in Jayco’s city and offered to pay 4,000 PSP (approximately $102.00) for Jayco and a younger boy to engage in intercourse with him.  When Jayco indicated that he did not want to have sex with a random person, the defendant replied “You can get to know me”.

  • Charge 47 – Procure a child to engage in sexual activity outside Australia

On 27 January 2018, the defendant sent online communications to John Basco.  Basco had told the defendant he was 14 years and lived in the Philippines.  The defendant offered money to meet Basco, to kiss him and lick his bottom.  He told Basco he wanted to spend the night with him.  Basco replied that he was very young.  The defendant replied, “No, you’re fine … 14 is not so very young”.  During the communications the defendant asked Basco to take a “sexy pic”.  The defendant sent Basco an image of an adult male penis.

  • Charge 48 – Transmit child pornography material

On 27 January 2018, the defendant sent child pornography material to Adam Saenz.  Saenz told the defendant he was 15 years old.  The defendant sent a category 1 image of a pre-pubescent male and made numerous sexualised comments about what sexual activities he would like to undertake with the child.  He also sent Saenz a category 3 image of a pre-pubescent male.  He told Saenz the boy was 10 and again made a number of sexualised comments about what he would like to do with him.

  • Charge 49 – Preparing for or planning an offence engaging in sexual intercourse with a child outside Australia

On 27 January 2018, the defendant sent online communications to AJ Auayang via his “John Latte” Facebook account.  He told Auayang that he was going to Manila and was looking for a gay friend who also liked boys aged between 10 and 12.  He asked Auayang if he would like to engage in a threesome with the defendant and a 10 year old child.  He offered to pay money to have sexual intercourse with Auayang’s child cousin.  He sent Auayang a category 1 image of a pre-pubescent male, asking if he liked the boy’s bottom and saying, “Only 10 but we can share”.

  • Charge 50 – Procure a child to engage in sexual activity outside Australia

On 27 January 2018, the defendant sent online communications to Emanuel Farapina.  Farapina told the defendant he was 14 years.  He asked if Farapina wanted to make money and how much he would charge to engage in oral sexual intercourse with him.  Farapina told the defendant he lived in a large poor urban community in the Philippines, and would charge 300 PHP (approximately $7.00AUS) for the sexual act requested.  The defendant confirmed where Farapina was by sending a map of Manila to him.  He also asked Farapina whether he knew of, “any younger boys who we can do things with”.

  • Charge 51 – Solicit child pornography material

On 27 January 2018, the defendant requested child pornography material from Douggie Harris.  Harris was 14 years of age and was from the United States.  The defendant offered Harris $80.00 for a video of Harris using a dildo on his bottom, or “serious money” for a video of him performing oral sexual intercourse on an older gay friend.  He said he would pay “good money” for a pornographic video of Harris and one of his school friends performing certain sexual acts.  He also offered $50 for a video of Harris performing oral sexual intercourse on another male.  The defendant said he would send the money by Western Union transfer or bank account transfer.

  • Charge 52 – Procure a child to engage in sexual activity outside Australia

On 31 January 2018, the defendant sent online communications Marlin Ledda, via his “John Latte” Facebook account.  Ledda told the defendant he was 13 years of age.  The defendant sent child pornography images to Ledda.  He sent two category 1 and one category 3 image.  The images depicted pre-pubescent males.  In one image, an adult was involved.  The defendant told Ledda he would send him money if he “did videos”.  He asked if Ledda wanted to engage in sexual activities with the defendant and another young boy and made sexualised comments about what they might do.  He asked Ledda if it was “okay if the young boy cried”.  He also made comments about tying the boy up so he could not run away whilst Ledda digitally penetrated his anus.  The defendant told Ledda that he could bring a boy to La Union and rent an apartment for them in two weeks’ time.  He described the young boy as being Ledda’s slave and described himself as being Ledda’s lover.  During his communications with Ledda he sent an image of his erect penis and an image depicting the exposed genital area of a pre-pubescent male.

  • Charge 53 – Transmit indecent communication to a person under 16

On 31 January 2018, the defendant sent indecent communications to Lyheang Laor.  Laor told the defendant he was 14.  The defendant offered Laor 3,000 PSP (approximately $77.00) to meet him.  He said he wanted to kiss him and described him as sexy.  He offered to pay money when he went to Cambodia if he could kiss Laor.  He asked if Laor had kissed a male before and said he wanted to kiss a virgin.

Additional details of the S 16BA offences not already mentioned are as follows:

On 4 December 2017, the defendant asked a person, known as Migz, to show him a “sexy pic” and asked whether Migz could twerk.  Migz sent the defendant a category 1 video where he rubbed his groin area, licked and puckered his lips.  On 7 December 2017, the defendant sent child pornography material to a person known as Evangelista, who said he was 16.  The defendant sent a category 1 image of a boy’s bottom.  Between 27 December 2017 and 27 January 2018, the defendant requested child pornography material from Alip Sarl.  He used his “John Latte” Facebook account to communicate with Sarl.  Sarl told the defendant he was 13.  The defendant sent a number of messages and requests for pictures.  He asked Sarl to send pictures of his bottom and requested “sexy photographs”.  On 17 January 2018, the defendant sent a person referred to as Badjer Dave, a category 1 image of a pre-pubescent male.  He asked Dave what aged boys he liked and whether he liked the bottom of the boy that could be seen in the image.

I turn now to the defendant’s arrest.  The defendant had plans to travel to Manila in the Philippines on or about 3 March 2018.  He had made arrangements to return from Jakarta after ten days.  When he departed Australia on 3 March 2018, an alert by the Australian Border Force was triggered.  This led to Australian Border Force Officers seizing the defendant’s mobile phone.  The defendant refused to provide the PIN number to unlock it.  He told investigators that he was travelling to Jakarta to teach English to children at a school.  He said he did not want to provide the PIN to his phone because he had personal information on it.  He also told the officers that he knew they were looking for child pornography material.  The defendant departed Australia but was refused entry to Indonesia.  He returned to Australia on 5 March 2018.

On 28 March 2018, an order was made requiring the defendant provide his PIN to the Australian Federal Police within 24 hours.  On 29 March 2018, AFP officers asked the defendant for the PIN to his phone but he refused to supply it.  The defendant was arrested.  He participated in a record of interview that day.  He said, amongst other things, that he had no memory in respect to a number of the allegations that were put to him.  He said he was addicted to methyl amphetamine and when he was using that substance he became delusional and believed he was an undercover police officer trying to stop the people that harm and rape others.

He said the worst thing he had done was typing and that “words were harmless”.  He admitted he had viewed child exploitation images.  He said he had communicated with people on Facebook but described it as “human to human…very, very mild”.  He said he did not feel he had committed a “mortal sin” to any human being.  When asked about participating in sexual acts with young boys in the Philippines he said it was different in the Philippines and also said, “I didn’t feel bad about it.  I didn’t do any harm”.

He denied he paid money for sexual intercourse.  He said he had been told the legal age in the Philippines was 12 for consensual sexual intercourse.  He said he tried to stick to the laws and that he had never been with anyone that young.  He did not believe he had engaged in sexual intercourse with anyone underage.  He said he had not engaged in anal sex and had not done anything that he considered to be a mortal sin.  He said there were “heaps that got away with it” and were not “pretending and faking like him”.

The defendant was bailed.  Between 15 May 2019 and 11 September 2019, the defendant posted a series of messages on his Facebook account relating to the alleged offending, the investigation and the charges.  The content of those posts indicates the defendant did not accept any wrongdoing and had little comprehension of the gravity of the alleged conduct and its capacity to cause harm.  In several of the posts he seemed to acknowledge that he had engaged in oral intercourse with young persons in the Philippines.  He said things like, “It was just a blow job with someone over the legal consensual age in that country.  Does that not mean anything to you AFP?…this person had experience before and we had a connection.  The system does not understand.  The AFP are focusing on a technicality and making it a massive deal”.  Such communications obviously disclose a most concerning absence of insight and understanding of the harm his actions inevitably caused.  The defendant sought to minimise the seriousness of his conduct and displayed no remorse.

Similarly, between 23 September and 13 November 2019, the defendant sent a number of emails to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions in respect to this matter.  Within those emails, the defendant said things like, “There was a movement of gay teens in the Philippines that wanted to explore their sexuality” and wanted to be with him.  He said he had rejected many of them.  He also said he was “exposing others”.  He complained his life was ruined because the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions was making “a massive deal out of consensual BJ” (which I infer means blowjob), and that he believed that he was acting with children above the legal age of consent.  Again, the defendant’s lack of insight and distorted perception is simply astounding.

The defendant has been remanded in custody since 13 November 2019 as a consequence of breaching bail conditions imposed upon him.

Despite the defendant’s claims that his unlawful behaviour was little more than a technicality, and his unwillingness to acknowledge its reprehensible nature, I am satisfied, consistent with his pleas of guilty, that he was well aware that his conduct was illegal.  The defendant presents with a rather distorted sense of morality and seeks to justify his conduct by reference to cultural practices and the behaviours of others.  Accordingly, I had a Forensic Mental Health assessment undertaken in respect to the defendant.  For various reasons, that I need not address now, that report took an exceptionally long period of time to receive.  It was requested on 4 October 2023.  It was received on 17 July 2024.  Despite that delay, I considered it essential that I have the report before sentencing the defendant, as he was by that time unrepresented.  It was apparent from a number of the submissions he made in Court during the sentencing hearing that his mental health was an important consideration.

The report indicates that by way of sexual orientation, the defendant is attracted to both males and females but in particular has a strong sexual attraction to pre and peri pubescent boys.  The author of the report, Dr Darjee, considers the defendant meets the criteria for a diagnosis of paedophilic disorder.  As to his mental health history, the defendant’s first contact with mental health services was at the end of 2017 when a situation developed with his mother.  He expressed suicidal ideation on this occasion.  Mental health services diagnosed him with depression and alcohol or drug induced psychosis.  He was seen for a period by the crisis assessment and treatment team, known as the CATT team.

When he was arrested in March 2018, the defendant was expressing suicidal ideation in the context of alcohol and methyl amphetamine misuse.  He was diagnosed with an adjustment disorder and substance misuse.  He continued to see the CATT team for about a month.  In August 2018, he was admitted to the Spencer Clinic with suicidal ideation and auditory hallucinations.  This was assessed as being related to his ongoing methyl amphetamine use.

The defendant is reported as having a long history of alcohol and drug abuse issues.  He has used cannabis, MDMA, LSD and methyl amphetamine variously but regularly for many years.  The report notes the defendant provided Dr Darjee with a “convoluted, meandering and, in his view, revelatory account of several (drug-induced) “trips” he had experienced which had opened his mind to different dimensions, spiritual experiences and understandings of metaphysical phenomena”.  Many of his early mental health difficulties appear to be directly related to his extensive use of illicit substances.

Dr Darjee described that during the interview process with the defendant, his train of thought was difficult to follow and it was difficult to obtain a focused account of the defendant’s offending.  Dr Darjee noted that during the second interview he had with the defendant, in particular, the defendant was “thought disordered, on edge, pre-occupied, self-absorbed” and “caught up in his own world”.

As to his mental health conditions, Dr Darjee opines that the defendant “always had an unusual and introverted personality with detachment, social withdrawal, lack of connection and closeness to others, awkwardness, self-absorption, anxiety, rigidity and eccentricity.  As such he has prominent schizoid and schizotypal features with some anxious/avoidant and narcistic traits.  He has a history of problematic use of substances, including alcohol, cannabis, LSD and methyl amphetamine.  When seen by mental health clinicians from 2017 to 2023, he was not described as presenting as he did when I saw him in July 2024. … by then, he was frankly thought disordered and expressing some quite idiosyncratic pre-occupying ideas which were bordering in, if not actually delusional.”

As to the role mental health played in respect to the offending Dr Darjee opines: “In my view, he was not psychotic when he committed the offences and mental illness did not play a role in them.  His personality, with an inability to connect with and be close to others, has lead to problems with intimacy in the context of a developing sexual attraction to young boys.  He has acted out his sexual urges and fantasies in communication with other adults and through communicating with children, getting them to enact and record sexual acts with children.  He has also arranged to meet and have sex with children.  He has groomed children with money and seems to have exploited the laws, poverty and vulnerability of children.  As is often the case when people are paedophilic and commit sexual offences against children, he finds it easier to become emotionally close to children, in his mind he loves children, and he displays distorted cognitions regarding consent, lack of harm caused and mutuality.”

Dr Darjee also opines that it is likely that the defendant has, in the context of his vulnerable personality, decompensated into what now appears to be a psychotic state, whilst incarcerated. This is relevant to the impact any sentence is likely to have upon the defendant.  His current state of poor mental health will leave him vulnerable in the prison environment and make incarceration a more onerous experience.  However, in looking at his mental health history prior to the commission of these crimes, there is no evidence of thought disorder or mental illness, and there is no evidence to suggest mental health conditions contributed to the offending.

As to future risk considerations, Dr Darjee notes the defendant has a high number of relevant risk factors, there is a high likelihood of further sexual violence, and he will need a high level of intervention to prevent further sexual offending.  Dr Darjee also notes that treating his current mental health illness will not address the risk of sexual offending given his mental illness was, at most, a peripheral factor in his sexual offending.

Dr Darjee also notes there is a risk that the defendant’s mental health will deteriorate further in prison and that prison will weigh more heavily upon him than on an individual not impaired by his mental health conditions.  It is likely that the defendant will continue to struggle in the prison environment given the deterioration in his mental health, and there is concern as to a heightened risk of suicide after sentence.

I accept the opinion of Dr Darjee.  I note the defendant disputes his findings, but I am satisfied Dr Darjee is well credentialed to give the opinion, and that his opinion is based on a proper evidentiary foundation given the access he had to the Tasmania Health Service records.  I will sentence on the basis that the defendant’s moral culpability is not reduced by any mental health condition that was operating upon him at the time of the offending.  There is no reason to reduce the weight to be given to principles of general and specific deterrence.  I do, however, take into account the deterioration in the defendant’s mental health since the period of offending.  It will be relevant to the severity of the inevitable prison term upon the defendant. That said, it is incumbent upon the prison authority to ensure the safety of the defendant and provide appropriate support and treatment for his mental health.    I must sentence on the assumption that such fundamental requirements will be met.

Given the risk factors identified, the defendant’s diagnosis of paedophilic disorder and the gravity of the defendant’s conduct there is an obvious need for community protection to be recognised in the sentencing exercise.  This is particularly so given the defendant’s lack of insight into the severity and abhorrence of his offending.  Moreover, the defendant does not accept that he presents a risk of future offending.  He submitted he considered the psychiatric report to be unfairly biased and misrepresented much of what he had said as to his beliefs and the impact psychedelic substances had had upon him.  I accept, however, I must assess and consider the defendant’s submissions as to that in light of what Dr Darjee has described as to his now very poor mental state.

By way of background generally, the defendant is 40 years of age.  He was aged between 31 and 34 when the crimes were committed.  He has no relevant prior convictions.  There are some convictions for driving offences, but nothing of this nature or gravity.  He grew up in a supportive family environment.  He had a largely unremarkable childhood.  He did well at school, ultimately completing a university degree in history.  He enjoyed sports.  He enjoyed travel and spent time living in the United Kingdom and then between 2015 and 2018, spent a considerable period of time in South East Asia working as an English teacher.  Upon his ultimate release, the defendant intends to relocate to Victoria and is hopeful of pursuing comedic interests.

I note that the defendant has sent a considerable body of various materials to the Court throughout the sentencing hearing.  I have reviewed that material.  To the extent it is relevant to principles of sentencing, and in my view, the vast majority of it is not, I have had regard to it.  In many of those communications, the defendant expresses regret for his behaviours, but equally maintains his view that his offending is far from grievous.  He suggests many of his behaviours were the consequence of his experiences with psychedelic substances.  He also now considers his use of drugs was associated with the desire to feel better about himself and believes much of his criminal behaviour was directed to the same end.  He points out his physical interactions did not involve overt physical violence and he claims he intended no harm to his victims.

Since being remanded in custody, the defendant has ceased use of illicit substances.  I also note he has participated in rehabilitative programmes such as the Pathways programme.  His communications also indicate that the time he has spent in custody has been most difficult for him.  He has been physically assaulted on numerous occasions.  He has experienced suicidal ideation as a consequence of his treatment in prison.  I take into account the defendant’s pleas of guilty.  Although they could not be said to have been entered at an early stage, they nevertheless retain utilitarian value as they have avoided the need for a jury to examine all of this material to determine issues which may have arisen and therefore have avoided the public exposure of this distasteful and disturbing material.

There has been considerable delay in this matter being finalised.  I have already referred to the unfortunate delay associated with obtaining the forensic mental health report.  Prior to that, there had been issues with disclosure, the defendant had changed his counsel on several occasions, and when the defendant was represented by counsel, considerable time passed whilst extensive negotiations were undertaken.  Following the entering of the pleas of guilty, the defendant ceased to be represented by counsel, and there was further delay associated with the defendant appearing self-represented during the sentencing hearing.  In short, many things have contributed to the delay.  It is a pointless exercise to endeavour to attribute blame to the delay.  What is relevant to the sentencing exercise is the impact the delay has had upon the defendant.  As noted, I accept there has been a significant deterioration in the defendant’s mental health during the period of time that he has been remanded in custody.

Mr Nettleton, these are exceptionally serious charges.  For a period of over two years, you engaged in the sexual abuse of children, both in person and online.  You physically engaged in sexual intercourse with four children under the age of 16 years in the Philippines in November 2017, and you recorded those sexual encounters and kept the recordings for your own sexual gratification.  You also encouraged others to engage in sexual intercourse with children overseas and requested that videos be sent to you depicting those acts.  Of course, you had no control of what those persons may do following your encouragement.  Your behaviour was predatory and unconscionable.  You procured children under the age of 16 years to engage in sexual activity outside of Australia, you prepared and planned the offence of engaging in sexual intercourse with children overseas, you transmitted child pornography and child abuse material, you solicited child pornography material, and you caused child pornography material to be transmitted to yourself, and you also possessed child pornography material.

I bear in mind the age and number of children involved, the gravity of the sexual offending and the specific acts that the children were required to perform.  I take into account the extent of the physical harm that was occasioned to the children, but of course that is only one small part of the true harm that you caused.  The children in the Philippines were particularly vulnerable.  Their economic circumstances, and the fact they live in environments where strong protection from exploitation is absent, makes them more readily exploited for the sexual gratification of adult offenders.  These laws exist to protect vulnerable children in countries which do not have particularly strong or effective laws from exploitation from Australian citizens.  In our society, such behaviour is rightly regarded as abhorrent.

In terms of the objective seriousness of the offending, I take into account the length of time over which it occurred.  This offending could not be said to be spontaneous.  It went on for a period of a little over two years.  It required considerable planning and organisation.  You were physically involved in the abuse of children and as noted you recorded those interactions.  Those children must now live with the knowledge that such materials continue to  exist, can be readily transmitted and potentially be located on internet networks for an indefinite period into the future.  Your actions were determined and focussed.

This offending did not occur by chance.  You created two Facebook accounts to enable you to engage in numerous communications with a significant number of like-minded individuals, seeking to pursue further sexual exploitation of children.  In respect to the written material you created and sent, the risk of harm still very much exists.  There is always the possibility of someone to whom you sent the material going on to act in the manner that was written about, or worse.  What you said about what you would like to do by way of deviant sexual acts, what you encouraged other people to do could easily be the catalyst for other persons to progress from deviant communications to reality.

The language used by you at times, displayed a significant level of depravity.  Expressing a desire to tie young children up and tape their mouths so you could not hear their protests whilst you performed brutal sexual acts upon them is nothing short of sickening.  I have no doubt you produced and retained the child pornography material for your own sexual gratification and for the purpose of engaging in depraved discussion, or exchange, with other like-minded individuals.  The harm associated with the production, possession and transmission of child abuse material has been stated many times by courts.  I do not need to restate it.  Such conduct is simply to be deplored, condemned and punished.

The objective of legislation of this type is to protect vulnerable children from sexual abuse and other forms of sexual exploitation by Australians, whether that be in circumstances where they are travelling overseas, or in circumstances where they are engaging in such conduct from Australia on an online basis.  The absolute prohibition on sexual activity and sexual exploitation of children, is founded upon a presumption of harm.  The presumption of harm is not displaced because the offending occurs online rather than in-person.  The need to protect children from sexual abuse and exploitation, in whatever form it takes, is patent, and the Court must do what it can to protect children.  The sentence must make clear to you and others that those who commit sexual abuse against children will be met by harsh punishment.

I take into account that there is a degree of overlap in terms of the criminal conduct between some of the charges.  To this end, many of the sentencing aims also overlap between the charges.

Generally, I have regard to the matters set out in s 16A of the Crimes Act, to the extent they are raised in this case.  I also have regard to the heavy maximum penalties for this type of offending and bear in mind, in sentencing, the effect of the s 16BA matters.  Factors of general and personal deterrence are predominant sentencing considerations, as is community protection and denunciation of offending of this nature.  It is well recognised and well understood that the harm perpetrated by any level of child abuse or child exploitation, is almost inevitably grave, and in many ways is immeasurable.  There is a paramount public interest objective in promoting the protection of children from sexual exploitation.  The courts and the community’s denunciation of this reprehensible conduct must be reflected in the sentence imposed.

There is very little to mitigate any of this behaviour, although as I have already noted, the deterioration in your mental health is a relevant sentencing consideration.  All in all, however, your conduct is of the upmost depravity and warrants a lengthy term of imprisonment.  I have determined it is appropriate to impose a global sentence in respect to your criminal conduct, although of course there is a need to sentence the State matter separately.  In my view, such an approach best reflects principles of totality and proportionality, and the fact that many of the sentencing aims overlap in terms of the criminality between the various charges.  In determining this is an appropriate approach, I do not overlook the presumption within the Crimes Act in favour of cumulative sentences, but in my view, that does not sit well in this sentencing exercise.

I make the following orders.  John Nettleton, you are convicted of all counts to which you have pleaded guilty.  In respect to the State charge of possess child exploitation material you are sentenced to six months’ imprisonment, commencing 13 November 2019.  In respect to all of the Commonwealth charges I sentence you globally to a period of imprisonment of eleven years and six months, to commence on 13 May 2020.  In respect to the Commonwealth matters I set a non-parole period of five years and six months.  The result is a total sentence of 12 years’ imprisonment.  You will be eligible for parole after you have served six years’ imprisonment.

I direct that the defendant’s name be placed on the Register under the Community Protection (Offender Reporting) Act and that he comply with the obligations under that Act for a period of 25 years following his release from custody.

Pursuant to s 23ZD Crimes Act I order forfeiture of the Apple iPhone IMEI 359317060481574 to the Commonwealth.