STATE OF TASMANIA v GRAEME WILLIAM TAYLOR 29 MARCH 2021
COMMENTS ON PASSING SENTENCE ESTCOURT J
The defendant, Graeme William Taylor, aged 72 years at the time of the offending, has pleaded guilty to accessing child exploitation material.
As a result of investigations, members of Tasmania Police executed a search warrant at the defendant’s residence in Primrose Sands on 5 December 2019. The defendant was present and the sole resident at the address. A video-recorded search warrant introduction was conducted with him. The defendant was cautioned.
During this search warrant introduction the defendant was advised of the reason for the search and he stated under caution:
- “I have done it, I don’t want to do it, I don’t like it“;
- He said he had viewed child exploitation material but he does not download it fully or keep it; and
- That he does not have any child exploitation material in his possession.
The defendant directed police to a white HP desktop computer located in his bedroom. He informed police that this was used to access child exploitation material.
During a search, a number of electronic devices were located and seized, including the white HP desktop computer. At the conclusion of the search the defendant agreed to participate in a recorded interview at his residence and he stated under caution:
- That he was the owner of the white HP desktop computer.
- That he was the only person who uses this computer.
- That he had been downloading child exploitation material on and off.
- He initially came across child exploitation material on and off, he estimated that he had downloaded a few hundred files that would be child exploitation material but that he does not currently possess any.
- He said he had an interest in females aged between 15 and 16 years but that he gained no gratification from them.
- He described an interest in small breasted women, not children.
- He said that downloading child exploitation material was a habit for him and he did not know why he did it.
- He knew what he did was wrong.
- He knew that by searching in the manner he did he would receive images of girls younger than 15 or 16 years of age.
All the electronic devices seized from the defendant’s residence were subject to forensic examination. The only device found to contain child exploitation material was the white HP desktop.
This device contained software and thumbnail images (extracts from videos) of child exploitation material, corroborating the admissions made by the defendant that he accessed and then deleted the material.
This computer was found to have Koolwire peer-to-peer software installed, in addition to Norton and Window Washer cleaning software.
Thumbnail images were located within the computers cached files. They were created from videos which have been stored and/or viewed on the defendant’s computer. The vast majority of the thumbnail images depict young females aged between 8 and 12 years engaging in inappropriate modelling poses (naked or partially naked), through to penetrative sexual activity with adult males. A considerable amount of the images run in a series as if they are frames of a video/s.
The defendant has not been charged with possession of child exploitation material due to all images being in thumbnail embedded cached files.
The material was viewed and classified by Tasmania Police using the Child Exploitation Tracking System (CETS)/Australian National Victim Image Library (ANVIL) schema which describes the following categories:
- Category 1 – Depictions of children with no sexual activity, however sexually suggestive in nature. Images or movies including nudity, sexually suggestive posing, emphasis on genital areas or sole urination by a child.
- Category 2 – Images or movies depicting solo masturbation by a child or sexual acts between children in which no penetration occurs, although includes penetrative use of sex toys by the victim.
- Category 3 – Images or movies depicting non-penetrative sexual activity between adults and children. May include mutual masturbation.
- Category 4 – Images or movies depicting penetrative sexual activity between children only or adult(s) and children.
- Category 5 – Images or movies depicting sadism, bestiality, humiliation, torture or child abuse.
- Category 6 – Anime, cartoons, comics, computer generated graphics, drawings, audio and text depicting/describing children engaged in sexual poses or activity.
- Category 7 – Non illegal material which is related to child exploitation material.
Forensic examination of the HP computer revealed a total of 87 thumbnail images depicting child exploitation material. In particular there were:
- 27 images in category 1;
- 2 images in category 2;
- 11 images in category 3;
- 3 images in category 4; and
- 44 images which were not illegal but indicative of child exploitation material or formed part of a series, that is, category 7.
The Crown submits that as these images are only thumbnail extracts of the original material viewed by the defendant, the categorisation is indicative only of the nature of the material accessed rather than the volume accessed.
The defendant has made admissions to accessing child exploitation material. An examination of his computer shows that there has been regular access of this material since the purchase of the device. I have seen a sample of the images. They are disturbing. They are not the worst that I have viewed.
Section 6 of the Community Protection (Offender Reporting) Act 2005 applies to the defendant’s crime, and I order that his name be recorded on the Register and he comply with the required reporting obligations for a period of two years.
I order pursuant to s 130F of the Criminal Code that the HP desktop computer listed on Miscellaneous Property Receipt 291888 be forfeited to the Crown only after Tasmania Police have removed all personal information and provided that to the defendant.
The defendant has no prior convictions, although this is frequently the case with such offending.
Prior to his retirement at age 66 he worked for the weather bureau for 34 years, and for the last 6 years of his working life on a mining site.
He suffers from prostate cancer.
It is submitted on the defendant’s behalf, that as stated in the Crown Statement of Facts “a considerable amount of the images run in a series as if they are frames of a video” and that therefore I ought to treat the overall quantity of images with some caution given there could be some duplication with images potentially from the same videos. I think that is correct. However as these images are only thumbnail extracts of the original child exploitation material viewed by the defendant, their categorisation is indicative only.
It is also submitted that the defendant was not accessing the material constantly during the offending period, that is, it was on and off. Often it would involve clicking on a link, which would start downloading the material and he would then delete it. Sometimes it would be deleted after seeing the preview and before the download was complete. Even when he did fully download, he said he would always delete it. He did not keep any on the computer.
I am told that he felt shame and guilt downloading the material. That is not disputed by the Crown.
I am told that he did not get sexual gratification from the imagines as he was impotent during the offending period. I have a great deal of difficulty in accepting that, given that his psychologist opines that she makes a diagnosis of “Other Specified Paraphilic Disorder”, given the fact that he “has not acted on any urges in a “hands on” manner”.
The defendant has been engaging with his psychologist since early 2020 and has attended in excess of 8 sessions to date, with delays due to his cancer treatment and COVID-19. I am told that this is the first time he has been to see a psychologist and is finding it useful and beneficial to him. His psychologist recommends long term psychological engagement, and the defendant is committed to continue attending on her.
It is submitted that I should take, and I do take account of the fact that the defendant is remorseful, was very co-operative with police, took part in an interview, made full admissions and pleaded guilty at the earliest possible opportunity, in the Magistrates Court.
Enough has been said about the serious and insidious nature of the defendant’s crime, for it to be well known that a prison sentence usually follows. However, despite the uncertainty as to the volume of the material viewed, I regard this case as at the lower end of the scale of seriousness.
The defendant is convicted and sentenced to a term of 6 months’ imprisonment, which sentence I wholly suspend on condition that he commit no offence punishable by imprisonment for a period of two years.