Australia, Nov. 30 -- New South Wales Land and Environment Court issued text of the following judgement on Nov. 29:

1. Adam Ross Penn Blick ("the Offender") has pleaded guilty to, and is to be sentenced for, the following offence:

Table omitted can be viewed at: (https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/193714f52e97a834459e98d0)

2. As at 29 November 2024, the Offender has spent 2 years, 9 months, and 27 days in custody solely referable to this offence. The Crown accepts that it is appropriate to backdate any sentence to 2 February 2022.

3. This is not the first time the Offender has been before the Courts for this type of offence. He does have a significant record of like offending. At the time of his arrest, he was on parole for a similar offence and was arrested as a consequence of a routine check by police as he was a registered person pursuant to the Child Protection (Offender Registration) Act 2002 (NSW) ("CPOR").

General sentencing principles

4. The offence carries a maximum penalty of 15 years' imprisonment, which provides an unequivocal indication that the offending is viewed by Parliament as being of the utmost seriousness and provides a "yardstick": Elias v R (2013) 248 CLR 483 at [127].

5. The circumstances of the Offender are such that the offence also has a "mandatory minimum head sentence" of 4 years, the significance of which I shall return to.

6. The objective seriousness of offending involving the accessing of child abuse material is ordinarily determined by reference to the following factors:

1) The nature and content of the material, the number of children, the age of the children, the gravity of the sexual activity depicted, and the number of items or images;

2) Whether the material is for the purpose of sale or further distribution and/or profit; and

3) The length of time over which the material was accessed.

7. Whilst volume of material is an indicator, it has been held that the type of material and degree of its depravity is the primary focus, and quantity is secondary: see DPP v Latham [2009] TASSC 101 at [35].

The basic facts

8. The parties have agreed as to the facts, which I summarise.

9. On 2 February 2022, police conducted an inspection pursuant to s 16C of CPOR. The police viewed the Google search history on the Offender's mobile phone and found it to include a search for term "younger girl nudist", as well as prior searches for the terms "high school youth tweens in swimsuits", "model 12 twelve little girl model", "little girl swimwear pageant" and "girl nudist young".

10. Police followed a link on the Google search history, which led them to videos depicting young girls engaged in sex acts. Police formed the view that some of the videos constituted child abuse material. They seized the Offender's mobile phone and placed the Offender under arrest.

11. Police examined data from the Offender's mobile phone, which contained a significant number of images (1,665) and videos (561). Police reviewed a portion of these files and found many to depict young girls, often dressed as schoolgirls, engaging sexual activity. They identified one still image and two videos constituting child abuse material, being:

1) A still image depicting a prepubescent female involved in a sex act.

2) Two videos of a prepubescent female, naked and touching her genital area.

12. Police classified the identified child abuse material as falling within Category 1 on the INTERPOL Scale, that is:

"Depictions of a real prepubescent child (under the age of 13 years approximately), and the child is involved in a sexual act, is witnessing a sexual act or the material is focused/concentrated on the child's anal or genital region.".

*Rest of the document and Footnotes can be viewed at: (https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/193714f52e97a834459e98d0)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.