Australia, June 3 -- New South Wales Land and Environment Court issued text of the following judgement on May 5:

1. The offender, Christopher Sheedy aka Porter, entered pleas of not guilty on arraignment before a jury on 30 January 2025. The indictment contained two Commonwealth offences, with count 2 pleaded in the alternative. On 6 February 2025 the jury returned a verdict of guilty on the principal count. The offender is now to be sentenced for an offence of using a carriage service to transmit communications to a child under 16 with the intention of making it easier to procure the child to engage in sexual activity. This offence is contrary to s 474.27(1) of the Criminal Code which has a maximum penalty of 15 years imprisonment. The elements of the offence were identified during the trial. I accept that I am sentencing on an offence entailing an intention of making it easier to procure some non-specified sexual activity.

2. I must sentence in accordance with Commonwealth sentencing principles.

3. The maximum penalty for an offence provides relevant guidance. In determining the sentence to be passed, I must impose a sentence that is of a severity appropriate in all the circumstances of the offence.

4. As this is a sentence after trial I am required to determine the facts for sentence, guided by the requirement that any determination not be inconsistent with the verdict and any adverse matters are to be determined beyond reasonable doubt.

5. In this case, the parties have reached agreement on the facts as recorded in the 'statement of facts'. This is of considerable assistance. I observe that the pertinent evidence directly informing the offending was contained in messages. These messages are replicated in the agreed facts. There were voice communications, but this was more of relevance to assist to establish it was the offender communicating with the victim.

6. In addressing the factual findings, I propose to refer to matters that inform the seriousness of the offending. Some matters are taken from the evidence at trial.

7. The facts are informed by the evidence of the child victim who was communicating with the offender. Her relationship with him was limited. In the year of offending, 2022, the offender was in a relationship with the victim's biological mother. They resided together. The offender was aged 35. The victim had been adopted into what presented as a loving and supportive family when she was a baby. She retained some contact with her biological mother. Despite the support of her adoptive family, and the provision of access to a private school education, the victim presented as possessing a vulnerability informed by her circumstances including her relationship with her biological mother. She had commenced to run away not long before the offending. In 2022 the victim was aged 12 and in year 7 at school. Her age is relevant when considering it against the upper limit of the offence provision which applies to a child under 16. I take into account where she fell as against the upper limit. I also take into account the marked difference in her age to that of the offender. She had met the offender on limited occasions although she called him 'dad'. The offender used terms of affection towards her and fostered a connection. The fact that "little boss" was used elsewhere does not mean it was not used as a term of affection to her. The terms of the offender's communication denotes an attempt to normalise it. The terms of the communication were not explicit or degrading. There were no threats included which is consonant with the normalising of the terms of the communication. The nature of their relationship is of relevance in evaluating the breach of trust in the offender seeking to exploit her trust of him based on his domestic affiliation. He knew the victim as opposed to approaching a stranger. The targeted messages were interspersed with anodyne messages. The interaction of the two types is as contemplated for the offence. The communications were not isolated and transpired over 5 days within a 9-day period and were not ceased by the offender's withdrawal of interest.

8. I do not use the reference to Luna Park as part of the grooming.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (http://caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/1969e076cbd143448a5ad44f)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.