Our client was charged with possession of child pornography and surveillance charges. It was discovered that he had allegedly arranged for the 16-year old daughter of his next door neighbour and close friend to do some modelling shots for him. He had told her that he was doing a photography course and wanted to take some pictures of her. He paid her $60 for her involvement. A time was arranged for when my client’s wife and children were away for the weekend.

Our client allegedly asked the girl to model in a bikini. He told her that she could change into the bikini in his daughters bedroom. The neighbour did not know that the client had set up a camera in the room which filmed her as she changed. Our client then allegedly took a series of photographs of her, some of which were sexually suggestive and concentrated on the genital area. When the police conducted a search of his house, they found around 6,500 images and 1,200 videos which were classified as child pornography. It was also later discovered that our client had allegedly put one of the pictures of the neighbour on a Russian child porn website, in exchange for him being sent images. Our client made full admissions to the police.
 

Kristina Kothrakis represented the client at the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court. The charges involved were:

• Possession of Child Pornography
• Make child pornography
• Surveillance of another without consent

Possession and distribution of child pornography are very serious charges. The courts condemn this sort of conduct, and that is generally reflected in the penalties which are imposed. The case law relating to these charges suggests that a term of imprisonment will normally follow in this sort of case, and a Community Corrections Order for child porn offences is an unlikely outcome. The level of seriousness is determined by a number of factors including the number of images involved, categorisation of the images (in terms of how depraved they are), and whether the person was going to profit from it. In this case, while there was no evidence that the client was going to profit, there was evidence of a gain through receiving more images for himself. The number of images was on the high side, and the categorisation showed that there were many images which were in the most serious category. Our client’s life had become progressively worse over time, with his marriage failing and him feeling emotionally isolated from his family. He was drinking more and more each night and spending a great deal of time viewing pornography. Due to the amount of pornography he was viewing, he became desensitised to the content and needed to search for things that were more and more shocking. This led him to view child pornography. After the police apprehended our client, he was distraught. His wife split with him and his daughters would not speak to him. He was suicidal and relied heavily on the assistance of a psychologist to get him through. He had regular sessions with the psychologist up until court. The psychologist we referred him to is one of the best in his field, and his reports carry a lot of weight at court. Through the use of impressive psychological material, we were ultimately able to persuade the magistrate not to impose a term of imprisonment. The magistrate also took into account his genuine remorse, and that he was a 45-year old man with no prior convictions.

Our client was sentenced to a Community Corrections Order for a period of 3 years. Over this period, he was required to complete 250 hours of unpaid community work, be under supervision, be assessed and treated as directed for treatment and rehabilitation (in particular for alcohol and mental health issues), and to complete the Sex Offender Treatment Program. He was also placed on the Sex Offenders Register for a period of 15 years.

This was a good result as a Community Corrections Order for child porn offences is a rare outcome for this type of case. Our client was able to avoid a term of imprisonment. More importantly, he would have access to support for his personal, psychological issues.