Transmit Indecent Material to a Child Under 16 – Community Correction Order

Our client was charged with using the internet to groom a child under 16 for sexual activity and transmitting indecent material to a child under 16. The offending consisted of a 10-minute internet conversation with an undercover Police operative based in Western Australia.

Shaun Pascoe represented the client at the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court.

Our client admitted to sending a picture of his genitals and made other admissions. The conversation was of very short duration and our client had not attempted to organise a future meeting, nor engaged in behaviours characteristic of a ‘grooming’ offence.

Initially, the ‘grooming’ offence could not be dealt with in the Magistrates’ Court as the relevant penalty under the Commonwealth legislation exceeded the jurisdiction of the Magistrates’ Court. However, the Prosecution ultimately accepted a submission that this most serious offence be withdrawn. The 2nd offence was well within the Magistrates’ Court jurisdiction.

Our client received a Community Corrections Order. Significantly, because the first charge was withdrawn, our client was sentenced in the Magistrates’ Court rather than the County Court, where he would have been at risk of a more severe penalty.

 


Shaun PascoeShaun Pascoe

Shaun is an Accredited Criminal Law Specialist and a partner of the firm. Shaun runs the Heidelberg branch of Doogue + George.

He is an experienced criminal law solicitor and works hard to achieve the best possible outcomes for his clients. Shaun handles indictable and summary criminal offences and is an expert at criminal defence for both contested and non-contested cases.

Visit Shaun's profile to read more about his background and experience.

DISCLAIMER: This is a real case study of an actual case from our files. Details pertaining to the client have been changed to protect their privacy. The sentence imposed and the charge have not been altered. These case studies are published to demonstrate real outcomes and give an indication of possible tariffs in Court. We do not guarantee a similar case on these charges will get the same result. Please note that we post results at our discretion, therefore while many case studies are average results, others are notable for their exceptional outcomes. PUBLISHED 25/02/2013