AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
Court of Criminal Appeal 12 September 2025

Wormald v R

[2025] NSWCCA 140

Sexual offences
CRIME APPEALS APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE LEAVE TO APPEAL GRANTED APPEAL DISMISSED

Citation: Wormald v R [2025] NSWCCA 140
Court: NSW Court of Criminal Appeal
Date: 12 September 2025
Judges: Wright J, Weinstein J, Sweeney J (judgment delivered by Sweeney J)

Background

The applicant, a former teacher, pleaded guilty in the Local Court to a mix of Commonwealth and NSW State offences involving child abuse material and the sexual exploitation of children. All offences attracted a 25% discount for the early guilty pleas. He was sentenced in the District Court on 9 May 2024.

The Commonwealth offences consisted of six counts of using a carriage service to solicit child abuse material and one count of using a carriage service to transmit indecent material. The applicant had created multiple fictitious social media personas, purporting to be teenage siblings, and used those personas to deceive and manipulate nine child victims into sending him explicit images and videos. The State offences included common assault, two counts of sexual touching of students (with a further count on a Form 1), and two counts of possessing child abuse material (with a further count on a Form 1).

The aggregate sentence for the Commonwealth offences was 11 years and 2 months imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 6 years and 9 months, accumulated by 6 months on the State aggregate sentence of 2 years imprisonment. The total effective sentence was 11 years and 8 months imprisonment, with a total non-parole period of 7 years and 3 months.

  • Whether the sentencing judge erred in his findings regarding the degree of deception practised by the applicant, specifically the significance of the fictitious "Jannsen family" profiles and other fictitious child accounts
  • Whether the sentencing judge erred in finding that the applicant used insights gained from his teaching career in the commission of the offences
  • Whether the aggregate sentence imposed for the Commonwealth offences was manifestly excessive
  • Whether the total effective sentence across both the Commonwealth and State offences was manifestly excessive as a consequence of any error in the Commonwealth aggregate sentence

Decision

The Court of Criminal Appeal granted leave to appeal but dismissed all grounds. On Ground 3, the court found no error in the sentencing judge's assessment of the degree of deception involved. The applicant had created elaborate fictitious social media personas, including an entire fictitious family of teenage siblings, and used those profiles strategically to build trust with victims and manipulate them into sending explicit material. The court accepted that these were proper findings open to the sentencing judge on the evidence.

The court also found no error in the sentencing judge's finding that the applicant's teaching background had informed his offending. The applicant's professional experience working with children and understanding of their behaviour and vulnerabilities was a matter the sentencing judge was entitled to take into account as relevant to the circumstances of the offending.

On the question of manifest excess, the court applied the principles from Hili v The Queen and House v The King, noting that appellate intervention is warranted only where the sentence is unreasonable or plainly unjust. The court applied the sentencing factors identified in R v Hutchinson, adapted to the nature of the offending, and considered the maximum penalties, the provisions of s 16A of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), and the circumstances of each offence. The court also observed, following R v Jeffery, that comparisons with other cases do not establish a fixed range for offences of this kind, and that one must return to first principles in each case.

Having considered all relevant circumstances, including the serious and systematic nature of the offending across nine child victims, the court concluded that neither the aggregate sentence for the Commonwealth offences nor the total effective sentence was manifestly excessive.

Orders Made

  • Leave to appeal granted
  • Appeal dismissed

Key Takeaways

  • In dismissing the appeal, the Court of Criminal Appeal confirmed that elaborate use of fictitious social media personas to deceive and manipulate child victims constitutes a significant aggravating feature in sentencing for child abuse material offences.
  • A sentencing court is entitled to find that an offender's professional experience working with children, such as a teaching career, informed or facilitated the offending, and to treat that as a relevant sentencing consideration.
  • Applying R v Jeffery, decided cases in this area do not establish a fixed sentencing range; the appropriate approach is to return to first principles, having regard to the maximum penalty, the statutory sentencing factors, and the specific circumstances of the offending and the offender.
  • No error was established in the sentencing judge's findings about the degree of deception or the applicant's use of insights from his teaching career, meaning those factual findings provided no basis for appellate intervention.
  • Appellate courts will intervene on grounds of manifest excess only where a sentence is unreasonable or plainly unjust; an aggregate sentence covering seven Commonwealth offences involving nine child victims was held to fall within that permissible range.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 578A
- Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), ss 16A, 16BA, 19
- Criminal Code (Cth), ss 474.22(1), 474.27A(1)
- Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW), s 15A
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), s 21A

Cases
- He v Sun (2021) 104 NSWLR 518; [2021] NSWCA 95
- Hili v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520; [2010] HCA 45
- House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40
- Kentwell v The Queen (2014) 252 CLR 601; [2014] HCA 37
- Mulato v R [2006] NSWCCA 282
- Newman (a pseudonym) v R [2019] NSWCCA 157
- GP (a pseudonym) v R [2021] NSWCCA 180
- Obeid v The Queen (2017) 96 NSWLR 155; [2017] NSWCCA 221
- Ocek v R [2023] NSWCCA 308
- R v Gent [2005] NSWCCA 370
- R v Hutchinson [2018] NSWCCA 152
- R v Jeffery [2021] NSWCCA 221
- R v Whaley [2020] NSWDC 517
- R v White [2025] NSWCCA 111
- Woods v R [2024] NSWCCA 186