AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
District Court 5 February 2025

R v Goode

[2025] NSWDC 236

Sexual offences

Citation: R v Goode [2025] NSWDC 236
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 5 February 2025
Judge: Haesler SC DCJ

Background

Police executed a search warrant at the home of an 81-year-old man in October 2023, after observing him in the process of downloading large quantities of files through an eMule peer-to-peer file-sharing application. Forensic examination of hard drives connected to his computer uncovered at least 180 videos and 276 images of child abuse material, and at least 1,800 videos and 200 images of bestiality material. Additional material of both kinds was found on separate electronic storage devices.

The offender told police he had a compulsion to download movies generally and denied any sexual interest in children. He suggested the child abuse material may have been downloaded inadvertently, and claimed the material on the separate storage devices was copied from the files already identified. He cooperated with police throughout.

He entered early guilty pleas in the Local Court to two charges: possession of child abuse material under s 91H(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), which carries a maximum of 10 years imprisonment, and possession of bestiality material under s 547E of the same Act, which carries a maximum of 3 years. Two further charges of the same type were placed on a Form 1 to be taken into account on sentence without separate punishment.

  • What weight should be given to the offender's advanced age, ill health, and otherwise good character when determining the appropriate sentence?
  • How should the court approach objective seriousness for the relatively newer offence of possessing bestiality material, given the absence of any Parliamentary commentary on the provision?
  • What role does general deterrence play in sentencing for possession of child abuse material, and how should it be balanced against significant personal mitigating factors?
  • How should the Form 1 matters be treated where the bulk of the additional material appears to be copies of the material already the subject of the head counts?
  • What aggregate sentence, including an appropriate non-parole period, correctly reflects all relevant factors?

Decision

Objective seriousness. Haesler SC DCJ described possession of child abuse material as a particularly callous crime, emphasising that each time the material is viewed, the viewer is confronted with direct evidence of a child's exploitation and degradation. Although the number of images was relatively low compared to many cases before the court, the volume of videos remained significant and the content was extreme. The judge was unequivocal that a custodial sentence was required to reflect the seriousness of the offence and to achieve both specific and general deterrence.

Bestiality material. The court noted that possession of bestiality material only became an offence in NSW in May 2022, and that the Parliamentary record contained no commentary explaining the new provision. While the offender's claim that he was unaware of the offence was therefore understandable, ignorance of the law provided no defence. The court found the rationale for the provision was the prevention of harm to both humans and animals, and that, like child abuse material, a market for such content sustains its harmful production.

Mitigating factors. The court gave the offender a 25-percent reduction in sentence for his early guilty pleas. Although his otherwise good character was a statutory mitigating factor that could not be ignored, the court applied established appellate authority indicating that good character carries reduced weight in offences of this secretive nature. His advanced age, serious ill health, and the particular hardship imprisonment would impose on him at 81 were each recognised, and the court stated it had extended the maximum available leniency by reducing the custodial time to the absolute minimum consistent with the purposes of sentencing.

Form 1. Because the material on the separate storage devices appeared largely to be copies of the head-count material, the court treated the Form 1 matters as a "clearing of the books" exercise, taking care not to use them to increase the sentence in any meaningful way.

Orders Made

  • Conviction recorded for both offences.
  • Aggregate sentence of 1 year and 10 months imprisonment.
  • Child abuse material offence (taking Form 1 into account): 1 year and 6 months.
  • Bestiality material offence (taking Form 1 into account): 9 months.
  • Non-parole period: 10 months.
  • Sentence commenced 2 February 2025 (taking into account time served).
  • Offender to be released to parole on 1 December 2025.
  • Parole period of 1 year; total sentence expires 1 December 2026.

Key Takeaways

  • Possession of child abuse material attracts a custodial sentence in virtually all but exceptional circumstances, with appellate courts consistently requiring sentences sufficient to deter both the individual and the broader market that sustains the production of such material.

  • Under the established NSW approach, prior good character remains a mandatory mitigating consideration under s 21A(3)(f) of the Sentencing Procedure Act 1999, but courts may assign it significantly reduced weight where the offending was secretive in nature, consistent with Mouscas v R [2008] NSWCCA 181.

  • A new offence with no explanatory Parliamentary commentary may still be enforced without apology: the District Court acknowledged the offender's claim of ignorance was understandable in the circumstances, but confirmed that ignorance of the law provides no defence.

  • Advanced age and serious ill health are relevant considerations that can moderate, but do not displace, the primacy of deterrence and denunciation in serious child exploitation matters. The court treated these factors as justifying the minimum custodial term consistent with sentencing purposes, not as a basis to avoid imprisonment altogether.

  • Where Form 1 material consists largely of copies of the head-count material, courts must take particular care not to double-punish: the appropriate treatment in such circumstances is to regard the Form 1 as a "clearing of the books" matter that does not significantly increase the sentence.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation:
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 79, 91H(2), 547E
- Sentencing Procedure Act 1999 (NSW), s 21A(3)(f)

Cases:
- Ryan v The Queen [2001] HCA 21; 206 CLR 267
- Mouscas v R [2008] NSWCCA 181
- R v Booth [2009] NSWCCA 8
- Minehan v R [2010] NSWCCA 140
- R v Roy (No 3) [2005] ACTSC 5

Other material cited:
- P Mizzi, T Gotsis, P Poletti, "Sentencing offenders convicted of child pornography and child abuse material offences" (September 2010) Monograph 34, Judicial Commission of NSW