AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
Court of Criminal Appeal 1 June 2026

Seam v R

[2026] NSWCCA 69

Sexual offences
CRIME APPEALS APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE NO ERROR FOUND CRIME APPEALS MANIFEST EXCESS

Citation: Seam v R [2026] NSWCCA 69
Court: Court of Criminal Appeal (New South Wales)
Date: 1 June 2026
Judge(s): N Adams CJ at CL; Price AJA; McGuire J

Background

The applicant pleaded guilty in the District Court to ten counts of procuring the production of child abuse material for use through a carriage service and one count of possessing child abuse material obtained or accessed using a carriage service. Each offence carries a maximum penalty of 15 years' imprisonment. A further twelve offences were taken into account on a schedule under s 16BA of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth).

Between August 2020 and May 2023, the applicant operated as a "buyer" within an online child abuse material syndicate. He communicated directly with ten female children aged 14 to 17, all located in the United States, developing personal connections before soliciting them to produce child abuse material in exchange for payment. At the time of his arrest, 1,023 child abuse material files were found across three devices, depicting the ten procurement victims and four additional child victims.

The District Court imposed partly accumulated and partly concurrent sentences, resulting in an effective total head sentence of nine years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of three years. The applicant sought leave to appeal, contending the sentencing judge erred in assessing objective seriousness, that the individual sentences were manifestly excessive, and that the accumulation of sentences breached the totality principle.

  • Whether the sentencing judge erred in categorising the offences into varying groups of objective seriousness, given the victims were of similar ages and the offending involved similar conduct.
  • Whether the individual sentences imposed for each offence were manifestly excessive, falling outside the relevant discretionary range.
  • Whether the accumulation of individual sentences produced a total effective head sentence that was disproportionate or "crushing," in breach of the totality principle.

Decision

On the first ground, McGuire J (with whom N Adams CJ at CL and Price AJA agreed) held that the sentencing judge had correctly applied the non-exhaustive factors from R v Hutchinson [2018] NSWCCA 152 in assessing the objective seriousness of each offence. The sentencing judge was entitled, in the exercise of a broadly based discretion, to rank the offences into differing bands of seriousness. The fact that victims were of similar ages did not compel a finding that all offences were of equal and low objective seriousness. Relevant differentiating factors included victim age (some as young as 14), the number of files, duration of offending, and the degree of sexualisation and degradation involved.

On the second ground, the Court found that the sentences imposed were justified when the assessments of objective seriousness were considered alongside the maximum penalties, the other objective circumstances, and the applicant's subjective case (which the sentencing judge had accepted). The longer sentences among the procurement offences properly accounted for younger victim ages and longer durations of offending. The possession offence, described as a "callous and predatory crime" known to cause long-term harm, together with the applicant's extensive procurement conduct, justified the sentence imposed for that count.

On the third ground, the Court accepted the applicant's concession that some degree of accumulation was warranted. It held that the degree of accumulation adopted by the sentencing judge was appropriate, given the separate and distinct conduct underlying each procurement offence, the involvement of separate victims, the maximum penalties, and the additional criminality represented by the possession offence. The total head sentence was not disproportionate to the totality of the offending. Price AJA separately observed that the three-year non-parole period represented "considerable leniency" given the gravity of the applicant's offending.

Orders Made

  • Leave to appeal was granted.
  • The appeal was dismissed.
  • The sentences imposed in the District Court were confirmed.

Key Takeaways

  • A sentencing judge retains a broad discretion to differentiate between offences of the same type and categorise them into varying bands of objective seriousness, even where the offences involve victims of similar ages and comparable conduct.
  • The non-exhaustive factors identified in R v Hutchinson [2018] NSWCCA 152 (including victim age, number of files, duration of offending, and degree of sexualisation and degradation) remain the appropriate framework for assessing the objective seriousness of child abuse material offending.
  • No manifest excess was established where the individual sentences reflected legitimate differentiation based on victim age, duration, and the nature of the material, considered alongside the accepted subjective case and the 15-year maximum penalty.
  • In dismissing the totality ground, the Court of Criminal Appeal confirmed that accumulation of sentences for procurement offences involving separate victims and distinct conduct is appropriate and does not, without more, render a total head sentence crushing or disproportionate.
  • The three-year non-parole period, set against a nine-year head sentence, was characterised by Price AJA as representing considerable leniency in the circumstances.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation:
- Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), ss 16BA, 19
- Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth), ss 11.3, 474.22, 474.22A, 474.23, 474.27A

Cases:
- DG v R [2025] NSWCCA 137
- Dinsdale v The Queen (2000) 202 CLR 321; [2000] HCA 54
- FL v R [2020] NSWCCA 114
- He v Sun (2021) 104 NSWLR 518; [2021] NSWCA 95
- House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40
- Johnson v The Queen [2004] HCA 15; (2004) 78 ALJR 616
- Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357; [2005] HCA 25
- Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59; [1988] HCA 70
- Mulato v R [2006] NSWCCA 282
- Obeid v R (2017) 96 NSWLR 155; [2017] NSWCCA 221
- R v AJP [2004] NSWCCA 434; (2004) 150 A Crim R 575
- R v Booth [2009] NSWCCA 89
- R v Hutchinson [2018] NSWCCA 152
- R v Porte [2015] NSWCCA 174; (2015) 252 A Crim R 294
- Taitoko v R [2020] NSWCCA 43
- TH v R [2025] NSWCCA 121