AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
District Court 17 July 2026

R v Almasri

[2026] NSWDC 264

Other

Citation: R v Almasri [2026] NSWDC 264
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 17 July 2026
Judge: Montgomery DCJ

Background

A 40-year-old man was convicted after a jury trial of a single offence of using a carriage service to procure a person he believed to be under 16 years of age for sexual activity, contrary to s 474.26(1) of the Criminal Code (Cth). The maximum penalty for the offence is 15 years imprisonment. The offending occurred between 22 July and 21 August 2023 at North Ryde, New South Wales.

The "recipient" of the offender's communications was not a real child. Police operatives had created an assumed online identity, presenting themselves as a 14-year-old girl on Snapchat. When the offender asked for a photograph, police supplied an image of a real 20-year-old woman. Despite the photographs depicting an adult, the textual communications repeatedly stated the identity was 14 years old.

Communications occurred across nine days over approximately one month. The offender introduced sexual topics, proposed meeting the assumed identity for various sexual acts, and suggested times when her mother would be absent. The offender ultimately ceased communications voluntarily and, importantly, made no attempt to attend any of the discussed meetings.

  • What was the appropriate objective seriousness of the offending, given the involvement of a police assumed identity and the particular circumstances of the communications?
  • What weight should be given to the offender's cognitive deficits and borderline intellectual functioning in assessing moral culpability?
  • What sentence was appropriate, having regard to the offender's subjective circumstances, prospects of rehabilitation, and the relevant Commonwealth sentencing framework?
  • Whether a Registerable Person Order was required under the Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Act 2000 (NSW), and for what period.

Decision

Objective seriousness: Montgomery DCJ assessed the offending as falling below mid-range for this type of offence. Several factors informed this conclusion. The communications were initiated when police sent the offender a friend request, and there was no evidence he had been searching for or targeting children online. Forensic analysis of all his devices showed no other sexual interest in minors, and only adult pornography was found. The offender did not seek anonymity, offered no inducements or threats, employed no trickery, and never attended any of the proposed meetings. The Crown's characterisation of the offending as "unsophisticated and opportunistic" was accepted. The court declined to find the offending "persistent," noting that the police identity itself re-initiated contact after gaps in communication and that the offender ultimately stopped communicating voluntarily.

The police assumed identity: The court noted the artificial nature of the scenario. The police persona was never oppositional to the offender's suggestions and was portrayed as innocent and naïve. The court found there was no real power differential beyond that artificially created by police in their portrayal of the assumed 14-year-old. The photographs sent depicted an adult, though the textual information repeatedly stated the age as 14. The offender's belief that he was communicating with someone under 16 was, consistent with the jury's verdict, established as a matter of law.

Subjective factors and moral culpability: The court accepted expert evidence from a forensic clinical psychologist and neurophysiologist that the offender functioned at borderline intellectual capacity with clinically significant executive dysfunction. This cognitive profile was found to significantly reduce the offender's moral culpability. The court identified good prospects of rehabilitation. The offender had complied with bail conditions for nearly three years since arrest, and there was no prior relevant criminal history. These subjective matters weighed considerably in mitigation.

Sentence: Taking all factors together, the court imposed a total term of imprisonment of 1 year and 4 months. The court ordered release on recognizance after 3 months, reflecting the finding of significantly reduced moral culpability and good rehabilitation prospects. The Registerable Person Order was mandatory given the nature of the offence, and was imposed for 8 years in accordance with the applicable statutory provisions.

Orders Made

  • The offender is sentenced to imprisonment for 1 year and 4 months, commencing 16 July 2026 and expiring 15 November 2027.
  • The offender is to be released on or after 15 October 2026 upon entering into a recognizance of $2,000 for the balance of the term.
  • A Registerable Person Order is made under s 3C of the Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Act 2000 (NSW) for a reporting period of 8 years under s 3I of that Act.
  • The offender is to be of good behaviour and comply with probation officer supervision, including obeying all reasonable directions.
  • The offender is not to travel interstate or overseas without written permission from the probation officer.
  • The offender is to undertake treatment or rehabilitation programs as directed by the probation officer.
  • For the period of the sentence, the offender is not to access Snapchat, Instagram, Threema, or Wickr (with limited exceptions for his personal business Facebook page and personal WhatsApp for trade or employment purposes).
  • The offender is to comply with reasonable requests from police or probation officers to unlock and present personal devices for inspection, with such requests not to exceed fortnightly frequency.
  • It is recommended that the offender engage in therapies addressing impulsivity, judgment, and appreciation of consequences, and be assessed for Cognitive Behavioural Therapy.

Key Takeaways

  • A conviction under s 474.26(1) of the Criminal Code (Cth) does not require the "recipient" to be a real person; by operation of s 474.28(9), it is sufficient that the offender believed he was communicating with a person under 16, even where police operated the assumed identity throughout.
  • Objective seriousness in this type of offence is assessed by reference to specific circumstances, including whether the offender initiated contact, whether the offender searched for or targeted children, whether any real child was placed at risk, whether threats or inducements were used, and whether any physical meeting occurred.
  • Where a police assumed identity is not oppositional and itself re-initiates contact after periods of silence, this can weigh against a finding of "persistence" in sentencing.
  • Clinically significant cognitive deficits, including borderline intellectual functioning and executive dysfunction, can support a finding of significantly reduced moral culpability, with consequential effect on the length of the sentence and the structure of the release provisions.
  • Under s 3C of the Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Act 2000 (NSW), a Registerable Person Order is mandatory on sentencing for a s 474.26 offence; the reporting period in this case was fixed at 8 years under s 3I.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation
- BAP v R [2024] NSWCCA 206
- Paterson v R [2021] NSWCCA 273
- R v Fuller [2010] NSWCCA 192
- R v Gajjar [2008] VSCA 268
- R v Howard [2024] NSWDC 518
- R v Singh [2017] VSCA 146

Cases
- Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth); ss 474.26(1), 474.28(9)
- Crimes Act 1914 (Cth); ss 17A, 20
- Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Act 2000 (NSW); ss 3C, 3I