AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
District Court 24 July 2026

R v Jewo

[2026] NSWDC 266

Sexual offences

Citation: R v Jewo [2026] NSWDC 266
Court: District Court of NSW
Date: 24 July 2026
Judge(s): Montgomery DCJ

Background

The offender, aged 29 at the time of the offending, used an online platform in January 2025 to engage in a sexual video call with a child who identified herself as 13 years old and was located in the Philippines. The offender masturbated on camera and directed the child to expose her breast, which she did briefly. The offending came to light when Australian Border Force officers examined the offender's mobile phone on his return from Thailand.

Officers found a screen recording of the principal offence saved on the device, along with a separate 38-second video of a girl under 16 exposing herself. The offender cooperated with officers by providing his phone PIN and acknowledging his general understanding of what constitutes child abuse material, though he declined to answer specific questions about the allegations.

The offender pleaded guilty to using a carriage service to engage in sexual activity with a child under s 474.25A(1) of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth), which carries a mandatory minimum of five years and a maximum of 20 years imprisonment. The court was also asked to take into account a related charge of possessing child abuse material obtained via a carriage service under s 474.22A(1).

  • Whether the offending fell at the least serious, low, or mid-range of objective seriousness for this offence type, against the yardsticks of the mandatory minimum and maximum penalties
  • Whether the threshold for full-time imprisonment was crossed, or whether a non-custodial sentencing option was available
  • What weight to give the s 16BA (taken-into-account) offence of possessing child abuse material when setting the sentence for the principal offence
  • What discounts to apply for the early guilty plea (maximum 25% under s 16AAC) and for assistance to authorities (maximum 25%), and how these interact with the mandatory minimum
  • What subjective factors, including the offender's personal history, prospects of rehabilitation, and absence of prior offending, affected the appropriate sentence

Decision

Objective seriousness: Montgomery DCJ assessed the offending as falling in the low range for this offence type, but above the least worst possible case. The court rejected the Crown's submission that the offending reached mid-range seriousness. Relevant factors pointing toward lower seriousness included the absence of grooming, coercion, gifts, or pre-planned sexual engagement; the child's willing participation (though without discounting her age and vulnerability); and the fact that the most serious sexual act was performed by the offender upon himself. However, the child was a real person under half the offender's age, and the exposure of a child to masturbation on camera carried inherent gravity.

The s 16BA taken-into-account offence: The court found that retaining the screen recording of the principal offence and possessing the additional child abuse material warranted an increase to the sentence that would otherwise have applied. These factors justified greater weight being given to personal deterrence, general deterrence, and retribution.

Full-time imprisonment: Both parties agreed, and the court accepted, that the s 17A threshold for full-time custody was crossed. The court declined to exercise its discretion under ss 19B or 20 of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) to impose less than the statutory minimum, finding those provisions were not appropriate on the facts.

Discounts and final sentence: Applying the framework in Hurt v The King; Delzotto v The King [2024] HCA 8, the court identified an appropriate starting sentence before discounts. The court allowed a 25% discount for the early guilty plea, noting the utilitarian value and savings to the community, and an 8% discount for assisting authorities (providing the PIN, granting phone access, and acknowledging awareness of what child abuse material is). The total 33% discount produced a head sentence of 3 years, 8 months and 6 days, with a non-parole period of 2 years and 10 days, backdated by one day for time served. The court also noted the offender's positive subjective case, including nil prior offending, genuine remorse, family support, and positive rehabilitation prospects, as informing the overall sentencing exercise.

Orders Made

  • Convicted of the Sequence 3 offence (s 474.25A(1) Criminal Code)
  • Sentenced to 3 years, 8 months and 6 days imprisonment, commencing 23 July 2026 and expiring 28 March 2030, with a non-parole period of 2 years and 10 days expiring 1 August 2028
  • Registrable Person Order made under the Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Act 2000, with an 8-year reporting period commencing from date of release
  • Forfeiture orders made under s 23ZD Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) for the mobile phone and the child abuse material the subject of Sequence 4
  • Conditions imposed on Community Corrections supervision, including referral for a Mental Health Plan, psychological treatment addressing self-perception and mood symptoms, abstinence from illicit substances, and recommended treatment for sexual self-regulation

Key Takeaways

  • Under ss 16AAC(3)(a) and (b) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), the maximum discount for an early plea is 25% and for assistance to authorities is 25%, but the combined reduction cannot exceed 50% of the maximum penalty; in this case the court applied 25% and 8% respectively, totalling 33%.
  • The mandatory minimum sentence of five years under s 16AAA operates as a yardstick for the least worst category of case requiring imprisonment, while the statutory maximum of 20 years represents the worst possible case, following Hurt v The King; Delzotto v The King [2024] HCA 8.
  • Retaining recordings of child abuse material and possessing additional such material, taken into account under s 16BA, justified increasing weight on personal deterrence, general deterrence, and retribution beyond what the primary communication offence alone would have attracted.
  • Absence of grooming, coercion, pre-planning, or payment can place offending of this type in the low range of objective seriousness, though the District Court emphasised that the offence remains inherently serious regardless of those mitigating features.
  • A registrable person order with an eight-year reporting period is available in conjunction with a custodial sentence for this category of Commonwealth child sex offence, calculated in accordance with the Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Amendment Act 2024 (NSW).

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation
- Crimes Act 1914 (Cth); ss 16A, 16AAA, 16AAC, 16BA, 17A, 19B, 20, 23ZD
- Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth); ss 474.25A; 474.22A
- Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Amendment Act 2024 (NSW); ss 3C, 3I

Cases
- Hurt v The King; Delzotto v The King [2024] HCA 8
- R v Allpass (1993) 72 A Crim R 561