AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
District Court 13 August 2026

R v Munday

[2026] NSWDC 296

Sexual offences

Citation: R v Munday [2026] NSWDC 296
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 13 August 2026
Judge(s): Newlinds SC DCJ

Background

The offender pleaded guilty to two offences arising from conduct in May 2024 in Gulmarrad, New South Wales. The first was a Commonwealth offence of possessing child-like sex dolls (objects resembling persons under 18 years intended to simulate sexual intercourse), contrary to s 273A.1(1) of the Criminal Code 1995 (Cth). The second was a State offence of producing child abuse material, contrary to s 91H(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), involving the creation and possession of AI-generated child sexual abuse material.

The offender had a directly relevant prior criminal history. In November 2021, he had been convicted in the District Court at Grafton of importing a child-like sex doll, possessing a child-like sex doll, and possessing child abuse material. Those prior convictions triggered a mandatory minimum sentence of four years' imprisonment for the current Commonwealth offence under the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth).

The sentencing proceedings required the court to address a number of intersecting issues: the operation of the mandatory minimum sentencing regime for Commonwealth offences, how that regime interacts with a concurrent State sentence, and the significance of the offender's diagnoses of paedophilic disorder and autism spectrum disorder.

  • Whether the mandatory minimum sentence of four years' imprisonment for the Commonwealth offence (triggered by the prior convictions) should be exceeded, and how that minimum operates as a sentencing yardstick
  • Whether a sentence of imprisonment was appropriate for the State offence, and if so, whether it should be concurrent or consecutive to the Commonwealth sentence
  • How to structure aggregate sentences across Commonwealth and State offences to produce a total effective sentence that is just and not crushing
  • What weight, if any, to give the offender's diagnoses of paedophilic disorder and autism spectrum disorder, including whether those conditions had a nexus to the offending
  • What discount was appropriate for the guilty plea

Decision

Issue 1: The Commonwealth mandatory minimum and how it operates

Newlinds SC DCJ revisited his analysis from R v Blick [2024] NSWDC 569, explaining how the mandatory minimum under s 16AAB of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) functions as a sentencing yardstick. Following Hunt v The King [2024] HCA 8, the mandatory minimum sets the lower end of the range, as the statutory maximum sets the upper end. The court noted that the "mandatory minimum" is not in fact the absolute minimum: s 16AAC allows reductions for a guilty plea and assistance, meaning the true floor can reach 50% of the stated minimum. After applying a 25% guilty plea discount, the head sentence for the Commonwealth offence was set at five years and three months, exceeding the mandatory minimum because the offending was assessed as more serious than the least serious case warranting imprisonment.

Issue 2: The State offence and the threshold for imprisonment

For the State offence of producing child abuse material (the AI-generated material), the court was satisfied that the threshold under s 5 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) was crossed and that imprisonment was the only appropriate sentence. The offence carried a maximum of 15 years. After a 25% guilty plea discount, the offender received a fixed term of three years and nine months.

Issue 3: Structuring the sentences

The court ordered partial concurrency. The State sentence commenced on 28 June 2024 (the date of arrest and bail refusal, to account for time in custody). The Commonwealth sentence commenced on 28 March 2025, after a period of overlap with the State sentence. The approach ensured the total effective sentence reflected the overall criminality without being crushing, consistent with the principles discussed in R v MAK [2006] NSWCCA 381 and s 19(6) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth).

Issue 4: Mental health and the subjective case

The court accepted that the offender's diagnoses of paedophilic disorder and autism spectrum disorder were relevant to the subjective case and that there was a nexus between those conditions and the offending. However, Newlinds SC DCJ was explicit that paedophilic disorder is not of itself a mitigating factor in child sexual abuse offending. The mental health diagnoses were taken into account in the overall sentencing exercise without operating as a general reduction in the seriousness of the criminality. General deterrence was given significant weight given the nature of the offences.

Orders Made

  • State offence (Sequence 6, s 91H(2) Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)): Fixed term of imprisonment of 3 years and 9 months, commencing 28 June 2024, expiring 27 March 2028 (after 25% guilty plea discount)
  • Commonwealth offence (Sequence 1, s 273A.1(1) Criminal Code 1995 (Cth)): Term of imprisonment of 5 years and 3 months, commencing 28 March 2025, expiring 27 June 2030 (after 25% guilty plea discount); non-parole period of 3 years and 6 months, commencing 28 March 2025, expiring 27 September 2028
  • Child Protection Register: The offender is to be a registerable person on the NSW Child Protection Register for 15 years, commencing 27 September 2028 and expiring 26 September 2043
  • Forfeiture: Three child-like sex dolls and a desktop computer tower forfeited to the Commonwealth under s 23ZD of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)
  • Directions made to the Court Registry, Corrective Services, NSW Commissioner of Police, and the offender's supervising authority in relation to the Registerable Person Order

Key Takeaways

  • The District Court confirmed, following Hunt v The King [2024] HCA 8, that a mandatory minimum sentence under s 16AAB of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) operates as the lower end of the sentencing yardstick, not as a presumptive starting point, and that the true minimum sentence is reducible by up to 50% through the operation of s 16AAC for a guilty plea and assistance to authorities.

  • A diagnosis of paedophilic disorder does not, of itself, operate as a mitigating factor in child sexual abuse offending, even where a nexus exists between the disorder and the conduct. The court may take the diagnosis into account as part of the broader subjective case without treating it as reducing the seriousness of the offending.

  • Where an offender faces both Commonwealth and State sentences arising from related conduct, partial concurrency can be appropriate to ensure the aggregate sentence reflects overall criminality without becoming crushing, provided the court is satisfied the resulting sentences remain of appropriate severity under s 19(6) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth).

  • Prior convictions for Commonwealth child sexual abuse offences trigger the mandatory minimum sentencing regime for subsequent like offences, resulting in materially higher sentencing floors even for offenders with significant subjective mitigating factors.

  • AI-generated child sexual abuse material and child sex dolls are treated by the courts as serious offending warranting immediate imprisonment, with general deterrence carrying significant weight in the sentencing exercise.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation
- Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Act 2000 (NSW) ss 16C; 17; 18
- Crimes Act 1900 ( NSW) s 91H(2)
- Crimes Act 1914 ( Cth) s 19(6) ss 3; 16A(2); 16AAB(2)
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) s 21A
- Criminal Code 1995 (Cth) ss 273A.1; 474.22A; 473.1
- Customs Act 1901 ( Cth) s 233BAB(5)

Cases
- Assheton v R [2002] WASCA 209; 132 A Crim R
- Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 27
- Channon v The Queen (1978) 20 ALR 1
- Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v Beattie [2017] NSWCCA 301
- Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth ) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1
- Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth ) v D’Alessandro [2010] VSCA 60; 26 VR 477
- Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth ) v Garside [2016] VSCA 74
- Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v Gues t [2014] VSCA 29
- Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth ) v Zarb [2014] VSCA 347
- Director of Public Prosecutions v Groube [2010] VSCA 150
- Director of Public Prosecutions v Smith [2010] VSCA 215
- Edwards v The Queen [2013] VSCA 188
- Elias v R (2013) 248 CLR 483
- Harris v R [2021] NSWCCA 322
- Heathcote (a p seudonym) v R [2014] VSCA 37
- Hill v The State of Western Australia [2009] WASCA 4
- Hunt v The King [2024] HCA 8; 98 ALJR 485
- Kentwell v The Queen (No. 2) [2015] NSWCCA 96
- Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357
- Minehan v R (2010) 201 A Crim R 243
- Mouscas v R [2008] NSWCCA 181
- Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120
- R v Blick [2024] NSWDC 569
- R v Gent [2005] NSWCCA 370
- R v Jongsma [2004] VSCA 218; 150 A Crim R 386
- R v MAK [2006] NSWCCA 381
- R v Rodric David Booth [2009] NSWCCA 89
- R v Sykes [2009] QCA 267
- R v Engert (1995) 84 ACrimR 67
- Ryan v the Queen (2001) 206 CLR 267
- Taylor v R [2026] NSWCCA 32
- Veen v the Queen (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465