R v SS [2026] NSWDC 32

Citation: R v SS [2026] NSWDC 32
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 19 February 2026
Judge(s): Fitzsimmons SC DCJ

Background

The offender, a 33-year-old man identified only as "SS" (subject to non-publication orders), was sentenced in the District Court on two charges: possession of bestiality material contrary to s 547E(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 (maximum penalty: 3 years imprisonment), and dissemination of child abuse material contrary to s 91H(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 (maximum penalty: 10 years imprisonment). The offender entered guilty pleas to both charges at Wollongong Local Court on 3 September 2025 and maintained those pleas through to sentencing.

The offender came to police attention following the execution of a search warrant on an acquaintance's premises, which revealed extensive sexualised communications between the acquaintance and the offender. A subsequent search warrant was executed on the offender's home in December 2024, during which a USB device and laptop were seized. Forensic examination revealed bestiality videos on the devices. Additionally, a review of the acquaintance's phone and screenshots from the offender's devices revealed numerous communications in which the offender disseminated Category 2 child abuse material — specifically, detailed textual descriptions of sexual activities involving children, references to children of specified ages, and photos of children accompanied by descriptions of sexual attraction.

The offender had no prior criminal history. He had lived his entire adult life with his parents and younger sister, had never been employed, and had dropped out of university in 2014. His social connections were almost exclusively online. He claimed his communications about children were made for "shock value" and that the bestiality material was saved habitually as part of a pattern of "digital hoarding," though he acknowledged his conduct was inappropriate and disgusting.

Legal Issues

What was the objective seriousness of each offence?
What discount should be applied for the offender's early guilty plea?
What mitigating factors, if any, applied — including remorse, prospects of rehabilitation, and prior good character?
Whether the offender's lack of prior convictions constituted a mitigating factor, or whether it instead assisted in the commission of the offences?
What was the appropriate sentence given the purposes of sentencing under s 3A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, particularly the need for general and specific deterrence?
Whether a non-custodial sentence was appropriate given the offender's personal circumstances and the sentencing assessment reports?

Decision

Note: The judgment text available for this summary was truncated and does not include the final sentencing orders or the court's concluding reasoning. The following summarises the reasoning and submissions that are discernible from the available portion of the judgment.

With respect to the possession of bestiality material, the offender possessed four videos across two devices depicting sexual acts between humans and animals (dogs, a horse, and goats). The Crown submitted this was not a one-off incident given the material was spread across multiple devices, and emphasised the vulnerability of animals and their incapacity to consent. Defence counsel highlighted that there were only four videos of limited duration, the offender was not depicted in any of the material, and there was no evidence he had distributed the bestiality content. The court noted the limited availability of comparable sentences for this offence.

With respect to the dissemination of child abuse material, the offence was based on the offender's textual communications with a like-minded associate, in which he sent detailed descriptions of sexual activities involving children, specified the ages of children he claimed to be attracted to (7 and 8 years old), sent photos of children accompanied by sexualised descriptions, and made comments about sexual acts toward a publicised missing child. In one exchange, the offender explicitly stated his affinity for child exploitation material. The Crown emphasised the seriousness of engaging with a like-minded person to disseminate such content.

The court considered the Sentencing Assessment Report, which rated the offender as a medium risk of reoffending and assessed him on the STATIC-99R as having approximately 1.39 times the average sex offender's chance of reoffending. The report noted the offender demonstrated minimisation of his offending and limited emotional insight, though he was assessed as suitable for community service. Acute risk factors included potential collapse of social supports and emotional collapse.

Regarding mitigating factors, the offender was entitled to a 25% discount for the utilitarian value of his early guilty plea. The Crown contended that the offender's prior good character should not be treated as mitigating because his lack of previous convictions had assisted in the commission of the offences (he was able to operate without attracting police attention). The offender's counsel submitted that remorse and prospects of rehabilitation were relevant mitigating considerations, while accepting the offender's insight was limited. Both parties agreed that general and specific deterrence were important sentencing considerations for offences of this nature. The Crown noted that the offender's status as a registrable person under the Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Act 2000 was not a mitigating factor.

Orders Made

The full text of the judgment was not available for this summary, and accordingly the specific sentencing orders made by Fitzsimmons SC DCJ cannot be confirmed. Based on the available text, the court was considering both custodial and non-custodial options, with the sentencing assessment report having found the offender suitable for community service and recommending referral to a Corrective Services senior psychologist.

Readers should consult the full judgment for the final orders.

Key Takeaways

Under s 91H(2) of the Crimes Act 1900, dissemination of child abuse material encompasses detailed written descriptions of sexual activity involving children, not only images or videos. The District Court confirmed that the offender's textual communications were sufficient to constitute the offence.
The offender's claims that his communications were motivated by "shock value" and that his possession of material reflected habitual "digital hoarding" did not negate criminal liability. While these claims may bear on subjective factors relevant to sentencing, the District Court held they do not provide a defence to possession or dissemination charges.
A finding that prior good character facilitated the commission of the offences, rather than operating as a mitigating factor, was open on the evidence. The District Court accepted the Crown's submission and applied the established principle that good character can be given reduced or no weight where offending was facilitated by the offender's position of apparent respectability.
Publicly available comparable sentences for bestiality possession offences under s 547E(2) proved difficult to identify, reflecting the relative uncommonness of these charges in the sentencing jurisprudence.
Significant weight was placed on the STATIC-99R risk assessment and the detailed Sentencing Assessment Report, with assessed risk levels and recommended interventions playing a central role in the sentencing exercise.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation:
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 5, 91H(2), 547E(2)
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 3A, 5
- Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Act 2000 (NSW), s 3C
- Court Suppression and Non-Publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW), s 7

Cases:
- O'Connor v The Queen (1986) 23 A Crim R 50
- R v Booth [2009] NSWCCA 89
- R v Way (2004) 60 NSWLR 168
- West, Trent v R [2017] NSWCCA 271