The images focussed on genitalia and children dancing and undressing. The offender was in possession of 18,520 Category 1 images and 332 Category 1 videos of children. Category 1 is images depicting erotic posing with no sexual activity. The sixth category is a category utilised in the child exploitation tracking system. The first five categories follow those developed in the UK guideline judgment of Oliver & Ors EWCA Crim 2766. The material in question has been analysed and classified into six categories. It is worth quoting the breakdown of the files (at : They were overwhelmingly of boys aged up to about 14 (the judge doesn’t say what the lowest age was). The maximum penalty for each of the Commonwealth offences is 15 years, and for the NSW offence, 10 years.įrom mid 2009 to January 2011 (when he was arrested) Mr Jack downloaded and shared (by means of a file sharing program called Gigatribe) approximately 22,000 images and 1,000 multimedia files. (5) On or about 25 January 2011 at Peakhurst, the accused possessed child abuse material (s 91H(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)).
#Gigatribe dangerous to use code#
(4) Between 15 April 2010 and about 26 January 2011 at Peakhurst, the offender used a carriage service to make available child pornography material (s 474.19(1)(a)(iii) of the Criminal Code (Commonwealth)). (3) Between about 18 January 2010 and 14 April 2010 at Peakhurst, the offender used a carriage service to make available child pornography material (s 474.19(1)(a)(iii) of the Criminal Code (Commonwealth)).
(2) Between 15 April 2010 and about 26 January 2011 at Peakhurst, the offender used a carriage service to access child pornography material (s 474.19(1)(a)(i) of the Criminal Code (Commonwealth)). (1)Between about 1 July 2009 and 14 April 2010 at Peakhurst, the offender used a carriage service to access child pornography material (s 474.19(1)(a)(i) of the Criminal Code (Commonwealth)). Mr Jack was found guilty of the following five charges: It’s a not unrepresentative example of a child-pornography sentencing. One recent judgment delivered by Judge Murrell is a sentencing decision: R v Jack NSWDC 171. I must have too much time on my hands because I decided to have a quick scan of her published judgments. Yesterday the ACT Attorney-General announced the appointment of a new Chief Justice for the ACT Supreme Court. I’m not going to talk about my client’s case.
My client was facing charges to do with child pornography and child abuse material. That this particular manifestation has a shabby air simply lends a gothic touch. ( Security, you know.) The main court is cavernous and, by modern standards, huge: you can feel the majesty of the law. When you go there after the Downing Centre, it seems like a step back in time.
Prisoners in custody are dealt with at the Central Criminal Court in Liverpool Street. Of course, there are the now ubiquitous security searches at the entrance – a legacy of 9/11, can you believe. In fact, the Downing Centre, at least in its Local Courts part (the District Court is another matter), presents the courts’ mildest visage: it does not (at least normally) deal with persons in custody, so there is no dock and all the terrible apparatus (“Take the prisoner down!”) which goes with that. Recently I was doing my turn as duty barrister at what Charles Waterstreet aptly calls “the Drowning Centre” – the complex of courts in the old Mark Foy’s building now known as the Downing Centre after the long-term NSW Attorney-General in the 50s and 60s (and Catholic/right wing Labour power-broker), Reg Downing.
0 kommentar(er)
