An 18-year-old Kaikoura youth who had 4000 sexual images of children on his computer lost a bid for final name suppression when was sentenced in the Blenheim District Court yesterday.
Blair James Cleall was sentenced to 12 months' intensive supervision and 125 hours' community work and was ordered to forfeit the computer equipment and images when he appeared on six representative charges of knowingly possessing objectionable material.
Judge Stephen Harrop said allowing Cleall's name to be published had potential to have a significant deterrent effect.
If people were caught, they would be named, the judge said.
There was a strong presumption in favour of naming every defendant and the details of their crimes because of strong public interest, he said.
Defence counsel Laurie Murdoch said lifting the interim name suppression would be an "acute and separate punishment" and Cleall needed to be able to fulfil his intensive supervision and counselling, which could not happen if he was named.
Crown prosecutor Hugh Boyd-Wilson said Cleall made 213 files on February 7 last year with names involving explicitly objectionable material available through a filesharing programme.
An Internal Affairs inspector located and traced the files and user details through an internet service provider. Four thousand objectionable still and video images, text files, PDF files and cartoon images were found on the computer depicting rape, molestation and incest involving girls aged between 3 and 15. Cleall admitted the computer was his and that he started looking for the images when he was 15. Cleall still seemed to be minimising his behaviour, saying he was searching for adult images and didn't understand how damaging they could be, Mr Boyd-Wilson said.
Judge Harrop said the maximum penalty for each charge was five years' jail or a $50,000 fine, which indicated how seriously Parliament and the community viewed the offending.
"It's important to say here that this should not be thought of as victimless offences. The girls are the victims here.
"If no one paid or downloaded the images, they wouldn't be involved in this sort of activity," he said.
The consequences of publishing his name would not be significant enough to outweigh keeping name suppression and Cleall was still held in high regard by his employer, who already knew about the charges, he said.
Judge Harrop agreed with a recommendation for intensive supervision and community work because Cleall "needed rehabilitation rather than out and out punishment".
"Prison would be something the offending justifies, but wouldn't be right for you because you need assistance rather than punishment."
Lifting suppression was a "significant penalty" on its own and was taken into account in the final sentencing, he said.
No comments:
Post a Comment