THE KING v ALAN RAYNOR GRAY 16 APRIL 2025
COMMENTS ON PASSING SENTENCE BRETT J
Mr Gray, you have pleaded guilty to eight offences under the Commonwealth Criminal Code concerning your use of a carriage service for unlawful purposes. In particular, four of the offences were committed in breach of s 474.22(1), by use of a carriage service to access or transmit to yourself or others child abuse material. The other four offences were committed contrary to s 474.27A(1) by transmission by you of indecent communications to persons under 16 years of age.
The offences were discovered by police when they examined your mobile telephone which was located in your possession during a search authorised by warrant. You co-operated with the investigation, including by permitting police to take over and control your online identity and accounts. Three such accounts were found on your phone, all of which had been used variously to commit the offences.
A summary of the facts relevant to each offence is as follows:
- Count 1 – Between September and December 2020, you conducted a highly sexualised conversation with a person you believed to be a female teenager, aged between 13 and 14 years. You used the chat function of one of the online accounts, a Google account, to conduct this conversation. The sexual nature of the conversation included questioning the person about her previous sexual experiences, discussing and suggesting in explicit and crude terms particular sexual acts, and communicating to her your desire to have sex with her.
- Count 2 – Between October 2020 and February 2021, you carried on another online conversation of a similar nature with a person who told you that she was a female who was almost 13 years of age. You pretended to be a 16-year-old boy. You sent an image of a child of that age to her, and she sent you an image of herself. Again, the conversation contained your suggestions as to sexual activity but its tone was consistent with grooming rather than direct and explicit discussion of penetrative sexual acts.
- Count 3 – Between 14 October 2020 and 8 January 2021, you carried on a conversation with a person who, during the course of the conversation, sent you an image which purported to be of herself and which depicted a female teenager aged about 14 to 15 years old. You posed as a female teenager and at one stage sent the other person an image of a teenage girl who appeared to be 15 to 16 years of age. In the early stage of the conversation, you transmitted text base messages to that person that included explicit suggestions and descriptions of sexual activity.
- Count 4 – In November 2020, you commenced a conversation with a person who purported to be a female, less than 16 years of age. You purported to be a male aged 17 years, and sent the female an image of a 17-year-old teenage boy. Although the conversation continued until May 2021, indecent communications occurred in the first week of the conversation and again involved several sexualised statements, including a statement of your desire to engage in sexual activity with the female.
- Count 5 – Between 22 November 2020 and 16 December 2020, you engaged in an online conversation with a person who sent you a picture depicting a female teenager aged between 14 and 15 years old. The indecent communications were limited to telling her you wanted to hug and kiss her, asking for a photo of her in a short skirt and bra, and other similar comments of a grooming nature.
- Count 6 – Between 29 November 2020 and 15 January 2021, you engaged in online conversation with a person who sent you a photo purporting to be of herself and depicting a female child aged between 11 and 12 years. You posed as a teenage female between 15 and 16 years. You made numerous indecent comments to the online user which discussed your sexual interest in her. You also transmitted text based child-abuse material to her, which consisted of explicit suggestions and descriptions of sexual activity involving you and her. You also requested that she send you “some sexy pics.” The user sent an image of herself wearing a bra and then, after checking with you that it was okay, sent three images of herself naked. These included one image of her bending forward showing her naked anus to the camera.
- Count 7 – Between 7 December 2021 and 9 December 2021, you engaged in online discussion with another person during which you accessed image and text based child-abuse material. The conversation is with an unknown user, almost certainly a male, and includes explicit discussion of sexual activity, including violence, perpetrated against children as young as two years of age. The subjects of the sexual violence also include members of the user’s family, including his little sister and brother. On 8 December 2021, the user sent you an image of a teenage girl aged between 13 and 15 years old, with her hands tied behind her back, being anally penetrated by an adult male. The image depicts visible blood and whip marks on her bottom and torso. You both discuss being sexually aroused by this image. On the following day, there is further conversation between you about violent sex acts towards children, including the rape of young children and infants. I will not repeat all of the conversation but it is a reasonable description that it is depraved, violent and sickening.
- Count 8 – On 22 March 2024, you conducted a lengthy online conversation with a person purporting to be an adult female in the Philippines, during which you receive from her a video of a Filipino child aged between 10 and 11 years old, who is put forward by the woman as her cousin or daughter. In the video, the child is naked, shows her vagina and anus to the camera and touches her genitals and breasts. The video is filmed by another person who is present in the room while this is taking place. You discuss conducting sexual activity with both the woman and the child. The prosecution allege that you then search for flights to the Philippines.
The prosecution asserts without dispute from you that these are not isolated occasions. In an interview with police, you admitted using the internet on a regular basis to access child abuse material in a similar way to that described in respect of the eighth count. You will not be punished for these other acts but I take into account that your commission of these crimes, the ones to which you have pleaded guilty, occurred within a pattern of similar behaviour, and not in isolation. Further, and in any event, the offences themselves, taken together, form a course of conduct.
You are 41 years of age. According to your counsel, you are currently on a disability support pension. You have an intellectual disability, and have been diagnosed with ADHD. You were educated at a special school and have lived with your mother most of your life. You experience social isolation and have difficulty making friends. You have had little past employment. It is not suggested that the intellectual disability or the psychological condition reduce your moral culpability for this offending, or are otherwise relevant in the manner suggested by the case of Verdins.
You have prior convictions for similar offending, including relevant child sexual abuse offences. On 25 February 2011, you were convicted of the State crime of communicating with intent to procure a person under 17 years of age to engage in an unlawful sexual act. The comments on passing sentence of the sentencing judge indicate that you were then 26 years of age and the female you communicated with was 15. The communications went on for some time, and were an attempt by you, which was ultimately unsuccessful, to engage in sexual activity with her. A suspended sentence of imprisonment was imposed on you. On 28 June 2011, you were convicted of the State offence of possessing child exploitation material and placed on probation. Further, although it is not strictly speaking a prior child sexual abuse offence, you were convicted of breaching reporting obligations of the order made under the Community Protection (Offender Reporting) Act at the time of sentencing for the communication offence. You were fined for those beaches.
I regard the objective seriousness of the offences to which you have now pleaded guilty as extremely high. In relation to the communication offences, your use of the internet to engage with persons you believed to be, and who may well have been, children, is of particular concern. The internet offers a concerning degree of accessibility and secrecy, and thereby facilitates predatory behaviour of the nature committed by you. It also makes that conduct difficult to detect. It is not suggested that you had any intention of following through on the connection you had made with those concerned, but you were clearly interacting and communicating with them for the purpose of sexual gratification. Such conduct had the real potential to exploit and corrupt children. General deterrence, strong denunciation and protection of the community are the primary sentencing considerations.
The same can be said about the child abuse offences. All of the child abuse material concerned the abuse and corruption of children but the last two offences are particularly serious. Both involved the serious abuse of children, potentially in real time, as a response to your communication and in which you were involved by way of that communication. The discussion concerned and promoted predatory and harmful behaviour towards young children of the worst and most distressing kind. These offences demonstrate moral culpability of a high degree. They also require strong denunciation and deterrence.
In your case, I think there is also a need for a sentence which emphasises specific deterrence. This is demonstrated by the fact that you repeated this conduct after being punished for prior offending of a similar nature, notwithstanding that that offending occurred several years before. I note also that the offences with which I am now dealing were committed as part of a course of conduct over two months in 2020, with further offending of escalating seriousness in December 2021, and again in March 2024. Your counsel claims that you are remorseful and relies on your cooperation with police and your early plea of guilty as evidence of this remorse. I will accept this, but I note also that your plea was entered in the face of strong evidence of your guilt.
Given your criminal history and the nature and timing of this offending, I think that your prospects of rehabilitation are limited. I am told you did consult your general practitioner which occurred, I infer, after your behaviour had been detected. You were referred to a psychiatrist, but you were remanded in custody before that appointment. There is no suggestion that you have taken any other steps, before or after, to address your propensity to offend in this way. However, I am told that you are willing to participate in the Sex Offender Treatment Program offered in prison. Your inevitable incarceration will permit such participation. In the event that a real attempt at rehabilitation occurs in prison, ongoing encouragement and support for this after your release, can be facilitated by a non-parole order of suitable length. I note that such an order is required in any event.
Taking all of these factors into account, I am satisfied that the only appropriate sentence is a significant term of imprisonment. In determining the length of that sentence, I must have regard to the legislative regime. There are prescribed maximum sentences, and your conviction for prior child sexual abuse offences triggers the application of mandatory minimum head sentences in respect of each offence. In particular, each of the offences of using a carriage service for child abuse material carries a maximum penalty of 15 years’ imprisonment, and a mandatory minimum head sentence of four years’ imprisonment. The offences of using a carriage service to transmit indecent communications to a person under 16 years of age carries a maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment, and a mandatory minimum head sentence of three years’ imprisonment. The minimum sentences not only restrict the Court’s sentencing discretion, but they also indicate the seriousness which Parliament intends to be attributed to such criminal behaviour, and constitute a yardstick against which the sentencing for such behaviour can be assessed.
I observe also that there is a legislative presumption in favour of cumulation, which is also relevant to the severity intended to be reflected in sentencing for such conduct. Of course, notwithstanding the presumptive nature of this provision, the legislation also permits appropriate concurrency if I am satisfied that imposing sentence in a different manner, would still result in a sentence of a severity appropriate in all of the circumstances.
In assessing the question of cumulation, I take into account that each of the offences in this case appeared to involve a different victim, and were committed at different times. However, the issue of totality must also be taken into account, and ultimately the overall sentence must be proportionate to the cumulated offending. I have also taken into account the comparative decisions to which I have been referred by the prosecution.
I am permitted to impose an aggregate sentence, and in my view, when I take into account all of the factors to which I have referred, I am satisfied that such a sentence is appropriate in this case. A sentence of that nature can reflect the issues of cumulation and concurrency to which I have referred.
Alan Gray, you are sentenced to imprisonment for a term of five years. That sentence is an aggregate sentence. I direct that the sentence commence on 4 April 2024. Were it not for your early plea of guilty and cooperation in the investigation, I would have imposed an aggregate sentence of six years and six months. The actual sentence, therefore, represents a discount of approximately 25% to reflect the utilitarian benefit of the plea of guilty, and your cooperation. I order that there be a non-parole period of three years.
I am required to make an order under the Community Protection (Offender Reporting) Act 2005, unless I am satisfied that you do not pose a risk of committing a reportable offence in the future. Having regard to the circumstances of this case, I am not satisfied of that matter and, accordingly, must make an order. I note that the maximum period for which an order can be imposed in this case is 15 years. I am of the view that the maximum period is appropriate. Accordingly, I order that your name be placed on the register pursuant to that Act and that you comply with the reporting obligations under that Act for a period of 15 years, to commence on your release from prison.