THE KING v CHRISTOPHER GEOFFREY SPAULDING 24 APRIL 2026
COMMENTS ON PASSING SENTENCE SHANAHAN CJ
Christopher Geoffrey Spaulding, you have pleaded guilty to one count of possessing or controlling child abuse material obtained or accessed by using a carriage service contrary to s 474.22A(1) of the Criminal Code 1995 (Cth), namely by possessing 17 files deemed to be child abuse material stored locally on your Samsung Galaxy mobile phone.
You were born on 9 June 1995, and you are currently aged 30.
On 13 May 2025, Tasmania Police received a cyber tip-line report generated by the National Centre for Missing and Exploited Children, relating to an online user allegedly uploading child abuse material. You were the person identified and, at that time, you were residing at [address redacted]. You have not been charged with transmitting child abuse material.
On 10 July 2025, members of the Tasmanian Joint Anti-Child Exploitation Team attended your residence for the purpose of executing a search warrant issued pursuant to s 3E of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth). You were present at that time and were the sole occupant of the premises.
During that search, police located a Samsung S21 Galaxy phone, bearing the serial number IMEI 352454782266822, on your bed. You voluntarily provided access to the devices located at your premises.
Initial triage of your phone revealed that you were using [details redacted] to access child abuse material depicting real children between 2 to 11 years of age. The child abuse material was located in open tabs in the web browser and within the device gallery.
The Google browser on your phone displayed “continue browsing My Princes at [details redacted]“. The web browsing history displayed extensive browsing on [details redacted] between 3 and 10 July 2025.
The wallpaper image on the locked Samsung Galaxy S21 depicts a pre-pubescent female laying down on a bed. The female child’s top is lifted, exposing her stomach area. The wallpaper image on the unlocked Samsung Galaxy S21 depicted a pre-pubescent female child holding two number one candles.
On 11 September 2025, members of the AFP conducted an “extraction” of the device. In the device’s local photo gallery, police discovered files of child models and naturalist images of naked pre-pubescent females. In relation to the offending, your mobile phone contained a total of 17 images deemed to be child abuse material.
All the material located has been categorised as either category 1 or category 2 files. I was provided with the extended definitions of these categories at “Annexure A” of the Commonwealth’s papers for sentencing (‘Commonwealth papers’).
The material was saved in file path “Extraction_FFS.zips/data/media/0/Download” and was viewable in the local photo gallery application on the device. This material was downloaded onto the device between 2 and 3 July 2025 from [details redacted].
Police have categorised the material as follows: one image being category 1, and the other 16 images being category 2.
Examples of the images deemed to be child abuse material included an image with the file name ending in “bzu.webp“, this depicted a naked toddler-aged female sitting on a chair with her legs open, holding her labia apart. Another image with the file name ending in “84945532yda.webp” depicted a naked female toddler with a dummy in her mouth, laying on her back, on the couch, with her legs open. Another image is recorded as website [details redacted], with the filename ending in “84945536xdf.web”, this depicted a female toddler laying on her back with her pants pulled down and her dress pulled up with her legs apart exposing her vagina.
You were cautioned and informed of your rights pursuant to part IC of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth). You provided a “no comment” response throughout the duration of the recorded admissions.
Police were able to confirm your identity from your license photo. You were aged 30 at the time of the offending. You have a criminal history, but not related to this offending. You have been on bail since your arrest on 10 July 2025.
The Commonwealth provided a set of written submissions on sentencing from p 16 of the Commonwealth papers. They were divided into ten sections lettered “A – J”. Section A identifies the provision under which you have been charged. The maximum sentence for an offence under s 474.22A(1) of the Criminal Code is imprisonment for 15 years.
Section B rehearses relevant provisions that apply to sentencing for a Commonwealth offence. I note the requirement to have regard to the matters set out in Part 1B of the Crimes Act, in particular s 16A(2) which sets out a non-exhaustive list of relevant factors. I have also noted ss 16A(1) and s 16(2)(k) of the Crimes Act, and acknowledge that an offender’s sentence is to reflect the severity of their offending and that they be adequately punished.
The primary Commonwealth sentencing submissions appear at Section C, they include:
4.1 No sentence other than an immediate term of imprisonment is appropriate in all the circumstances of your offending.
4.2 The Court would have to be satisfied that there are “exceptional circumstances”, pursuant to s 20(1)(b)(iii) of the Crimes Act, were this Court to find that you ought be released forthwith without serving any immediate term of imprisonment; and
4.3 Set out relevant submissions if this Court chooses to impose a recognisance release order.
It was conceded that the offending in this case is at the “lower end of objective seriousness for offending of this type”, Commonwealth papers, section E [6].
However, the Commonwealth relies on a series of propositions set out in section D of the Commonwealth papers:
21.1 A sentence of immediate imprisonment is ordinarily required, [5.1];
21.2 The factors determining objective seriousness are set out [5.2(a)-(e)], but I note the Commonwealth’s concession in that regard;
21.3 General deterrence is the primary sentencing consideration in offences of this type [5.3];
21.4 Where general deterrence is the primary sentencing consideration less or limited weight is to be given to matters such as prior good character, age and prospects of rehabilitation [5.4];
21.5 Specific deterrence, denunciation and protection of the community are also very important sentencing considerations [5.5];
21.6 There is a paramount public interest in protecting children [5.6];
21.7 Offences of this type are difficult to detect, and the difficulty in fully removing images from circulation means that there are always risks that the material will be seen by others [5.7]-[5.8] and [5.10];
21.8 The offending is not mitigated when an offender does not profit from the offending [5.9], and
21.9 The type of material and degree of depravity is the primary focus the quantity is the secondary focus [5.11].
In considering the timing of your plea of guilty the Commonwealth accepts that your plea was entered at the earliest reasonable opportunity on 15 January 2026 (section F [11]). It is also accepted that your plea has a utilitarian benefit in avoiding the cost and delay of a trial, bringing finality to the matter and saving witnesses from having to give evidence (section F [12]).
It is conceded that you cooperated with police in giving access to your phone but it is noted by the Commonwealth that you exercised your right to silence during the police interview. In this regard I have only taken into account your cooperation with police to the extent that you gave it.
I have considered the issue of your rehabilitation. I have noted the Commonwealth’s submissions as to the weight to be given this sentencing consideration which I am obliged to have regard to under s 16A(2AAA) of the Crimes Act ([19]-[21]).
I am also obliged, when sentencing for Commonwealth offences, to have regard to current sentencing practices throughout the Commonwealth and to follow decisions of intermediate appellate courts in other States and Territories unless convinced they are plainly wrong.
Where the total head sentence does not exceed three years’ imprisonment a recognisance release order, not a non-parole period, must be imposed. I note that you have not spent any time in custody for this offence.
An order is sought under s 6(1) of the Community Protection (Offender Reporting) Act 2005 (Tas) that the Registrar cause your name to be placed on the Register and that you comply with the reporting obligations under that Act. Your name, in this instance, may be placed on the Register for up to eight years unless the Court considers that you do not pose a risk of committing a reportable offence in the future.
I received written submissions on sentence in mitigation dated 11 March 2026. The thrust of the submissions put on your behalf were that there are a number of a factors that warrant a sentence that falls short of a term of immediate imprisonment. Those factors are based on your personal circumstances arising from severe and persistent deprivation and disadvantage of a supportive childhood. That is a childhood characterised by neglect, abuse and a lack of parental guidance. It was also put that you suffer from depression and instances of suicidal ideation. I was not provided with any expert evidence with regard to your mental health and no submissions were made on the basis of the principles in R v Verdins, Buckley and Vo [2007] VSCA 102, 16 VR 269 (“Verdins”) at 276, [32]. I have considered those matters in any event.
Your parents remained together until you were nine. Your childhood with them involved your exposure to neglect and parental abuse. You remained in the care of your mother for two years after your parents separated, and during that time you continued to experience parental neglect whilst being exposed to substance abuse and criminal activity by your mother and her associates. From ages 11 to 15 you resided with your father. You do not have a continuing relationship with your father. During the period with your father he struggled from alcoholism and you and your brother were often subjected to physical and verbal abuse. Between the ages of 15 and 18 you were taken in by parents of a friend who gave you a stable and secure home.
You lived independently from the age of 18 and were 19 when you met your now former wife. You lived together and were married when you were 23. You had a daughter together. Your marriage ended in 2020. Since then your former wife has care of your daughter and you have been single, residing in a self-contained unit at your half-sister’s property. After finishing school you entered the work force at a medical supply warehousing company where you worked for a number of years and ultimately ran the company’s supply department. You obtained a Certificate 3 in warehousing logistics and tickets to operate a forklift. Between 2021-2023 you worked for the Royal Hobart Hospital as a theatre orderly before moving to work in sales at Ultimate Subaru Spares.
In 2023 you commenced employment with Comstar Systems. You held the position of National Warehouse Manager and you had a number of people working to you. Your main role was to perform compliance checks and audits on warehouse operations.
You resigned to give the company an opportunity to find a suitable replacement in the event that you receive a custodial sentence in relation to this matter. Your last day was 6 March 2026.
It is said on your behalf that your lack of a stable childhood has effected your ability to mature into an adult capable of exercising sound judgment, which reflects a similar submission in Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; 249 CLR 571. I was told that you are currently engaged with medical practitioners and therapeutic psychological intervention. I had no reports from those medical professionals. Had I access to psychological or psychiatric reports, the nature of any sexual attraction you may have to children may have been clarified, and any work the Verdins principles may have to do in your case may have been clearer.
Your mental health is affected by a diagnosis of depression when you were 14. I was also told in oral sentencing submissions that you suffer from quite severe depression for which you are currently medicated. You have made a number of suicide attempts throughout your life. Further, these issues have been compounded because you were the victim of a severe assault by a group of approximately 16 youths at the Northgate shopping centre in April 2025. I am told that it was reported to police who declined to take any action because of the youth of the offenders. Further, that the assault left you with fractures to your nose and jaw, lost teeth, damage to your shoulder and concussion. It is very unusual that such a significant assault would not be the subject of police intervention and action.
A number of submissions are made on your behalf. The first is that on your instructions it is put that you do not hold a sexual interest in children. With respect, I find that submission very hard to accept given the facts in this matter and the circumstances in which the images were found and your use of them on your phone. I do not accept it.
The next submission was that you find it difficult to explain your conduct or to reconcile your conduct with the person you know yourself to be. It is immediately obvious, given the earlier submission, how you could find yourself conflicted. I am told you are also charged with State sexual crimes which are pending in the Supreme Court of Tasmania. Those allegations are denied. The explanation proffered is that you began to research online topics as to why people were falsely accused of such crimes and how they coped with such false accusations, and that your online exploration led to the charges you now face.
It was put that you acknowledge your wrong-doing and the harm such offending can do, and that you are remorseful for your conduct.
Much reliance is placed on the principle in Bugmy. In that case an Aboriginal man raised in the far west of New South Wales, grew up in a household marked by alcohol abuse and violence. The appellant had a history of criminal convictions, head injury and auditory hallucinations. It is, perhaps, trite to say that the same sentencing principles are to be applied irrespective of the identity of the particular offender, or their ethnic or social group. However, the experience of growing up in an environment surrounded by alcohol abuse and violence may leave its mark on a person throughout life. It may compromise a person’s capacity to mature. However, those observations by the majority in Bugmy was largely in respect of explaining an offender’s recourse to violence when frustrated (Bugmy [44]). Whilst your childhood may cloud your ability to make sound judgment, you have shown an ability to rise above your difficult childhood in the context of your successful employment history. I also note, in that regard, that in the last three years of ages between 15 and 18 you had a stable family situation. So having said that, I am prepared to accept that your childhood has a mitigatory effect, albeit unlike the appellant in Bugmy, you enjoyed a period of stability between ages 15 and 18 when taken in by a friend’s parents. These observations do not, however, provide a lot of insight into your offending in this instance.
I accept your offending is at the lower end of objective seriousness for offending of this type. I also accept your counsel’s description of the material in question as “depraved and heinous” (Defence Submissions [5(c)(iii)]. I note and have taken into account your lack of a relevant prior criminal history. Ultimately, it was submitted that this offending was “completely out of character”, and that it lasted for a short number of days.
In respect of the State charges, I was told that they are allegations made by an ex-partner and two other people of a sexual nature. They are contested and will be contested at trial, and those allegations led you to exploring these kinds of topics online. I am told you are not doing this in a persistent way, or off the back of a sexual interest, or an urge. I find that submission hard to accept and as far as it relates to not having a sexual interest in children, as I have said, I do not accept it.
I am prepared to accept that the principles in Verdins have some mitigatory work to do in your case. It is hard for me to ascertain how individual aspects of those principles apply in the absence of expert evidence. I am prepared to accept that your up-bringing and mental health issues may impact on your moral culpability which affects the punishment that is just in all the circumstances, but whilst denunciation is less likely to be a relevant sentencing objective I acknowledge the importance of denunciation for this type of offending. In respect of principles 3 and 4 of Verdins, I am prepared to take those matters into account in the context of general and specific deterrence. It is my view that those considerations are to be moderated not eliminated, and whilst moderated remain important considerations in respect of this type of offending. It may be that an actual term of imprisonment could have significant adverse effects on your mental health, due to your underlying mental condition but that is hard for me to assess.
Ultimately, it was put that “exceptional circumstances” exist in this case pursuant to s 20(1)(b)(iii) of the Crimes Act. In reply, the Commonwealth conceded that there are a combination of factors that leave it open to the Court to find that “exceptional circumstances” may exist permitting the immediate release of the offender on recognisance pursuant to that provision. They included the number of images, the absence of a relevant criminal history, the early plea of guilty and the operation of Bugmy at some level.
I am satisfied that “exceptional circumstances” exist in this case pursuant to s 20(1)(b)(iii) of the Crimes Act because of the brevity of the offending and the comparatively small number of images involved. I am also satisfied that both Bugmy and Verdins have some mitigatory work to do. Having said that, I am concerned that you do not accept that you have a sexual interest in children and I have no expert evidence as to the motivation or mechanism for your offending. I also note that the application of Bugmy and Verdins is limited for the reasons I have set out above.
Whilst I have found “exceptional circumstances” pursuant to s 20(1)(b)(iii) of the Crimes Act which authorises immediate release on recognisance, I consider a term of immediate imprisonment is necessary to express the need for general and specific deterrence, that reflects my concern with the explanation offered for your offending and the nature of the relevant images. That term will begin today. But for your plea of guilty, your childhood background and the Verdins factors I have referred to, I would have sentenced you to a longer term of imprisonment and would have had to reconsider what portion, if any, of that sentence should be suspended by the operation of a recognisance release order.
I impose a single sentence. I sentence you to 12 months’ imprisonment from today, but order that you be released on a recognisance release order after six months. The terms of the recognisance release order are:
The Court orders, pursuant to s 20(1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) that you be released from custody after serving six months of the term of imprisonment imposed today, upon you giving security by recognisance of $1000 to comply with conditions that you:
- be of good behaviour for a period of six months;
- be subject to the supervision of a probation officer from Community Corrections, appointed in accordance with this order for a period of six months;
- you are to obey all reasonable directions of the probation officer from Community Corrections;
- you are not to travel outside of Tasmania without the written permission of the probation officer;
- you undertake such treatment or rehabilitation programs that the probation officer reasonably directs;
- you are to report to Community Corrections at 75 Liverpool Street, Hobart within two clear working days from your release from custody;
- you are to report any change of address or employment to an officer of Community Corrections, Hobart within two clear working days of such a change;
- you are to attend for assessment and, if assessed as suitable, treatment for a sex offender program or programmes, to reduce the risk of your re-offending, as directed by the Deputy Commissioner, Community Correctional Services and Sex Offence Management, or his or her nominee, and
- you are to attend, undertake and complete the sex offenders program if assessed as suitable, as soon as is practicable after your release from custody.
I also make an order under s 6(1) of the Community Protection (Offender Reporting) Act 2005 (Tas) that your name be placed on the Community Protection Offender Register and that you comply with the reporting obligations under that Act for a period of two years from your release from custody. If you fail, without reasonable excuse, to comply with those reporting requirements, you commit an offence against the Act and may be fined not exceeding 100 penalty units or imprisoned for a term not exceeding two years or both.