In R v Phillips [2026] NSWDC 278 Judge Bourke sitting as the NSW District Court sentenced the defendant for ‘an offence under s 474.22(1) of the Commonwealth Criminal Code 1995, being an offence involving the transmission, or causing to be transmitted, child abuse material … [and] an offence of possessing child abuse material’ ([1]). 

The reason I report this case is ([49]):

Significantly, the offender has a work history which includes 30 years with the United Kingdom Metropolitan Police, where he rose to the rank of Chief Inspector. After emigrating to Australia in 2008, he worked with the South Australia Police in a regional area. Subsequently, however, in 2018, he graduated with a degree in paramedical science, and from 2020 was employed as a paramedic with the New South Wales Ambulance Service.

The court said (at [59]):

The offender has, as a result of being charged and convicted, lost his employment as a paramedic, although he has still managed to obtain work in a related area, given that since January 2026 he has been working as a trainer in emergency management. Nonetheless, and as the Crown conceded and as I accept, the offender’s loss of his paramedic role, which he worked hard for and enjoyed, is a significant punishment that he has already suffered as a result of his offending.

His status as a former police officer was also mentioned (at [88]):

There is evidence in the form of a letter from the offender which says that his time in custody bail refused was extremely difficult. This was largely the product of his being an ex-police officer, and resulted in him spending much time in effective solitary confinement.

Finally the judge set out the gist of the defendant’s submission on sentence. At [82]-[83] His Honour said:

…

Fourthly, the offender points to his prior positive good character, spanning decades of public service. In this regard, the offender points not just to his lack of prior convictions, but to his positive contributions to society as a police officer and paramedic. I accept that this background is entitled to significant weight. Also, while there is no suggestion that the offender used his good character or position to facilitate the offending, good character is to be given reduced weight in offending involving child abuse material, by reason of the frequency with which such offences are committed by persons of prior good character…

The fifth point made by the offender is the disapprobation inherent in a conviction. It was argued on behalf of the offender, by reason of his age and position, and the fact that he has no prior offences, that the mere fact of a conviction is itself a substantial punishment. Also, it was pointed out that he has lost his career as a paramedic, and will carry a conviction for the rest of his life. I accept all of these propositions, although many of them are consequences that flow to most persons who offend in a like manner…

Taking into account all the factors raised by the defendant (including the benefit of his immediate cooperation with authorities and his early plea of guilty ([41] and [42])) and the seriousness of the offences, the defendant was sentenced to 2 years imprisonment subject to release on a ‘Recognizance Release Order’ after 3 months.  He is to be registered under the Child Protection (Offender Registration) Act 2000 (NSW) for 8 years. His mobile phone and laptop computer were forfeited. 

Now we wait and see if, sometime in the next three to five years, the defendant is referred to the New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal for a decision on whether or not he is eligible to remain registered as a paramedic!

POSTSCRIPT

In response to some comments via Facebook, I’ll add some more details. 

The first is a suggestion that although he was sentenced as a first offender, this being his first time in court, this really means he just hadn’t been caught. There is some truth to that. The judgement says that the offender was arrested in 2024 ([5]).  An examination of his computer and phone identified 156 files ‘involving child abuse material’ ([5]). His ‘offending took place between about 25 February 2021 and 25 August 2024’ ([6]). So indeed he had committed offences over several years – and not been caught – but this was the first time before the court.

Another comment was ‘Of course he used his reputation as a Police Officer and Paramedic for grooming purposes.’  Whilst people with positions of trust in the community do use that in order to access their child vicitms – and hence the push not to allow them to produce character references because it is there good character that allowed the offending to occur in the first place – that was not the allegation here.  As the court said (at [82]) ‘there is no suggestion that the offender used his good character or position to facilitate the offending’.  

The offending here was largely the offender sending the various files to himself but ‘although as conceded by counsel for the offender, “some transmission to others occurred.”’ ([22]).   There was no evidence that he took the videos and photos, or that he ‘had any direct connection to the persons responsible for creating the material’ ([24]) but that does not deny the seriousness of the offending. As the court said (at [14]-[15]):

Any offence involving child abuse material must ordinarily be treated as involving serious criminality… Such offences must be treated as involving serious criminality because of the harm that is done to children in creating such material, in feeding the market for such material, the prevalence of such offending, and also the apparent ease with which such material can be transmitted and accessed. Such offences are relatively difficult to detect and the images may be preserved on the internet or stored by offenders for many years…

Offences which do not involve the creation of such material, but involve looking at or transmitting child abuse material, are not “victimless”. That is partly because these actions feed the market for such depraved material, and it can fairly be said that each viewing involves the re-victimisation of the innocent children who are being abused and exploited in creating the material.

People have asked about my comment that we have to ‘wait and see if … the defendant is referred to the New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal for a decision on whether or not he is eligible to remain registered as a paramedic!’ Termination of someone’s registration does not follow their conviction. The Paramedicine Board (or in NSW, the Paramedicine Council) can take ‘immediate action’ to suspend a person’s registration ‘it is satisfied it is appropriate to do so for the protection of the health or safety of any person or persons’ (Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (NSW) s 150). I’m sure they will do that if they have not already done so, but that it meant to be an interim measure. If the Council thinks the offender’s conduct provides ‘grounds for the suspension or cancellation of a registered health practitioner’s … registration’ then the mater must be referred to the relevant Tribunal (s 145D). It is then up to the Tribunal (in NSW the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal) to determine the fate of the professional’s registration. The following cases, all reported on this blog, are cases where a paramedics registration was suspended or cancelled after conviction of sexual offences:

  • Health Ombudsman v Garrahy [2026] QCAT 58 paramedic suspended on 17 February 2026 after being convicted on 29 June 2024;
  • Health Care Complaints Commission v Kemp [2024] NSWCATOD 190, paramedics registration cancelled on 27 November 2024 after convictions in August 2022;
  • Paramedicine Board of Australia v TNS (Review and Regulation) [2024] VCAT 1133 paramedic’s registration cancelled on 28 November 2024 after being convicted in 2021
  • Health Care Complaints Commission v Thistlethwaite [2023] NSWCATOD 95 paramedic’s registration cancelled on 30 June 2023 after conviction in October 2021.

You can see that it has generally taken 2 years from conviction to a determination about the paramedics registration status though the practitioner was not able to practice in that time if the Board/Council had taken action under s 150.

This blog is a general discussion of legal principles only.  It is not legal advice. Do not rely on the information here to make decisions regarding your legal position or to make decisions that affect your legal rights or responsibilities. For advice on your particular circumstances always consult an admitted legal practitioner in your state or territory.