Background
KBQ pleaded guilty to nine offences: one count of rape of a child, five counts of indecent treatment of a child under 16 and under care, one count of indecent treatment of a child under 16, and two counts related to child exploitation material (making and possessing). The contact offences occurred between May 2012 and December 2014 against two sisters, aged 5–9 years old, whom the applicant knew through their parents. KBQ was 45–47 years old at the time and was in a position of care for the children. The offences were not reported to police until July 2022.
At the sentencing hearing in Brisbane District Court on 27 January 2026, the primary judge sentenced KBQ to five years imprisonment (head sentence) with lesser concurrent sentences for the remaining offences, setting a parole eligibility date of 27 July 2027 (requiring 18 months in custody before eligibility). KBQ sought leave to appeal, raising two grounds: (1) that the sentencing judge erred regarding the maximum penalty for making child exploitation material, and (2) that the sentence was manifestly excessive.
The victim impact statements revealed severe and ongoing trauma. The older victim, then aged 20, described living in “constant state of alertness,” difficulty with trust and intimacy, and fear regarding future motherhood. The younger victim, aged 18, similarly reported persistent anxiety and fear around older men, affecting her intimate relationships. Police later discovered on KBQ’s devices 12 deepfake child exploitation videos he created using the younger sister’s face overlaid on pornographic videos, and 13 additional child exploitation videos featuring other prepubescent children.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal (Bond JA, Bradley JA, Doyle JA) refused leave to appeal on both grounds. Regarding the maximum penalty issue, the court found no error. The maximum penalty for making child exploitation material changed from 14 years to 20 years on 9 December 2016. Although the indictment placed the offence between 31 December 2014 and 21 May 2023, KBQ’s counsel had informed the sentencing judge that the offence occurred in 2021–2022 during civil proceedings against Brisbane Grammar School. The court held the primary judge was entitled to rely on this information and was not required to amend the indictment, as resentencing would produce the same or harsher result.
On the manifestly excessive ground, the court rejected the applicant’s submission. The court applied the *R v Pham* test, finding no misapplication of principle by the sentencing judge. The sentence appropriately reflected the extreme seriousness of the offending: rape of a very young child under the applicant’s care, multiple additional indecent treatments of both children, deliberate creation of deepfake child exploitation material using sophisticated video editing, and possession of additional child exploitation material. The court found the sentencing judge properly considered statutory aggravating factors, the devastating impact on the victims, and mitigating factors including the applicant’s guilty plea, remorse, and mental health issues stemming from his own childhood sexual abuse.
Critically, the court held that good character references were of minimal or no weight. Although six referees provided character statements, the court found that KBQ’s apparent good character—which led parents to trust him with their children—actually *facilitated* the offences rather than mitigating them. The court rejected reliance on the psychologist’s opinion minimizing recidivism risk, finding it inconsistent with the objective facts of the offending and the hallmarks of paedophilia evidenced by his conduct.
Key Takeaways
- Good character evidence cannot serve as mitigation in child sexual abuse cases where the offender’s good character facilitated access to victims.
- Sentencing judges may properly rely on statements by counsel and the defence regarding the timing of offences, even where the indictment contains a broader date range, without requiring formal amendment.
- Courts will not easily interfere with sentences in cases involving serious sexual abuse of children, even where the applicant concedes the head sentence itself was open to the judge.
- Evidence of deepfake child exploitation material and video recordings documenting grooming behaviour constitute serious aggravating factors in sentencing.
Why It Matters
This decision clarifies the proper treatment of character evidence in child sexual abuse cases. While character and rehabilitation prospects remain relevant sentencing considerations, courts must not allow an offender’s apparent respectability and social integration to operate as mitigation when those very qualities enabled access to child victims. The case reflects heightened judicial recognition that predatory offenders often cultivate good character specifically to facilitate abuse—making character evidence potentially misleading rather than probative of lower risk.
The decision also reinforces sentencing practice following *R v Nagy*, endorsing a head sentence approach for multiple sexual offences against children that achieves appropriate totality without requiring accumulation of individual sentences. For practitioners advising clients in child exploitation cases, the judgment signals that appellate courts will defer substantially to trial judges’ sentencing discretion in this category of offence, particularly where evidence establishes calculated, sustained abuse of vulnerable children in positions of dependency.