Published May 2026
Commonwealth criminal offence resulting in suspended imprisonment
Perrella Legal represented a commercial lawyer charged with a serious Commonwealth criminal offence involving online communications with a person he believed to be under 16 years of age. Despite strong prosecution evidence and a real risk of immediate imprisonment, our early advice, structured rehabilitation strategy and detailed sentencing preparation helped secure a conditional suspended term of imprisonment.
The result demonstrates the importance of early legal advice and comprehensive sentencing preparation when defending serious federal criminal charges.
A serious Commonwealth online offence left a commercial lawyer facing the prospect of imprisonment and potentially career-changing consequences.
Our client came to us in an extremely distressed state after being charged with using electronic communication with intent to expose a person he believed to be under 16 to indecent material. At the time of the offending, he was experiencing significant personal and marital difficulties and had turned to online forums seeking connection. That decision led to communications with a person he believed to be a 13-year-old child. In reality, the person on the other end of the conversation was an undercover police officer.
The evidentiary position was immediately serious. When our client was arrested, he was highly emotional and had not obtained legal advice before speaking with police. He made full admissions and provided investigators with access to his electronic device, which contained the relevant communications. There was therefore little realistic scope to challenge the prosecution case on the essential facts.
Our advice was to plead guilty at an early opportunity and focus immediately on achieving the best possible sentencing outcome. That meant the real work in the case began well before the sentencing hearing.
Rather than waiting until the matter was close to sentence, we worked closely with our client to develop a structured rehabilitation plan. We gave clear guidance about the steps he needed to take to demonstrate genuine insight, accountability and a reduced risk of further offending.
The aim was not simply to tell the Court that he was remorseful. It was to provide the Court with evidence that he had properly confronted the causes of his behaviour, understood the seriousness of what had occurred and had taken meaningful steps to ensure it would not be repeated. Our client followed that advice diligently. He engaged in rehabilitation, reflected carefully on the circumstances that had contributed to the offending and demonstrated genuine insight into both his conduct and its potential consequences. He also assisted us in assembling strong subjective material addressing his personal circumstances, professional background and rehabilitation. That preparation was particularly important because the offence carried a real risk of immediate imprisonment.
As a commercial lawyer, our client also faced professional consequences extending well beyond the criminal sentence itself. A term of immediate custody would have compounded those consequences significantly and potentially caused irreversible damage to both his career and personal life.
We prepared detailed sentencing submissions directed to the seriousness of the offence, the early plea of guilty, his cooperation with police, his rehabilitation, insight, remorse and future prospects. The case required a careful balance. The Court had to recognise the objective seriousness of communications directed towards someone believed to be a child, while also assessing the individual circumstances of the offender and whether immediate imprisonment was necessary.
Through the preparation and presentation of the mitigating material, we were able to persuade the prosecution to accept that, although a term of imprisonment was appropriate, it did not need to be served immediately. That concession was significant. The prosecution accepted that any term of imprisonment could properly be suspended.
At sentencing, we relied on the extensive rehabilitation undertaken by our client, his acceptance of responsibility and the material demonstrating that he had taken concrete steps to reduce the risk of reoffending. The Court ultimately agreed. Our client was sentenced to a conditional suspended term of imprisonment and avoided immediate custody.
The result did not remove the seriousness of the offence or the professional consequences that followed from it. Those remained significant. However, it addressed the issue that had dominated the case from the beginning: whether our client would be sent to prison. He was not.
For our client, the outcome reflected the importance of beginning rehabilitation early and ensuring that the Court was presented with more than expressions of regret. The sentencing material demonstrated a sustained effort to understand the offending, accept responsibility and make meaningful changes before the matter reached sentence.
The case also illustrates the importance of early strategic advice where the evidence is strong. In some matters, the best defence strategy is not to contest an overwhelming prosecution case, but to identify the sentencing risks immediately and begin building the strongest possible mitigation case from the outset.