A convicted child predator has appealed the severity of his decade-long prison sentence, claiming the jail term was “manifestly excessive”.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
But a reduced sentence will only speed up Navin Edwin's deportation from Australia.
Edwin, 34, was last year sentenced to 10 years and eight months jail, with a non-parole period of 6½ years, for a series of offences committed against three young girls in 2009 and 2010.
Edwin’s legal team appealed the sentence to the ACT Court of Appeal as too harsh.
Edwin, the son of an Indian diplomat, will be eligible for parole in March 2017.
The court heard during sentencing proceedings last year that the Indian national would likely be deported upon his release from prison.
Two ACT Supreme Court juries, in separate trials in May and June last year, found Edwin guilty of 17 offences against three young girls, including producing and possessing child pornography, acts of indecency and child grooming.
Edwin's offences were uncovered after he sent explicit text messages to an 11-year-old’s mobile phone. But adults intercepted the communications and notified the police.
Australian Federal Police officers raided Edwin's home and found home-made child pornography on his electronic equipment.
Edwin told the court during his two trials that the pornography was part of medical research and an art project. He continued to proclaim his innocence during interviews with a pre-sentence report author.
His legal team initially appealed the conviction and sentence.
But barrister Shane Gill withdrew the appeal against the conviction during a hearing on Thursday.
Mr Gill said the jail term imposed on Edwin had been a harsher penalty “than could properly be imposed”.
Mr Gill said the sentence attached to three counts of producing child pornography had been outside the range of seriousness for the offence, which he argued fell at the lower end of the scale.
The barrister also said it had been unclear why similar offences Edwin committed had attracted different penalties when the sentencing judge calculated the amount of time to be served.
In response, Canberra prosecutors opposed the appeal, arguing the applicants had not established a case that showed the sentence had been excessive.
Crown prosecutor Margaret Jones said the different penalties for similar offences had been due to victim’s requirements to give evidence in court.
The full bench of the Court of Appeal, consisting of Chief Justice Helen Murrell, Acting Justice Stephen Walmsley and Acting Justice David Robinson, reserved its decision.
