A convicted child sex offender could be free for Christmas next year after a court cut his sentence on appeal.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Navin Edwin, 35, was originally sentenced to 10 years and eight months' jail, with a non-parole period of 6½ years, for 17 offences committed against three young girls in 2009 and 2010.
The sentence meant he was to be eligible for parole in March 2017.
But Edwin appealed the sentence in the ACT Court of Appeal, arguing it had been too harsh.
The court on Monday allowed the appeal and cut his total sentence to 8½ years.
The court ordered the non-parole period be reduced to five years and three months – meaning Edwin will be eligible for release from prison on December 23, 2015.
Edwin, the son of an Indian diplomat, is expected to be deported once free, a court has previously heard.
Edwin was found guilty of offences against three young girls, including producing and possessing child pornography, acts of indecency and child grooming, during two ACT Supreme trials last year.
He was caught after adults intercepted explicit text messages he sent to an 11-year-old's mobile phone.
A police raid on Edwin's home uncovered home-made child pornography on his electronic equipment.
Edwin pleaded not guilty and claimed the pornography was medical research and an art project.
He initially appealed the conviction and sentence, but withdrew the former during an appeal hearing in August.
Chief Justice Helen Murrell, Acting Justice Stephen Walmsley and Acting Justice David Robinson reserved their decision.
In a decision published on Monday, the judges found the sentencing process had been incorrect.
The judges found the offences had fallen under both ACT and Commonwealth law.
But the trial judge calculated the sentence on the basis that the ACT regime applied to all 17 offences.
The appeal court also found the trial judge misstated the maximum penalty for offences on three occasions during sentencing.
"[Edwin] was sentenced without having regard to the fact that two distinct sentencing regimes applied. The sentences imposed upon the appellant were not authorised by law," the appeal judgment said.
"In this case, the three errors have the capacity to not only infect the sentences on each of the three individual counts involved but also to infect the trial judge's assessment of the overall criminality involved when applying the totality principle.
"[Edwin] is entitled to be resentenced on these counts according to law."