James Horton made indecent comments to police officers posing as a minor in online chatroom

James Ivor Horton, 35, of Byng Street, pleaded guilty to using a carriage service to send indecent material to a person under the age of 16 years between 2pm and 4pm on December 19, 2021.

There was no victim and there was no non-publication order imposed.

According to the information provided in court, Horton initially backtracked when he learnt the girl he thought he was chatting to was only 14, and he wrote to her that their interactions were "inappropriate," and she was, "a bit too young".

However, Horton continued to chat with her and told her what he would do to her if she was 16. It was those comments that led to the charge.

According to a summary of the events that were provided in Orange Local Court, investigators from the Child Exploitation Internet Unit were investigating an online anonymous networking site called Chatiw using an assigned online identity of a 14-year-old girl in 2021.

The police then received a message from Horton's account to the fake one they had set up.

Using a pseudonym of his own, Horton identified himself as a 35-year-old man and the police identified as a 14-year-old girl.

"Ahh ok ... a bit too young," Horton responded. "It's unfortunate you're not just a bit older."

The police asked, "oh, why is that?"

Horton then said, "well you seem really nice ... I think it's [sic.] be nice to get to know you a bit more. If you were a few years older that could be a possibility," he continued.

The police continued to press, "wot do you mean?"

Horton responded that she was "underage".

"If you were a few years older, I would treat you like a princess," he wrote from his account, which included the words "princess pounder" in the name.

He then went on to describe what he would do to her if she was 16.

Magistrate David Day summarised the case during sentencing and said he would not read out Horton's comments that led to the indecency charge onto the record, "I won't go there," he said, and described it as "truly offensive".

Towards the end of the conversation, Horton asked if the girl had Snapchat. But he was informed her mum wouldn't let her have it, but she proposed they Skype.

Horton's lawyer John Sutton said there were agreed facts in the case but he wanted to submit a transcript of the chats between his client and the police.

"There were 12 chats, Your Honour should see the context of the actual conversations," Mr Sutton said indicating that the police did not submit the full chat history.

"There's no grooming here, as you will have read, our position is ... if the law of entrapment was a law in NSW [it] would be a defence but it is not.

"Yes, he makes contact, yes he finds out she's too young, then his first reaction is [that she is too young and that he couldn't talk to her].

"Then the police officer on the other end inveigles and encourages him and he says the words."

Mr Sutton said Horton was reluctant to talk on Skype and quoted Horton as saying, "it's perhaps a bit inappropriate tbh".

He said the police then said, "I thought you wanted to talk".

"I do but it doesn't mean that we should," Mr Sutton quoted Horton as saying again.

"My client says, 'I just don't feel comfortable with this,' the following messages are all at the instigation of police."

Mr Day said an Intensive Correction Order was not available, and for offences of this type there were limited options for treatment in full-time jail.

"This is the sort of offending that requires treatment but also requires general deterrence," Mr Day said.

"There's no victim, there's no harm to a victim and that's why there's no victim impact statement.

"The culpability remains high but the objective seriousness is down."

Mr Sutton said Horton pleaded guilty because he said the words.

"He told police that when he finds they are too young he terminates the conversations."

Mr Sutton put forward a defence against Mr Day imposing a conviction by way of a suspended jail sentence.

He urged the magistrate to consider the greater hardship the offending had on Horton's family and the impact it has had on finances, careers and Horton's mental health.

"A non-conviction with a bond is a punishment," Mr Sutton said.

However Mr Day countered that "general deterrence is of crucial importance".

"The word has got to get out there that you just don't do it, this is what happens if you are prosecuted and convicted of this offence," he said.

"The general deterrence arises from the member of the press that's in the courtroom."

He said the Central Western Daily's parent company ACM has mastheads across the state.

"One could expect the court story to be right across the Central West of NSW," Mr Day said.

Mr Sutton argued that "frequently general deterrence is just between the people who are in the courtroom".

However, Mr Day said that notion was not the reality.

"General deterrence can only be achieved by reporting in the media because there's very few members of the public sitting in the court room to see what's going on," he said.

"The public don't come to court unless they are members of the family."

Mr Day said he intended to give Horton a suspended jail sentence that was referred to as a Commonwealth Recognizance.

"He has to have crossed the custodial threshold, "Mr Day added.

"This particular offending is well below mid-range but it still requires a custodial sentence.

"I have thought about putting him in [jail] for a while but that's not going to achieve very much."

However, Mr Sutton continued to argue against a conviction being implemented saying there would be "extreme consequences of a conviction" and that his client had already lost his job and had to take up more "menial" and lower-paying work.

"We are not at one with Your Honour," he said.

"Justice and general deterrence could be served by a bond of three years.

"If this offence occurs a second time it's a mandatory sentence of five years, maybe that will be reported.

"We are not asking for complete mercy, we pleaded guilty, we are saying that a bond covering three years."

Mr Day said there was a low risk of Horton reoffending.

"A suspended sentence in my view would still be seen as a feather duster slap on the wrist, they [the public] think an Intensive Correction Order is a slap on the wrist," he said.

"A suspended sentence is seen as being lax because people think the job of judges and magistrates is to lock people up."

Mr Day referred to a statement once made by late Judge Brian Duck, who died in 2012, who said 85 per cent of offenders were "stupid" and 15 per cent were "evil".

"Your client isn't evil," Mr Day said.

He ruled out full time jail saying "that's just wasting a bed in the prison system".

Mr Day also took note of Horton's personal circumstances including that he was a member of the caring profession, "namely nursing" and that he was a person of "prior good character".

"It was an entrapment exercise," he said.

"It's of crucial importance that adults should not be using Commonwealth infrastructure to communicate with children in such a manner.

"I don't think Mr Horton will do this again."

Mr Day handed Horton a two-year sentence of imprisonment until November 8, 2024.

However, the sentence was suspended upon Horton paying $1000 called a Commonwealth Recognizance.

He said Horton can appeal if he is aggrieved by the conviction.

On indictment, in more serious cases, the offence would carry a maximum of 10 years imprisonment.

Our journalists work hard to provide local, up-to-date news to the community. This is how you can continue to access our trusted content: