Sentencing — knowingly possessing objectionable publications — knowingly posting an objectionable publication for the purpose of supplying and/or distributing — knowingly making an objectionable publication — knowingly distributing an objectionable publication — causing harm by posting a digital communication — Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act 1993, s 132A(2) — Stewart v Dept Of Internal Affairs [2014] NZHC 2209 — Snell v R [2022] NZHC 1627 — Johnson v Department of Internal Affairs [2021] NZHC 2480 — R v Finnerty [2022] NZDC 1803 — Robinson v New Zealand Police [2017] NZDC 2655 — Department of Internal Affairs v Chadwick [2018] NZDC 20716 — R v Cottam DC Nelson CRI-2022-042-000104, 7 September 2002. The defendant appeared for sentence on three charges of knowingly possessing objectionable publications, as well as representative charges of knowingly posting an objectionable publication for the purpose of supplying and/or distributing; knowingly making an objectionable publication; knowingly distributing an objectionable publication; and causing harm by posting a digital communication (three charges, one of them representative). He had targeted the social media accounts of a group of teenage girls (the victims), posting more than 400 photographs from the accounts onto a pornographic website. Some of the photographs were digitally altered to make it look as if the victims were naked. When police investigated the offending, they discovered that the defendant had more than one million images of child pornography as well as other violent videos including snuff movies. The offending was aggravated by the nature of the material, the amount of the material (the largest amount of videos and images in a single collection of any case brought before a New Zealand court), major victim impact, the defendant's high level of engagement with the material, the duration of the offending, targeting young people from within the defendant's community, the number of times that the material created by the defendant was viewed by others (more than 87,000 times), and the fact that the defendant created material himself. The start point for sentence was 11 years' imprisonment, reflecting the fact that this was the most serious offending of its kind. The defendant was allowed discounts for guilty plea and willingness to rehabilitate. The final sentence was seven years eight months' imprisonment, with a minimum period of three years 10 months. The Court made orders suppressing the identity of the victims, and also gave two of the victims a protection order. Judgment Date: 25 May 2023