Following an undercover online police operation, the accused was tried on charges of child luring, making sexually explicit material available to a child, and breach of probation.
The central issues were whether he believed the interlocutor was under 16 and whether his communications were for the purpose of facilitating designated sexual offences.
Applying the governing child-luring authorities and the W.D. credibility framework, the court rejected the accused's claim that he believed he was merely engaged in mutual internet 'trolling' with an adult.
The court found the evidence overwhelmingly established belief in the represented age of 14 and a subjective intent to arrange sexual activity, and entered convictions on all counts.
