Ware earlier pleaded guilty to two counts of possession of objectionable material – one being a representative charge (meaning the offence happened more than once). <\/p>\n
He unsuccessfully tried to vacate his guilty pleas and defend the charges.<\/p>\n
A police summary of facts, supplied to the Rotorua Daily Post, said Ware downloaded 31 images on December 29, 2022 to his Google Drive account.<\/p>\n
Google detected they contained objectionable material and police were contacted.<\/p>\n
Police found the files contained objectionable material promoting and supporting the exploitation of children or young people for sexual purposes.<\/p>\n
The files comprised a mix of images, gifs and videos showing infants, children, and young people. <\/p>\n
On July 6, 2023, police searched Ware\u2019s house and found his phone contained 5063 objectionable images stored within the device\u2019s cache. <\/p>\n
An analysis found the images were of children aged between 1 and 13.<\/p>\n
The Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act 1993 has categories of seriousness for objectionable material from one to five, with five being the most serious.<\/p>\n
The summary said more than 670 files were rated category four and showed sexual activity between adults and children. Twenty-five were rated category five and contained images of sadism or bestiality.<\/p>\n
At sentencing, Ware again denied the images were his, saying he was forced to represent himself in court and hadn\u2019t had a fair hearing.<\/p>\n
The Rotorua Courthouse. Photo \/ Kelly Makiha<\/p>\n
He told a pre-sentence report writer the images might have been downloaded by someone else on his phone – pointing the finger at a family member or a drug dealer he was with at the time.<\/p>\n
In his submissions to Judge Bidois before sentencing, Ware asked the court to consider continuing name suppression and granting a stay of sentencing.<\/p>\n
However, Judge Bidois refused and said there were no grounds to continue name suppression. He also refused the stay.<\/p>\n
Judge Bidois said Ware was entitled to appeal the matters to a higher court if he wished. He noted Ware did not indicate at the end of the sentencing he intended to appeal.<\/p>\n
Judge Bidois said Ware had up to four lawyers during the past three years, had difficulty getting legal representation through Legal Services Agency and subsequently made a complaint to the Ombudsman.<\/p>\n
After initially pleading guilty, Ware was to be sentenced last year but it didn\u2019t go ahead, given his attempt to vacate his guilty pleas.<\/p>\n
\u201cWe spent the last nine months sorting out your application to vacate your plea. In the end, I refused that and determined there was sufficient proof that you had no valid defence to the charges.\u201d<\/p>\n
In sentencing, Judge Bidois gave a total 20% discount for Ware\u2019s guilty plea, being \u201centrenched in a methamphetamine addiction\u201d at the time of offending and the fact he was considered a first-time offender – apart from a theft charge in 2008.<\/p>\n
The result of two years\u2019 jail was transferred to a 12-month home detention sentence.<\/p>\n
Judge Bidois ordered Ware be added to the Child Sex Offenders Register and that all images be destroyed.<\/p>\n
The maximum jail sentence for the charges Ware faced was 10 years.<\/p>\n