All too rare: mum who sexually abused own child has sentence increased

A mother, if you could call her that, has had her sentence increased after the Crown appealed.

A woman who sold footage of herself abusing a baby has been given a jail term after the Crown appealed her home detention.

Krystal Harvey, 23, was sentenced  in January  to eight months home detention and given 100 hours community service after pleading guilty to sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection and making an objectionable publication.

It related to a publication the mother made of herself abusing a one-year-old which she sold to a male acquaintance for $300, which she used to buy herself a laptop.

The Crown has successfully appealed the sentence in the High Court.   

According to the appeal judgment, Harvey had earlier in the same month agreed to supply nude photos of children in return for money and agreed to herself perform a sexual act upon the child.

Justice Edwin Wylie said in his decision that although the Crown argued she should be sentenced to a term of imprisonment, District Court sentencing Judge Philip Recordon had apparently accepted a defence submission that the offending was less serious because the victim was unlikely to remember it.

A number of other discounts were applied to the sentencing including provisions for her guilty plea and previous good character, which the Crown in their appeal argued had lead to a “manifestly inadequate sentence”.

In his decision, Justice Wylie highlighted elements in which he believed Judge Recordon had erred in his sentencing, including his reliance on Harvey’s psychological state, her claims that she had been pressured by the male acquaintance, and her opportunity for rehabilitation.

In his sentencing Judge Recordon said a year’s home detention was “too long for anyone,” which Justice Wylie said was “concerning”.

“In summary, I am satisfied that the Judge’s sentencing decision was in error,” Justice Wylie concluded.

Justice Wylie knows all about errors in judgement. He will have his own day in court apologising to John Banks shortly.

Meanwhile a sicko is now behind bars.


– Fairfax


THANK YOU for being a subscriber. Because of you Whaleoil is going from strength to strength. It is a little known fact that Whaleoil subscribers are better in bed, good looking and highly intelligent. Sometimes all at once! Please Click Here Now to subscribe to an ad-free Whaleoil.

  • Crowgirl

    What does one have to do to actually get imprisoned by a judge these days? It would appear that they just prefers criminals to be free or serve virtually no time at all.

    • If I recall the article correctly catching trout without a licence will get you imprisoned.

      • Crowgirl

        The system is poked – time to get serious on this stuff I think. I can’t believe some ‘judge’ would decide that just because a victim doesn’t remember, it’s not so bad. Would they make that distinction if someone was drugged and sexually assaulted do you think?

        • Mags

          I would say the initial judge made a “poked” decision but the system worked.

          • Crowgirl

            I still don’t think the corrected sentence is long enough though.

          • kereru

            Nor is it going to prevent her having another baby to abuse when she gets out.

        • ex-JAFA

          I doubt many murder victims remember the crime, so that makes it not too bad either – right?

    • Nige.

      Committing tax fraud will get you imprisoned.

    • SlightlyStrange

      Even killing your mate on a poaching expedition (two illegal activities at once) wont do it, it seems – and your mates widow will celebrate getting off the charges with you… Strange country this, at the moment.

  • kereru

    Bravo. Next step for this despicable crime – tubes tied.

    • Oh Please

      …around her throat.

  • Nige.

    “less serious because the victim was unlikely to remember”

    Is that precedent setting? What the hell is going on here when a judge says something like that?

    Rob a house and make sure you beat the occupant so bad they can’t remember?

    • intelligentes candida diva

      Defence submitted it although judge accepted it.

      That statement came out at me too Im horrified it was even considered given the scientific research on brain development.

      Given the victim was a child it seems the child was lost in this legal tussle, was a counsel for child appointed, if so while the child could not talk did counsel do work to check out ‘stuff’ to counter argue that silly dangerous comment of ‘….likely not remember …’

      The legal system is so self absorbed sometimes it misses the obvious.

      • Nige.

        On the one hand we have the defense of child correcting by use of force removed…yet we have a judge using a child’s age as a tool for allowing criminal sentencing discount.

        Disgusting disgusting disgusting.

    • Andinz

      Even if the defence argument was absolutely true, there is a high likelihood that someone will remember. The grown-up baby is almost certain to learn about the abuse. What of the mental condition of the grown-up baby then? How will it be different from, say another grown-up who has to deal with abuse? My guess is that it would be a greater shock as it would put all parenting decisions and growing-up experiences involving that mother into a terrible grey area for that person.
      What is prosecution doing with all its experience of cases of abuse and its access to child psychologists?

  • intelligentes candida diva

    I am pleased she is jailed, nasty piece of work.
    I would have placed condition of no computer access for duration of sentence

  • Lux

    And people wonder why child abuse is rife in this country.. if judges gave a decent sentence and put the monster in the slammer where they belong, it might help. Whats the bet as soon as she gets out she will get pregnant.

    Leave her in jail to rot.

  • Legallysane

    Can we please have a ‘3 strikes and you’re out’ system for Judges? This one’s clearly a dud!

  • taurangaruru

    “Unlikely to remember” how does that statement fit with the “recovered memory syndrome” of a few years back where so called experts convinced patients that they had been abused but they just couldn’t remember the abuse?
    Seems a bob each way scenario from our judiciary.


    The prisoners are going to love to hear that they are sharing a cell with a pedophile