Victorian prosecutors have successfully challenged a 12-year jail sentence for a child sex offender, arguing it was manifestly inadequate.
The Victorian Court of Appeal has almost doubled the prison term for Fabian Roy Meharry, who groomed girls online to perform sex acts.
The court heard his offending against 22 young girls was "on a scale and at a level of depravity rarely seen in the courts".
He was jailed earlier this year for his crimes, with judge Liz Gaynor describing him as a "monster of depravity".
Meharry was a well-known BMX rider in the Echuca community in northern Victoria.
The court heard he sold wax for BMX bikes through his website and spoke to his victims about the business during the offending.
The appeal judges highlighted the ease with which the offences were committed using the internet.
They said this made it imperative to show anyone who was inclined to act this way aware that they would face lengthy prison terms.
Meharry was originally jailed in March for a minimum of 10 years, but the Office of Public Prosecutions announced in May it was lodging an appeal against the sentence.
The Court of Appeal today resentenced the 29-year-old to 22 years in jail with a non-parole period of 18 years, stating the original decision in the County Court did not reflect the gravity of offending and the effect on the victims.
Victims suffered long-term harm
The offences occurred over a nine-year period and included online grooming, online sexual activity, production of child pornography, sexual penetration of a child under 16, and persistent sexual abuse of a child under 16.
The victims were aged between 11 and 17 and "suffered profound long-term harm".
The court heard they were manipulated into committing vile and degrading sexual acts.
This included sending explicit photographs and being threatened with publication if the victims did not follow Meharry's demands.
The court heard Meharry knew the age of the victims and at times he was abusing more than one in the same period.
Higher sentence acts as deterrent
The judges decided a higher sentence was required to protect the community and deter others.
"There are many disturbing and some uniquely horrifying features of the respondent's offending which elevated its seriousness," the judgement read.
The Court of Appeal also pointed out the disconnect between Judge Gaynor's description of the "cruel" and "callous" offending and the sentence handed down.
"There was a callous disregard for the dignity and wellbeing of his victims," the judges said.
