described the appellant as arrogant, self-centered and lacking in remorse. The
officer described the case as “the worst, most sadistic case of child exploitation
she has been involved in”.
 In a brief statement prior to sentencing, the appellant
expressed sorrow for the hurt he had caused his family. However,
nowhere in the appellant’s statement did he recognize the
physical and emotional trauma that he had inflicted on the
victims and their family or the lasting implications of the publication of the abuse on the Internet.
 Defence counsel in sentencing submissions acknowledged
that the appellant did not appreciate the damage he had done to
his child victims — he “doesn’t get the harm he caused to them”
and it was as if he was born without an “empathy gene”.
 It appears that the sentencing judge’s observations about
the appellant’s lack of remorse were made in the context of con-
sidering the appellant’s lack of insight into his crimes and his risk
of re-offending. In summarizing the last three of the ten aggra-
vating factors he identified, the judge described:
. . . . .
(8) the accused’s lack of insight into the harm he has visited upon his victims,
either due to the lack of any moral compass or through willful disregard;
(9) the accused’s lack of any genuine remorse; and
(10) his ambivalence with respect to the possible benefits of counselling,
which even in the absence of any formal risk assessment certainly raises the
spectre of his being at a high risk to re-offend.
 These observations reflect, in part, the views expressed by
the author of the pre-sentence report:
In this writer’s opinion, the offender’s criminal behaviour combined with his
lack of remorse for the victims, his thought processes that he can have an inti-
mate relationship with a child, moving to a location that could have provided
him with an opportunity for more victims, his sense of notoriety within the
pedophilic community, his lack of family supports in the community, and
his self-centered, arrogant/controlling behaviours make him a high risk
[ 81] The judge also stated that while the appellant’s guilty
pleas were a mitigating factor, he considered them to be “more of
an acceptance of reality in the face of overwhelming and compelling evidence than an expression of any genuine remorse”. However, the judge noted that the appellant’s guilty pleas precluded
the possibility of the older child testifying, potentially risking