"The subject matter of the category A videos held by the offenders was particularly gross, involving as it did the sadistic torture of infants and sexual abuse of them by adults," Justice Venning wrote in his 25-page ruling. "...The intrinsic nature of the publications could not be more objectionable."
A police source has previously described the offending to the Herald as among of the most sickening that law enforcement in New Zealand has ever seen. The Herald has chosen not to publish detailed and specific descriptions of much of the content because of its extremely graphic nature.
Pengelly and Bradley, a well-known dog breeder, were arrested in December 2019 after a tip-off to police that led to a search of their home. More than 750 video files were discovered.
The men, both in their 60s, pleaded guilty in 2020 to one count of possession of methamphetamine and multiple counts of possession of objectionable material with the knowledge it was illegal.
"This is approaching the most serious of cases in terms of possession alone," Crown prosecutor Jasper Rhodes said during the July hearing. "It's difficult to imagine more serious things."
In his appeal filed on behalf of the police, Rhodes argued the level of the men's offending was unprecedented in the six years since the possession of objectionable material law has been changed to double the maximum penalty from five to 10 years' prison.
He pointed to the principle that the court "must impose a penalty near the maximum prescribed for the offence if the offending is near the most serious of cases for which that penalty is prescribed, unless circumstances relating to the offender make that inappropriate".
Meanwhile, lawyer Annabel Cresswell, who represented Bradley, said there was a relatively short period of offending and most of the videos focused on adult bestiality - both factors that should have led to a shorter sentence. The judge should have considered home detention, she argued.
Pengelly's lawyer, David Dickinson, dropped his client's request for a reduced sentence but did argue against lengthening it. He described his client's offending as an extraordinary fall from grace and pointed out that the pair had already been publicly shamed in the media.
In his ruling, Justice Venning pointed to the breadth of the videos that were seized.
"I do not accept Ms Cresswell's submission that the fact that most of the material related to adult bestiality is a factor which reduces culpability," Justice Venning wrote. "Nor do I accept that it is particularly relevant that not all the videos have been viewed.
"The offence is possession of the objectionable material. Further, the offenders had, in any event, engaged in extensive viewing of the objectionable materials."
Venning said he also considered the fact they shared the material with another man who alerted police.
In July, Judge Clark used four years, six months as a starting point for the pair before considering mitigating factors such as their guilty pleas and good character. Justice Venning ruled the starting point, before considering reductions, should have been "in the region of at least six to seven years' imprisonment".
"As I have read the various reports obtained for the offenders for sentencing the overwhelming theme that comes through is their reluctance to accept responsibility for their actions," he wrote. "They have continuously sought to minimise their actions."
