AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
District Court 20 June 2017

R v RAYFIELD

[2017] NSWDC 174

Sexual offences
CRIMINAL LAW SENTENCE

Citation: R v Rayfield [2017] NSWDC 174
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 20 June 2017
Judge: Bright DCJ

Background

The offender, a 60-year-old man from the NSW Central Coast, used an internet chat room and subsequently the Skype platform to engage in prolonged sexualised conversations with what he believed to be a 14-year-old girl from Sydney. The "girl" was in fact an undercover NSW Police investigator operating as an "adult of interest" (AOI). The conversations took place across multiple sessions between 27 July and 6 September 2016.

Throughout those sessions, the offender repeatedly acknowledged the AOI's stated age of 14, made sexually explicit remarks, discussed oral sex and masturbation, proposed meeting in a motel room, described touching her genitals, and suggested she sneak him into her bedroom. He also demonstrated awareness of the age of consent during one exchange, acknowledging it was "around 16."

The offender pleaded guilty at Newcastle Local Court on 15 February 2017 to one count of using a carriage service to groom a person under 16 years of age for sexual activity, contrary to section 474.27(1) of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth). He was then committed to the District Court for sentencing.

  • Whether the circumstances of the offending warranted full-time imprisonment, or whether a suspended sentence was appropriate
  • What weight to give the offender's guilty plea, age, personal circumstances, and prospects of rehabilitation
  • What starting point was appropriate, and how a plea discount should be applied

Decision

Bright DCJ found that only a full-time custodial sentence was appropriate, having regard to the seriousness of the offending and the need for general deterrence. The defence had submitted that a suspended sentence was open, pointing to Judicial Commission statistics showing 43% of offenders convicted of this offence received full-time custody. His Honour rejected that submission.

The court took into account a range of sentencing authorities from the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal and District Court, as well as decisions from the Victorian Court of Appeal and the ACT Supreme Court. Those cases assisted in establishing the sentencing range for this type of offending. His Honour applied section 17A and sections 16A(1) and 16A(2) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), which govern the sentencing of federal offenders.

The court adopted a starting point of three and a half years imprisonment, then applied a 25% discount for the early guilty plea, arriving at a sentence of two years and seven months. His Honour also structured the sentence to include a recognisance release order, reflecting the offender's age, absence of prior relevant convictions, and assessed prospects of rehabilitation, including his engagement with professional counselling and treatment.

Orders Made

  • Convicted of one count of using a carriage service to groom a person under 16 for sexual activity (s 474.27(1), Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth))
  • Sentenced to 2 years and 7 months imprisonment, commencing 20 June 2017 and expiring 19 January 2020
  • Released on recognisance after 1 year and 4 months (release date 19 October 2018), in the sum of $100, with a condition of good behaviour for 1 year and 3 months
  • Forfeiture of two Apple iPhones, one Apple iPad, and two Dell laptops to the Commonwealth, pursuant to section 23ZD of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)

Key Takeaways

  • The District Court confirmed that the seriousness of online grooming offences and the need for general deterrence will ordinarily require full-time imprisonment, even where an offender is older, has pleaded guilty, and has no directly relevant prior convictions.
  • A 25% discount on the head sentence was applied for an early guilty plea, reducing the starting point of three and a half years to two years and seven months.
  • Under the federal sentencing framework in the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), the court structured the sentence to include a recognisance release order, providing a mechanism for supervised release where rehabilitation prospects were assessed as reasonable.
  • Statistical evidence that a significant proportion of offenders receive non-custodial outcomes does not, of itself, establish that a suspended sentence is appropriate where the specific offending is assessed as serious.
  • Forfeiture of electronic devices used to facilitate the offending formed part of the orders, consistent with the Commonwealth's legislative regime for proceeds and instruments of federal crime.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation
- Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth), s 474.27(1)
- Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), ss 16A(1), 16A(2), 17A, 23ZD

Cases
- R v Fuller [2010] NSWCCA 192
- R v Asplund [2010] NSWCCA 316
- Rampley v R [2010] NSWCCA 293
- R v Bozinovski [2009] NSWDC 200
- R v McKenna [2015] NSWDC 250
- R v Telfer [2016] NSWDC 421
- R v Costello [2011] CA 39
- R v Gajjar [2008] VSCA 268
- R v Shepheard [2008] ACTSC 116