AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
District Court 3 October 2019

R v Suttle

[2019] NSWDC 538

Sexual offences
SENTENCING RELEVANT PRINCIPLES USE OF SOCIAL MEDIA SNAPCHAT DESCRIBED MULTIPLE FORMS 1 RELEVANT PRINCIPLES SET OUT SENTENCING

Citation: [2019] NSWDC 538
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 3 October 2019
Judge: Haesler SC DCJ

Background

The offender, Ryan Suttle, was sentenced at age 25 for a large number of sexual and child exploitation offences committed against seven teenage girls over a period of approximately two years. Most victims were 14 or 15 years old at the time of the offending. Suttle contacted the majority of them through social media, primarily Snapchat, and used those platforms to proposition and groom them.

The offending involved a course of conduct that included sexual intercourse with multiple children under 16, procuring children for unlawful sexual activity, using a carriage service to transmit indecent material (including images of his penis) to children, recording sexual acts on his mobile phone to produce child abuse material, and acting as a client of child prostitution. Several victims were also stalked or intimidated via electronic communication.

Suttle entered early guilty pleas in the Local Court. The judgment notes that because of those pleas, none of the young women were required to give evidence. The court applied a 25 per cent discount to the sentences for the utilitarian value of those early pleas and his acceptance of responsibility.

  • What were the appropriate individual sentences for 23 principal offences (and numerous additional matters on Form 1 schedules) spanning both Commonwealth and State legislation?
  • How should the court apply the standard non-parole periods prescribed for certain offences under the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)?
  • How should sentences for multiple offences against multiple complainants be accumulated while respecting the principle of totality (that is, the overall sentence must reflect the full criminality without being crushing)?
  • What weight should be given to the offender's subjective circumstances, including his youth, immaturity, prior good character, community support, and prospects for rehabilitation?
  • How should the early guilty pleas and the facilitation of justice be reflected in the sentence?

Decision

Haesler SC DCJ described the offending as a sustained course of sexual exploitation of children, emphasising that every act of sexual exploitation of a child is serious and that the law imposes an absolute prohibition on sexual activity with children. The court noted that children under 16 lack the emotional maturity to make informed decisions about sexual activity, and the law presumes such activity causes psychological and physical harm.

In assessing objective seriousness, the court considered the number of victims (seven), the nature and variety of the offending conduct, the use of social media to target and groom vulnerable young women, the video recording of sexual acts without apparent consent to produce child abuse material, and the involvement of child prostitution offences. The court treated the offending as serious, though it assessed the individual offences at varying points on the spectrum of seriousness.

In the subjective case, the court accepted that Suttle had prior good character, strong community support, genuine prospects for rehabilitation, and demonstrated youth and immaturity, though the court noted he was in his mid-twenties during the offending while his victims were generally 14 and 15. These factors, combined with the early guilty plea discount of 25 per cent, reduced the sentences from what they might otherwise have been.

The court carefully structured the sentences across the Commonwealth and State offences to achieve a just overall result consistent with the totality principle. The Commonwealth fixed-term sentences were ordered to be served in sequence across separate start dates. The State sentences were aggregated into a single total sentence of 7 years 6 months, with a non-parole period of 4 years 6 months. Taking both Commonwealth and State sentences into account, the total effective sentence across all matters was 7 years 11 months, with a minimum custodial term of 4 years 11 months.

Orders Made

Commonwealth Offences (fixed terms, 25% discount applied):

  • Offence 2 (s 474.27A, Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth)) relating to Anna: 3 months fixed term from 4 April 2018
  • Offence 3 (s 474.27A) relating to Rachel: 3 months fixed term from 4 May 2018
  • Offence 9 (s 474.27A) relating to Pam: 3 months fixed term from 4 June 2018
  • Offence 14 (s 474.27A) relating to Robin: 9 months fixed term from 4 July 2018
  • Offence 17 (s 474.27A) relating to Joan: 5 months fixed term from 4 August 2018
  • Offence 22 (s 474.27A) relating to Rhonda (taking into account schedule matter): 4 months fixed term from 4 October 2018

State Offences (25% discount applied):

  • Offence 1 (s 66EB, Anna): 1 year 1 month, non-parole period 8 months
  • Offence 4 (s 66EB, Rachel): 1 year 1 month, non-parole period 8 months
  • Offence 5 (s 66C, Cara): 3 years 3 months
  • Offence 6 (s 91G(2)(a), Cara): 1 year 6 months
  • Offence 7 (s 66C(3), Cara): 3 years 3 months
  • Offence 8 (s 66C(3), Cara): 3 years
  • Offence 10 (s 66C(3), Pam): 3 years
  • Offence 11 (s 66C(3), Pam): 3 years
  • Offence 12 (s 91G(2)(a), Pam): 1 year 6 months
  • Offence 13 (s 66C(3), Pam): 3 years
  • Offence 15 (s 66C(3), Robin): 3 years 9 months
  • Offence 16 (s 91D(1)(b), Robin): 9 months
  • Offence 18 (s 91D(1)(b), Joan): 9 months
  • Offence 19 (s 91G(2)(a), Joan): 1 year 6 months
  • Offence 20 (s 66C(3), Joan): 2 years 7 months
  • Offence 21 (s 66C(3), Joan): 3 years
  • Offence 23 (s 91H(2)): 1 year 10 months

Total State Aggregate Sentence: 7 years 6 months, with a non-parole period of 4 years 6 months commencing 4 September 2018 and expiring 3 March 2023. The balance of 3 years expires 3 March 2026.

Total effective sentence (all matters): 7 years 11 months. Minimum period in custody: 4 years 11 months.

Key Takeaways

  • The District Court reaffirmed that offences involving sexual activity with children under 16 are treated as categorically serious, on the basis that the law presumes such children lack the emotional maturity for informed consent and that such conduct causes psychological and physical harm.
  • Where an offender is sentenced for a large number of offences against multiple victims, the totality principle requires the court to structure accumulated sentences so that the overall term reflects the full criminality without becoming disproportionate or crushing.
  • An early guilty plea in the Local Court, where it facilitates the course of justice and spares complainants from giving evidence, attracted a 25 per cent discount across both Commonwealth and State offences in this case.
  • Subjective mitigating factors, including prior good character, youth, immaturity, community support, and rehabilitation prospects, can reduce sentence length even in cases of serious and repeated child sexual exploitation, though the court weighed those factors against the offender's age relative to the ages of his victims.
  • The use of social media and carriage services to groom and proposition child victims was treated as integral to the course of criminal conduct and was reflected in standalone Commonwealth charges under the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) in addition to the State offences.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation:
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 66C, 66EB, 91D, 91G, 91H
- Criminal Code Act 1995 (