AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
District Court 16 December 2022

R v Childs

[2022] NSWDC 659

Sexual offences
SENTENCING PLEA OF GUILTY CHILD SEXUAL OFFENCES BACKGROUND OF DISADVANTAGE DIMINISHMENT OF MORAL CULPABILITY

Citation: R v Childs [2022] NSWDC 659
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 16 December 2022
Judge: Weinstein SC DCJ

Background

The offender, born in 1981, was sentenced on seven child sexual offences committed against three victims over a period spanning approximately 2016 to 2020. The victims were two stepdaughters from a de facto relationship and a young girl from the offender's former marriage, all of whom were under 16 at the time of the offending. The offending took place in domestic settings where the offender occupied a position of trust as a stepfather figure.

The offences involved sexual touching and indecent assault of varying degrees of severity. The conduct included touching victims' inner thighs, buttocks, breasts, and genitals, and in one instance more serious physical contact with a victim aged approximately nine or ten. The offending against one victim occurred regularly over a two-year period and was concealed through a pattern of denial by the offender when confronted by parents.

The offender pleaded guilty at Nowra Local Court on 6 May 2022 and had no prior criminal history. He was living in a camper van in his father's driveway at the time of charging.

  • What aggregate sentence was appropriate for seven child sexual offences committed against three victims over multiple years?
  • What discount applied for the early guilty plea?
  • What weight, if any, should be given to the offender's background of disadvantage in diminishing moral culpability, in accordance with Bugmy v the Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571?
  • How should standard non-parole periods be applied across the relevant offences, consistent with Muldrock v the Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120?

Decision

The court convicted the offender on all seven counts and imposed an aggregate term of imprisonment of 6 years and 6 months. A 25 per cent discount was applied across all offences in recognition of the early guilty plea. The sentence was backdated by 13 days.

In structuring the sentence, the court applied the principles in Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25 and Muldrock v the Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120. For offences carrying standard non-parole periods, the court treated those benchmarks as reference points rather than fixed minima, assessing each offence in the context of the full sentencing range and the individual circumstances.

The court acknowledged the offender's background of disadvantage and considered the extent to which that background diminished his moral culpability, applying the principle confirmed in Bugmy v the Queen. The court also took into account the absence of prior criminal history. These factors were weighed against the serious breach of trust involved, the multiplicity of victims, the duration of the offending, and the pattern of concealment and denial.

The non-parole period was set to expire on 2 December 2026, making the offender eligible for release to parole at that date, with the head sentence expiring on 2 June 2029.

Orders Made

  • Conviction recorded on all seven counts (Sequences 6, 7, 10, 11, 17, 19, and 20) under the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
  • Aggregate term of imprisonment of 6 years and 6 months imposed
  • Sentence backdated by 13 days
  • Head sentence to expire: 2 June 2029
  • Non-parole period to expire: 2 December 2026 (eligible for release to parole at that date)
  • Indicative sentences for individual sequences (all reflecting a 25% plea discount):
  • Sequence 20: 2 years 3 months (NPP 1 year 4 months)
  • Sequence 10: 1 year 6 months (NPP 11 months)
  • Sequence 11: 1 year 5 months (NPP 10 months)
  • Sequence 17: 2 years 3 months (NPP 1 year 4 months)
  • Sequence 19: 1 year 6 months (NPP 11 months)
  • Sequence 7: 18 months
  • Sequence 6: 9 months

Key Takeaways

  • The District Court applied the Bugmy principle that a background of deprivation and disadvantage may diminish an offender's moral culpability, even in cases involving serious child sexual offending, though it must be weighed against the gravity of the conduct and the breach of trust involved.
  • A 25 per cent discount for an early guilty plea was applied consistently across all seven offences, consistent with the statutory sentencing framework under the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW).
  • Standard non-parole periods functioned as legislative guideposts rather than fixed benchmarks, with the court conducting an instinctive synthesis of all relevant factors in accordance with Muldrock and Markarian.
  • Where offending spans multiple victims, multiple incidents, and an extended time period within a position of domestic trust, these features collectively bear heavily on the overall sentence, even where individual offences may fall in lower ranges.
  • The absence of prior criminal history, while a relevant mitigating factor, carried limited weight in the face of prolonged and repeated offending against children in the offender's care.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 61M(1), 61M(2), 66DB(a)
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)

Cases
- Bugmy v the Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571
- Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25
- Muldrock v the Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120
- Perkins v R [2018] NSWCCA 62
- R v Lau [2022] NSWCCA 131
- R v Millwood [2012] NSWCCA 2