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

R v Spyridakos

[2022] NSWDC 736

Sexual offences
CRIME SENTENCE SEXUAL INTERCOURSE WITH CHILD 10 14 YEARS SEXUAL INTERCOURSE WITH CHILD 14 16 YEARS

Citation: R v Spyridakos [2022] NSWDC 736
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 16 December 2022
Judge(s): Bourke SC DCJ

Background

The offender, a young man who was 18 to 19 years old at the time of the relevant events, appeared before the District Court for sentencing on multiple child sexual offences committed against five separate victims. The offending occurred between 2018 and 2020 in the Northern Beaches area of Sydney. The victims were girls aged between 13 and 15 years whom the offender contacted through mutual friends and social media platforms including Snapchat and Instagram.

The offending involved a pattern of grooming behaviour. The offender would make contact with young girls through mutual acquaintances, compliment them, request explicit images, and arrange meetings that led to sexual contact. Several victims reported that the offender told them not to tell anyone what had occurred. The offending caused lasting psychological harm, with at least one victim developing depression and anxiety requiring medication, and another experiencing social embarrassment after rumours spread through her school.

The offender pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity across all counts, attracting a 25 percent discount on sentence for the utilitarian value of that plea.

  • What sentences were appropriate for seven substantive child sexual offences against five victims, taking into account the applicable maximum penalties and standard non-parole periods?
  • How should totality principles apply when accumulating sentences for multiple serious offences committed against different victims?
  • To what extent should the offender's relative youth at the time of offending operate as a mitigating factor?
  • What weight should be given to the offender's early guilty plea?
  • What consideration arose under the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 in relation to the offences?

Decision

His Honour sentenced the offender on seven substantive offences: two counts of sexual intercourse with a child aged 10 to 14 years (maximum 16 years, standard non-parole period of seven years each), and five counts of sexual intercourse with a child aged 14 to 16 years (maximum 10 years each). Two additional offences of sexual touching and one additional offence of sexual intercourse were taken into account on Form 1 documents and factored into the sentences for nominated substantive counts.

The court identified the offending as serious, reflecting sustained and calculated grooming across multiple victims, the vulnerability of the victims as young adolescents, the harm caused, and the breach of trust inherent in the offender's use of social media connections to gain access to his victims. The offender's age at the time of offending, being 18 to 19 years, was treated as a mitigating factor alongside his early plea, though these did not substantially reduce the gravity of the conduct.

Applying totality principles, the court was required to balance the need to reflect the seriousness of each individual offence and the cumulative harm done to five separate victims against the risk of imposing an inappropriately crushing aggregate sentence on a still-young offender. His Honour acknowledged that some sentencing factors pulled in opposite directions, making the exercise difficult.

The court also noted its obligation to warn the offender about the operation of the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006, which permits the State to apply to the Supreme Court for continued supervision or detention if an offender is assessed as posing an unacceptable risk of committing a serious offence after release.

Orders Made

  • The offender was convicted of each substantive offence.
  • A head sentence of eight years and six months was imposed.
  • A non-parole period of four years and nine months was set.
  • Both terms commenced on 28 April 2021.
  • The head sentence expires on 27 October 2029; the non-parole period expires on 27 January 2026.
  • A statutory warning under the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 was given to the offender.

Key Takeaways

  • The District Court applied totality principles to a series of child sexual offences against five victims, imposing a single aggregate sentence that reflected the cumulative seriousness of the conduct without creating a crushing outcome for a young offender.
  • An offender's relative youth at the time of offending remains a relevant mitigating factor in sentencing, even where the offending involved deliberate and repeated predatory conduct against multiple victims.
  • A 25 percent sentencing discount applied for an early guilty plea, consistent with the utilitarian value of that plea under the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.
  • Where an offender is sentenced for offences that constitute "serious offences" under the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006, the sentencing court is obliged to warn the offender of the Act's potential application at the conclusion of their sentence.
  • Form 1 procedure permits additional related offences, including further counts of sexual touching and sexual intercourse, to be taken into account when imposing sentence on nominated substantive counts, thereby informing the overall sentencing exercise without requiring separate convictions for each admitted offence.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation:
- Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW)
- Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW)
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)

Cases:
- BP v R [2010] NSWCCA 159
- Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571
- Director of Public Prosecutions (Commonwealth) v De La Rosa [2010] NSWCCA 194
- Lloyd v R [2022] NSWCCA 18