AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
District Court 12 April 2024

R v Sorensen

[2024] NSWDC 138

Sexual offences
CRIME SENTENCE MULTIPLE COMPLAINANTS VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENTS INTENSIVE CORRECTION ORDER RELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS

Citation: R v Sorensen [2024] NSWDC 138
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 12 April 2024
Judge: Fitzsimmons SC DCJ

Background

The offender, a former NSW Police officer who was medically discharged in April 2021, was sentenced for offences committed against two young women who were the daughters of his de facto partner. The offences occurred between 2020 and 2021, during the period the offender was living in the family home.

The offending involved covertly recording the complainants in intimate circumstances without their consent, contrary to s 91P(1) of the Crimes Act 1900. Both complainants were adults at the time. The offender used his mobile phone to film each woman through gaps at the base of bathroom doors and bedroom windows, capturing images of their genitalia, anal areas, and breasts.

The offender faced six substantive charges (five counts of intentionally recording an intimate image without consent and one count of attempting to do so), together with a further 20 offences taken into account on a Form 1 (a procedural mechanism allowing additional offences to be considered in sentencing without separate conviction). In total, the offending spanned multiple occasions across roughly two years and involved a persistent, repeated pattern of voyeuristic conduct.

  • What aggregate sentence was appropriate for six substantive offences of (or attempted) recording intimate images without consent under s 91P(1) of the Crimes Act 1900, having regard to the additional 20 Form 1 offences?
  • Whether the sentence should be served by way of an Intensive Correction Order (ICO), including a home detention component, rather than by full-time imprisonment.
  • What conditions should attach to an ICO to address the offender's rehabilitative needs, mental health, and ongoing risk management.
  • How to weigh the offender's significant subjective case (mental health, prior service, rehabilitation steps taken) against the objective seriousness of sustained, predatory offending against two complainants in their own home.

Decision

The court imposed an aggregate sentence of 2 years and 7 months. Having assessed the objective seriousness of the offending, the court found the conduct was grave: it was premeditated, repeated across many occasions, directed at two complainants who were living in the offender's home and entitled to feel safe there, and accompanied by other intrusive conduct (including recording the complainants through bedroom windows and photographing personal items).

The court gave weight to substantial mitigating factors. The offender had no prior relevant convictions, had undergone residential rehabilitation for alcohol dependency, was engaged in a Men's Behavioural Change Program, and was receiving ongoing psychiatric and psychological treatment for diagnosed PTSD and related conditions. Expert reports from a forensic psychiatrist and two psychologists were before the court, alongside character references and evidence of steps taken toward rehabilitation since the offending came to light.

The court determined that an ICO was an appropriate alternative to full-time custody. An ICO is a community-based sentence that requires the offender to comply with strict supervision and conditions while serving the sentence outside prison. The court ordered that 1 year and 10 months of the ICO be served by way of home detention, with mandatory electronic monitoring.

The conditions attached to the ICO were extensive, addressing the offender's mental health treatment, psychiatric monitoring, abstinence from alcohol and illicit substances (confirmed by regular biological testing), ongoing psychological therapy, participation in a PTSD and rehabilitation support program for veterans, and a requirement to accept inpatient treatment in the event of relapse or mental health deterioration.

Orders Made

  • A sentence of 2 years and 7 months imposed.
  • Sentence to be served by way of an Intensive Correction Order (ICO) pursuant to s 7(1) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.
  • Standard ICO conditions applied: no further offending; submission to supervision by a Community Corrections Officer.
  • 1 year and 10 months of the ICO to be served by way of home detention, commencing 12 April 2024, with mandatory electronic monitoring.
  • Attendance on a forensic psychiatrist (Dr Antony Henderson) at least monthly, with compliance with his treatment plan and any referrals.
  • Compliance with all prescribed medication.
  • Fortnightly psychological treatment with Dr Teo Xia (or as directed).
  • Abstinence from all alcohol and illicit substances, confirmed by random liver function testing, CDT testing, and urine drug screens every 6 to 8 weeks.
  • Active participation in the PTSD support group and Veteran Surf Project.
  • Acceptance of residential rehabilitation admission in the event of alcohol or drug relapse.
  • Acceptance of inpatient psychiatric admission in the event of significant mental health deterioration.
  • Waiver of clinical confidentiality rights to enable notification to the court of any treatment plan breaches.
  • Immediate reporting to Mt Druitt Community Corrections Office.

Key Takeaways

  • The District Court treated the sustained, repeated nature of the offending and the domestic setting as significant factors going to objective seriousness, notwithstanding the three-year statutory maximum for each offence.
  • An ICO with a home detention component was available and was imposed even for serious, repeated intimate-image offending, where the offender presented a compelling subjective case including diagnosed mental illness, prior service, and demonstrated rehabilitative steps.
  • Victim impact statements from both complainants were before the court and formed part of the sentencing process, reflecting the recognised harm caused by this category of offending.
  • Form 1 offences (additional offences not separately convicted but considered at sentencing) can substantially inform the overall sentence, and the court was required to apply the principles governing their treatment carefully.
  • Extensive and highly specific ICO conditions, including biological testing for substance use, mandatory psychiatric oversight, and confidentiality waivers, can be imposed to address individual risk and rehabilitative needs when a court elects an ICO over full-time imprisonment.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation:
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 91P(1), 344A
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 7(1), 37, 53A, 66, 73, 3A
- Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 (NSW)

Cases:
- Butters v R [2010] NSWCCA 1
- DC v R [2023] NSWCCA 82
- Devaney v R [2012] NSWCCA 285
- DG v R [2023] NSWCCA 320
- Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) v TH [2023] NSWCCA 81
- Einfeld v R [2010] NSWCCA 87; (2010) 200 A Crim R 1
- Filippou v R (2015) 89 ALJR 996; [2015] HCA 29
- Hall v R [2021] NSWCCA 220
- Hesketh v R [2021] NSWCCA 26
- Hughes v R [2008] NSWCCA 48
- Johnson v R [2016] NSWCCA 286
- LN v R [2020] NSWCCA 131
- Mandranis v R [2021] NSWCCA 97
- Munro v R [2006] NSWCCA 350
- Pfitzner v R [2010] NSWCCA 314
- R v JRD [2007] NSWCCA 55
- R v MAK; R v MSK (2006) 167 A Crim R 159; [2006] NSWCCA 381
- R v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270
- R v Elfar [2003] NSWCCA 358
- R v Harrison [2001] NSWCCA 79
- Attorney General's Application under s 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, No 1 of 2002 (2002) 56 NSWLR 146