AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
District Court 10 May 2024

R v Chantler

[2024] NSWDC 164

Sexual offences
CRIME

Citation: R v Chantler [2024] NSWDC 164
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 10 May 2024
Judge: Mahony SC DCJ

Background

The offender was charged with two Commonwealth offences arising from online communications on the Grindr application in April 2022. The communications involved the offender, a 15-year-old victim (identified as TA), and a co-offender named Foy. After initially conversing with TA, the offender was explicitly told the victim was 15 years old and continued the exchange.

The first charge concerned the offender using a carriage service to communicate with TA with the intention of procuring him to engage in sexual activity. The second charge related to separate communications between the offender and the co-offender Foy, in which the two discussed how to arrange an in-person meeting with TA for sexual purposes. A jury found the offender guilty of both counts on 5 February 2024 following a not-guilty plea.

At the sentence hearing on 22 March 2024, the court received evidence including a forensic psychiatric report, victim impact statements from TA's parents, and a range of character materials tendered by the offender.

  • What facts had been established beyond reasonable doubt for the purpose of sentencing, including the offender's state of mind and intent?
  • What weight should be given to the psychiatric evidence, including the offender's diagnosed anxiety disorder and the absence of any paedophilic disorder?
  • What was the appropriate sentence for two serious Commonwealth child sexual offences, taking into account parity with the co-offender's sentence and the full range of relevant factors?
  • Whether a recognizance release order under s 20(1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) was appropriate, allowing the offender to serve the sentence in the community.

Decision

Mahony SC DCJ found that the offender knew TA was 15 years old and did not disbelieve him on that point. While the prospect of committing an illegal act with a minor caused the offender some anxiety, the court found he remained prepared to proceed. The offender's conduct in declining to use his own vehicle, and instead encouraging the co-offender to arrange transport, demonstrated a deliberate effort to reduce his own risk of identification rather than any genuine withdrawal from the plan.

The court accepted the forensic psychiatric evidence from Dr Furst that the offender suffered from an anxiety disorder and adjustment disorder, and that there were no indicators of a paedophilic or other paraphilic disorder. Dr Furst characterised the offender's continued engagement in the communications after learning TA's age as likely representing "poor judgement that was out of character." The court acknowledged the offender's prior good standing in the community, including his career as a teacher, swimming coach, and volunteer with Scouting NSW and the NSW Rural Fire Service.

Taking into account the totality principle and parity with the co-offender Foy's sentence (which had been imposed by Judge Townsden on 1 December 2023), the court imposed a total effective sentence of 2 years and 3 months. The court found it appropriate to order immediate release on a recognizance release order under s 20(1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), meaning the offender would serve the sentence in the community under supervision rather than in custody. Conditions included ongoing psychological treatment, supervision by Community Corrections, and restrictions on interstate and overseas travel.

Orders Made

  • Count 1: Convicted and sentenced to 2 years imprisonment, commencing 10 May 2024.
  • Count 2: Convicted and sentenced to 12 months imprisonment, commencing 10 August 2025.
  • Total term: 2 years and 3 months.
  • Recognizance release order under s 20(1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth): immediate release upon entering into recognizance (self, $500, no surety), with conditions including:
  • Good behaviour for 2 years and 3 months
  • Supervision by a Community Corrections probation officer
  • Compliance with all reasonable directions of the probation officer
  • No interstate or overseas travel without written permission of the probation officer
  • Continuation of counselling with the treating psychologist for a period she determines, and ongoing treatment by a General Practitioner
  • Report to Sutherland Community Corrections within 7 days
  • Forfeiture order for the offender's mobile phone pursuant to s 23ZD of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth).

Key Takeaways

  • The District Court confirmed that a custodial sentence and an immediate recognizance release order under s 20(1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) can be imposed together, allowing an offender to serve a term of imprisonment in the community subject to strict conditions.
  • Knowledge of the victim's age was treated as an established fact for sentencing: the court was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the offender did not disbelieve TA when told he was 15, notwithstanding the offender's contrary claim to the forensic psychiatrist.
  • Conduct aimed at reducing the risk of personal detection, such as declining to use one's own vehicle while encouraging a co-offender to arrange transport, may be treated as evidence of continued intent rather than withdrawal.
  • The absence of a paedophilic disorder in the psychiatric assessment was a relevant mitigating consideration, as was the offender's otherwise positive community history, but those factors did not displace the seriousness of the offending.
  • Parity with a co-offender's existing sentence is a relevant factor in Commonwealth sentencing, with the court here having regard to the sentence imposed on Foy when calibrating the total effective term.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation:
- Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth), ss 474.25C, 474.26(1)
- Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), ss 16AAAA, 16AB, 20(1)(b), 23ZD
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)

Cases:
- Cahyadi v R [2007] NSWCCA 1
- Commissioner of Taxation v Baffsky [2001] NSWCCA 332
- DPP (Cth) v De La Rosa [2010] NSWCCA 194
- Green v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 462
- Kearsley v R [2017] NSWCCA 28
- Lazarus v R [2023] NSWCCA 214
- R v Asplund [2010] NSWCCA 316
- R v Bajracharya [2022] ACTSC 276
- R v Clarkson (2011) 32 VR 361
- R v Finch [2022] NSWDC 578
- R v French [2023] NSWDC 174
- R v Ingrassia (1997) 41 NSWLR 447
- R v Lauren Cranston [2023] NSWSC 454
- R v Nafarette [2022] NSWDC 225
- R v Newson (No 5) [2021] NSWSC 1661
- R v Rzeminski [2022] NSWDC 731
- R v Wran [2016] NSWSC 1015
- Sabel v R [2014] NSWCCA 101
- Totaan v R [2022] NSWCCA 75