AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
District Court 14 February 2025

R v Miner (a pseudonym)

[2025] NSWDC 117

Sexual offencesDomestic & family violence

Citation: R v Miner (a pseudonym) [2025] NSWDC 117
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 14 February 2025
Judge: Haesler SC DCJ

Background

The offender, referred to by the pseudonym Wade Miner, pleaded guilty to multiple sexual offences against his biological daughter, committed when she was approximately five and eight years old respectively. The offences occurred at the offender's home during weekend visits following his separation from the child's mother in 2018. The offending included touching the child's genitals, exposing himself, masturbating in front of her, and inciting her to perform a sexual act.

The child disclosed the offending to her mother, police were contacted, and the offender was arrested on 21 September 2023. He has remained in custody since that date. He participated in a police interview in which he made partial admissions but sought to minimise his conduct.

The offender entered guilty pleas in the Local Court through the early appropriate guilty plea scheme, attracting a 25% discount on each sentence. He appeared before the District Court for sentencing.

  • What weight should be given to the offender's guilty plea, including its utilitarian value and its role in sparing the child from participating in a trial?
  • Whether the offender's claimed motivation (that he was assisting the child's psychosexual development) should be accepted for sentencing purposes.
  • How the standard non-parole period for offences under s 66DA of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) should inform the exercise of sentencing discretion.
  • How the principles of totality and instinctive synthesis should apply to an aggregate sentence across seven offences.
  • What weight to give to mitigating factors (prior good character, mental health, personal history) and aggravating factors (breach of trust as a father, young age of the victim).

Decision

Haesler SC DCJ applied the instinctive synthesis method of sentencing, identifying and weighing all relevant factors before arriving at a single value judgment. The court declined to undertake a staged approach or to fix on a non-parole period and build the sentence around it, as required by the authorities.

The offender's claimed motivation that he was educating his daughter about psychosexual development was squarely rejected. The court noted that the offender's statements to psychologists were self-serving and intended to be exculpatory. Neither psychologist endorsed those assertions at face value, and the court was not prepared to either. The agreed facts governed the sentencing exercise.

The court identified significant aggravating factors: the offender was the child's biological father and the offending constituted a profound breach of trust; the victim was very young (five to eight years old); and the offending involved a pattern of conduct across two separate incidents. Mitigating factors included prior good character, the guilty pleas (including the benefit of sparing the child from a trial), and the offender's personal history and mental health circumstances.

On totality, the court constructed an aggregate sentence designed to reflect both the seriousness of the individual offences and the overall criminality, without being crushing. The court also noted the broader purposes of sentencing, including general deterrence for offending of this nature and the community's interest in protecting children from premature sexual exposure.

Orders Made

  • Sequence 2: 1 year 10 months, non-parole period 1 year 2 months
  • Sequence 4: 2 years 4 months, non-parole period 1 year 6 months
  • Sequence 6: 2 years (no separate non-parole period indicated)
  • Sequence 7: 1 year 6 months (no separate non-parole period indicated)
  • Sequence 8: 9 months, non-parole period 6 months
  • Sequence 9: 9 months, non-parole period 6 months
  • Sequence 10: 3 years, non-parole period 1 year 11 months
  • Aggregate sentence: 6 years, with a non-parole period of 4 years, commencing 20 September 2023
  • Eligible for parole consideration from 19 September 2027; balance of term expires 19 September 2029
  • Each individual sentence reduced by 25% to reflect early appropriate guilty pleas
  • High Risk Offender warning issued; the offender was directed to engage with recommended treatment through Corrective Services

Key Takeaways

  • A guilty plea entered in the Local Court and adhered to at sentencing constitutes a final admission of all elements of the offences, even where the offender subsequently sought to qualify or contextualise his conduct. The District Court applied Meissner v The Queen (1994-1995) 184 CLR 132 on this point.
  • Self-serving statements made to forensic psychologists for the purpose of sentencing reports carry little weight where they are unsupported by evidence and are not endorsed by the psychologists themselves. The court applied R v Elfar [2003] NSWCCA 358 in declining to act on the offender's claimed benign motivation.
  • Under the instinctive synthesis approach confirmed in Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357, a sentencing court must identify, discuss and weigh all relevant factors and then make a single value judgment; it cannot oscillate a sentence around a fixed non-parole period.
  • Intra-familial sexual offending against very young children involves a severe breach of trust that operates as a significant aggravating factor, and the courts treat general deterrence as an important sentencing purpose in such cases.
  • A 25% sentence discount applies where an offender enters a guilty plea through the early appropriate guilty plea scheme; courts may also treat such a plea as carrying independent weight for having spared the victim from participation in a trial.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 66DA, 66DC(a), 66DC(b)
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), s 54B(6)
- Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW)

Cases
- Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; (2013) 249 CLR 571
- Devaney v R [2012] NSWCCA 285
- Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25; (2005) 228 CLR 357
- Meissner v The Queen [1995] HCA 41; (1994-1995) 184 CLR 132
- Mill v The Queen [1988] HCA 70; (1988) 166 CLR 59
- MRW v R [2011] NSWCCA 260
- Olbrich v The Queen [1999] HCA 54; (1999) 199 CLR 270
- R v Elfar [2003] NSWCCA 358
- R v Geddes (1936) 36 SR (NSW) 554
- R v Herring (1956) 73 WN (NSW) 203
- R v Holder; R v Johnston [1983] 3 NSWLR 245
- R v JDX; JDX v R [2017] NSWCCA 9
- R v PGM [2008] NSWCCA 172
- R v Simpson [2001] NSWCCA 534; 53 NSWLR 704
- R v Thompson; R v Houlten [2000] NSWCCA 309; (2000) 49 NSWLR 383
- R v Van Ryn [2016] NSWCCA 1
- R v Windle [2012] NSWCCA 222
- Ryan v R [2017] NSWCCA 209
- Ryan v The Queen [2001] HCA 21; (2001) 206 CLR 267
- Tepania v R [2018] NSWCCA 247