Citation: [2025] NSWDC 158
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 2 May 2025
Judge(s): Lerve DCJ
Background
The offender pleaded guilty to ten counts of sexual offending against three different victims over a substantial period of time. The victims included the offender's biological younger sister (AR), his stepdaughter (THB), and a fellow club member (EJ). The offences ranged from indecent assault and aggravated indecent assault to intentionally sexually touching a child and sexual touching without consent.
The offending against AR occurred from when she was approximately 12 to 19 years old. The offending against THB occurred while the offender was her stepfather, with an age gap of approximately 20 years. The offences against EJ occurred in 2023 through a social club. Critically, the offender was a juvenile (aged 16 or 17) for some of the earliest offending, and a young offender for others, which created complications for sentencing, particularly regarding the applicability of standard non-parole periods.
The offender entered guilty pleas at the earliest opportunity in the Local Court on 15 January 2025, adhering to those pleas in the District Court. He received the full 25% utilitarian discount.
Legal Issues
- What was the objective seriousness of each of the ten offences, assessed individually and collectively?
- How should the court approach sentencing where the offender was a juvenile at the time of some offences, noting that standard non-parole periods cannot apply to juvenile offenders?
- How should the principles of totality apply given the multiplicity of offences across three victims over a prolonged period?
- What weight should be given to the offender's guilty pleas, remorse, rehabilitation prospects, and personal circumstances (including any Bugmy factors)?
- What was the appropriate balance between specific and general deterrence, community protection, and the offender's prospects of rehabilitation?
Decision
The court assessed each offence individually for objective seriousness. The offences against AR (sequences 12 to 18) were generally assessed as ranging from the low end of mid-range to well within mid-range, noting skin-on-skin contact, the sibling relationship, and the agreed fact that the five charged offences were not isolated instances but part of a pattern of abuse from ages 12 to 19. The use of force in sequence 13 and the exposure of the offender's erect penis in sequence 16 were treated as aggravating features.
The offences against THB (sequences 6, 7, and 10) involved a significant abuse of the offender's position of trust as her stepfather, with an age gap of approximately 20 years. These were assessed as below mid-range to slightly below mid-range, though the court noted the agreed fact that the charged conduct was not isolated. The offending against EJ (sequences 8 and 9) involved sexual touching without consent; the text was truncated before the court's full reasoning on these counts was set out.
The court gave weight to the offender's early guilty pleas (25% discount), and grappled with the interplay between the offender's juvenile status at the time of some offences and the sentencing principles applicable to adults for later offences. The standard non-parole period scheme did not apply to sequences 12 and 13 because the offender was a juvenile when those offences were committed. The court considered the principles in Bugmy v The Queen regarding the offender's background, including the fact that AR's and the offender's parents were "quite absent" in the victim's upbringing.
Lerve DCJ applied the totality principle to ensure the aggregate sentence was just and proportionate to the overall offending, while still reflecting the distinct harm caused to each of the three victims.
Orders Made
- The offender was convicted and sentenced on all ten counts. (Note: the precise terms of the sentences, including individual and aggregate terms, were not fully set out in the truncated portion of the judgment available for this summary.)
- The full 25% discount for the utilitarian value of the guilty pleas was applied.
Key Takeaways
-
Standard non-parole periods cannot apply where the offender was a juvenile at the time of the offence, even when sentencing occurs in the District Court years later; each count was assessed individually against the offender's age at the date of the offence.
-
The District Court found that the charged offences were "not isolated incidents" but part of a broader pattern of ongoing abuse from age 12 to 19, treating the offending as more serious than the individual counts might suggest in isolation. This finding influenced the assessment of objective seriousness across all victim groupings.
-
In applying the totality principle, the Court ensured proportionality of the aggregate sentence by taking into account both individual offence seriousness and the fact that the offending spanned different legislative regimes and different stages of the offender's life (juvenile, young adult, and adult).
-
The stepfather relationship with victim THB was treated as a pronounced aggravating factor reflecting an abuse of trust, with the Court holding that this familial and quasi-familial position of authority attracted strong condemnation and significantly elevated objective seriousness, even where the physical conduct might otherwise have been assessed as below mid-range.
-
A full 25% utilitarian discount was granted in recognition of the offender's guilty plea at the first opportunity in the Local Court, with the District Court acknowledging the value of early resolution in sparing victims the ordeal of giving evidence in serious sexual offence proceedings.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Legislation:
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 61KC(a), 61L, 61M(1), 61M(2), 66DB(a)
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Cases:
- BP v R (2010) 201 A Crim R 379
- Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37
- Hearne v R (2001) 124 A Crim R 451
- KT v R [2008] NSWCCA 51
- Locke v R (2010) 207 A Crim R 34
- R v Tuala [2015] NSWCCA 8