AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
District Court 5 May 2025

R v Sheedy (Porter)

[2025] NSWDC 162

Sexual offences
SENTENCING COMMONWEALTH OFFENCE IMPRISONMENT

Citation: R v Sheedy (Porter) [2025] NSWDC 162
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 5 May 2025
Judge: Noman SC DCJ

Background

Following a jury trial, an offender was convicted on 6 February 2025 of using a carriage service to transmit communications to a child under 16, with the intention of making it easier to procure the child to engage in sexual activity, contrary to s 474.27(1) of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth). The offence carries a maximum penalty of 15 years imprisonment.

The offending occurred in 2022. The victim was a 12-year-old girl whose biological mother was in a relationship with the offender, then aged 35. The victim knew the offender in a domestic context and referred to him as "dad." The communications occurred over five days within a nine-day period and were not ended through any withdrawal of interest by the offender.

The court proceeded to sentence the offender, having received agreed facts, psychological evidence, and a Victim Impact Statement from the child.

Legal Issues

  • What sentence was appropriate for a Commonwealth offence under s 474.27(1) of the Criminal Code, applying Commonwealth sentencing principles?
  • What was the objective seriousness of the offending, having regard to the nature of the communications, the age of the victim, and the relationship between the parties?
  • To what extent did the offender's mental health history, background, and prior criminal record affect the sentencing outcome?
  • Whether full-time imprisonment was required, or whether exceptional circumstances existed to justify a suspended sentence.

Decision

Objective seriousness of the offence

The court found the offence to be a relatively serious example of the offence provision (at [12]). The victim was only 12 years old, well below the upper limit of the provision, and the age difference between her and the 35-year-old offender was marked (at [7]). The offender exploited a domestic affiliation and the victim's trust in him, having fostered a connection using terms of affection (at [7]). While the communications were not explicit or degrading and contained no threats, they were targeted and occurred over five days within a nine-day period, interspersed with ordinary messages in a manner consistent with normalising the contact (at [7]). The court was satisfied the offender intended, as a real possibility, engaging in some form of sexual activity with the victim at the time of communicating (at [9]), and that the offending was motivated by personal sexual gratification (at [10]).

Victim impact

The victim's Victim Impact Statement described real, palpable, and enduring harm resulting from the communications (at [22]). The court noted the victim's courage in documenting that harm.

Subjective circumstances

The offender had prior convictions across South Australia, Queensland, and New South Wales, including for dishonesty, drugs, domestic violence, and firearms offences. He was on both bail and a community corrections order at the time of the index offending, making breach of conditional liberty an aggravating factor (at [13]). He pleaded not guilty, expressed no remorse, and demonstrated no insight into the harm caused (at [15]).

A psychologist diagnosed the offender with persistent depressive disorder with anxiety, opining that this condition compromised his thought processes and decision-making and thereby informed the offending (at [17]). The court accepted that this background and resultant mental health issues reduced moral culpability to a moderate degree (at [19]). However, the court noted significant difficulty in assessing rehabilitation prospects given the absence of insight and remorse, and treated those prospects as guarded (at [21], [24]).

Sentence

The court determined that no sentence other than full-time imprisonment was appropriate and that no exceptional circumstances existed to justify suspension (at [28]). General deterrence and denunciation were identified as important considerations, given that such offences are committed privately and are difficult to detect (at [23]). Personal deterrence was also of continuing significance given the uncertainty around the risk of reoffending (at [24]).

Orders Made

  • The offender was convicted.
  • A sentence of 3 years imprisonment was imposed, commencing 5 February 2025.
  • The offender was ordered to be released on 4 February 2026 after serving 12 months, upon entering into a recognizance of $200 to be of good behaviour for four years.
  • The recognizance is conditioned upon: supervision and compliance with reasonable directions of the probation officer; not travelling interstate or overseas without the probation officer's written permission; and undertaking treatment or rehabilitation programs as directed by the probation officer.
  • Non-compliance with the conditions may result in the offender being returned to court.

Key Takeaways

  • The District Court characterised using a carriage service to groom a 12-year-old child known through a domestic relationship as a relatively serious example of the s 474.27(1) Commonwealth offence, with the breach of trust arising from that domestic affiliation treated as a significant feature of the objective seriousness (at [7], [12]).

  • Communications that are non-explicit and free of threats can still ground a conviction and a finding of meaningful objective seriousness under s 474.27(1), particularly where they are targeted, sustained, and designed to normalise contact with a child (at [7]).

  • A diagnosis of persistent depressive disorder with anxiety, supported by psychological evidence, was accepted as reducing moral culpability to a moderate degree, but did not diminish the weight given to general deterrence and denunciation for this category of offending (at [19], [23]).

  • Where an offender convicted after trial demonstrates no remorse, no acceptance of responsibility, and no insight into the harm caused, the sentencing court will approach rehabilitation prospects with considerable caution, even where psychometric testing places the offender at low risk of reoffending (at [15], [21]).

  • Being on two forms of conditional liberty at the time of offending, namely bail and a community corrections order, constituted a distinct aggravating factor in the sentencing exercise (at [13]).

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation
- s 474.27(1) Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth)

Cases
- Not stated