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

R v SN

[2025] NSWDC 280

Sexual offences
CRIME SENTENCE INDECENT ASSAULT SEXUAL INTERCOURSE WITHOUT CONSENT ACT OF INDECENCY TOWARDS DISSOCIATIVE IDENTITY DISORDER

Citation: R v SN [2025] NSWDC 280
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 5 June 2025
Judge: Bourke SC DCJ

Background

The offender, identified only as SN, is the biological father of two victims, referred to in the judgment as LN and AB. Following a jury trial that ran from late October to early December 2024, SN was convicted on all substantive counts of a 26-count indictment relating to sexual and indecent offending against his children.

The offences spanned multiple states and included conduct that occurred when the family moved to New South Wales in August 2009. One victim, LN, gave evidence at trial in a notably unusual manner: she has been diagnosed with Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID), a condition in which a person develops distinct identity states, each with separate memories, typically as a response to severe childhood trauma. LN gave evidence as herself and as three separate "alters" (distinct identity states with their own names), and was cross-examined in each of those identities across multiple days of the trial.

The sentencing hearing itself was protracted, requiring several adjournments due to the offender's medical condition and logistical difficulties in arranging his appearance by audio-visual link.

  • What facts were established for the purposes of sentencing, consistent with the jury's verdicts, and how should disputed or ambiguous aspects of the evidence be treated?
  • How should the standard non-parole periods applicable to the sexual intercourse without consent offences guide the individual sentences?
  • What care was needed to avoid "De Simoni error" (the principle that a sentencing court must not punish an offender for a more serious offence of which they were not convicted)?
  • How should the totality principle be applied to aggregate an appropriate overall sentence across 23 offences without producing a crushing or disproportionate result?

Decision

His Honour found facts for sentencing purposes by reviewing the trial evidence and adopting the Crown's summary, which defence counsel accepted as an accurate representation of the evidence. Where the victim's evidence suggested conduct more serious than the offence charged (for example, hints of penetration where the count alleged only indecent touching), the court expressly disregarded that more serious material to avoid De Simoni error.

The court considered the evidence about LN's DID diagnosis in detail. Two expert witnesses, a psychologist and a psychiatrist, explained that DID arises from severe and repeated abuse suffered at a very young age, almost invariably including sexual abuse. The psychiatrist who assessed LN expressed no doubt about the diagnosis. The court treated the diagnosis and its origins as part of the factual context of the offending.

Individual sentences were imposed for each of the 23 counts, reflecting the applicable maximum penalties and, where specified by statute, the standard non-parole periods. The offences ranged from indecent assault (maximum five years) through to multiple counts of sexual intercourse without consent (maximum 14 years, standard non-parole period seven years) and one count of attempted sexual intercourse without consent (maximum 14 years, no standard non-parole period applicable as it is an attempt offence).

Applying totality principles, the court declined to simply aggregate the individual sentences, noting that doing so would produce a crushing and disproportionate outcome. A significant degree of concurrency was built into the final sentence to arrive at an overall term that reflected the full criminality without being unjust.

Orders Made

  • SN convicted on all 23 counts.
  • Aggregate head sentence of 21 years imprisonment, commencing 5 December 2024 and expiring 4 December 2045.
  • Non-parole period of 14 years, expiring 4 December 2038.
  • Apprehended violence orders to expire 4 December 2047.
  • Fingerprint order made pursuant to s 74 of the Crimes (Forensic Procedures) Act.

Key Takeaways

  • A sentencing court must find facts consistent with the jury's verdicts and, where evidence suggests conduct more serious than the offence charged, must disregard that surplus material to avoid De Simoni error. This principle applied here to exclude evidence suggesting penetrative acts on counts framed only as indecent assault.

  • The District Court accepted expert evidence that DID in a victim can itself be indicative of the nature and severity of abuse suffered from a very young age, treating the diagnosis as part of the relevant factual context at sentencing.

  • Where a victim with DID gives evidence as multiple identity states, each with separate names and memories, the court can receive and act on that evidence without objection, provided appropriate expert evidence about the condition has been led.

  • Standard non-parole periods for sexual intercourse without consent offences (seven years against a 14-year maximum) operated as important guideposts for the individual sentences on the relevant counts, though the attempt offence attracted no standard non-parole period.

  • Applying the totality principle across 23 counts required substantial concurrency: the aggregate sentence of 21 years with a 14-year non-parole period was significantly less than a simple sum of the individual terms, reflecting the principle that a final sentence must be proportionate to the overall criminality without being crushing.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 61I, 61L, 61M, 61N(2)
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
- Crimes (Forensic Procedures) Act (NSW), s 74

Cases
- Maxwell v R [2020] NSWCCA 94
- Mohindra v R [2020] NSWCCA 340
- R v JCW [2000] NSWCCA 209
- WG v R; KG v R [2020] NSWCCA 155