Citation: R v Renaud [2025] NSWDC 386
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 21 August 2025
Judge: Bourke SC DCJ
Background
The offender stood trial in June 2025 on an indictment containing nine counts relating to historical child sexual offences against three complainants. Following a directed verdict of not guilty on one count and jury verdicts on the remainder, the offender was convicted of three offences: indecent assault (count 1), committing an act of indecency towards a person under 16 years (count 2), and maintaining an unlawful sexual relationship with a child under 16 years (count 7).
Counts 1 and 2 involved a male victim, RU, who was aged nine or ten at the time. Count 7 involved a female victim, BI, who was a neighbour's child and a friend of the offender's daughter.
The sentencing remarks address the facts to be found for sentence, the applicable principles, and the aggregate term to be imposed across the three offences.
Legal Issues
- What facts, consistent with the jury's verdicts, should be found for the purposes of sentencing?
- Whether the sexual acts against RU extended beyond the two specific charged incidents
- What weight to give to the nature and duration of the offending against BI for the maintaining an unlawful sexual relationship charge
- What aggregate sentence, and what non-parole period, was appropriate across the three offences involving two victims
- Whether special circumstances existed justifying adjustment of the ratio between the head sentence and the non-parole period
Decision
Facts found for RU (counts 1 and 2): The offending against RU occurred on a tractor and at a nearby creek bank. On count 1, the offender rubbed the victim's genital area through his clothing while the child sat on his lap on the tractor. On count 2, shortly afterwards, both the offender and the child masturbated near the creek at the offender's encouragement. The court was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt, consistent with the victim's evidence and his assessment as an honest and reliable witness, that at least two further similar occasions occurred beyond those charged. Evidence that the victim had at some point masturbated the offender was put aside because insufficient detail had been elicited at trial.
Facts found for BI (count 7): The court accepted BI's evidence that the offender sexually abused her on numerous occasions over a period spanning from approximately age four to age ten or eleven. This included digital penetration during vehicle rides and during sleepovers at the offender's home. The offender denied giving children rides on his tractor, but the court rejected that evidence, noting it was inconsistent with the jury's verdict on count 1 and with other accepted evidence. The court accepted the offending was frequent and opportunistic, described by the victim as occurring virtually every time she was alone with the offender in a vehicle and at each sleepover.
Sentence: The court identified the maintaining an unlawful sexual relationship charge as the most serious, carrying a maximum of life imprisonment. In assessing the aggregate sentence, the court applied totality principles and determined that some notional accumulation was warranted given the presence of two separate victims and distinct offending occasions, while counts 1 and 2 warranted significant concurrency as they arose from essentially a single incident. Special circumstances were found on three bases: this was the offender's first period in custody, his age and separation from his wife would make custody more onerous, and his wife and family would suffer hardship.
Aggregate sentence: The court imposed an aggregate head sentence of ten years and six months, with a non-parole period of six years, both commencing 17 June 2025.
Orders Made
- Offender convicted on counts 1, 2 and 7
- Indicative term for count 1: one year and three months' imprisonment
- Indicative term for count 2: eight months' imprisonment
- Indicative term for count 7: nine years and six months' imprisonment
- Aggregate head sentence: ten years and six months, commencing 17 June 2025, expiring 16 December 2035
- Non-parole period: six years, expiring 16 June 2031
- Special circumstances finding made, adjusting the head sentence to non-parole ratio
Key Takeaways
- When determining facts for sentence after a jury trial, the sentencing court must find facts consistent with the jury's verdicts; aggravating facts must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, while mitigating facts need only be established on the balance of probabilities.
- The District Court accepted that uncharged sexual acts against a victim can be taken into account at sentencing where evidence of those acts is sufficiently reliable, even where they fall outside the specific charged incidents.
- Under s 25AA of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, a sentencing court is required to have regard to the trauma arising from sexual offences against children as it is understood today, rather than by reference to historical attitudes.
- Where an aggregate sentence encompasses offending against two separate victims on different occasions, some notional accumulation is appropriate to reflect the distinct nature and impact of the offending on each victim.
- Special circumstances justifying a departure from the standard non-parole period ratio can be established by a combination of factors, including a first period of custody, the particular hardship that custody will impose on the offender given age and personal circumstances, and the impact on the offender's family.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Legislation:
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 61E(1), 61E(2)
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), s 25AA
Cases:
- Baldwin-Davies v R [2024] NSWCCA 220
- Clarkson v R [2011] VSCA 157
- Dipangkear v R [2010] NSWCCA 156
- R v CMB [2014] NSWCCA 5
- R v Edwards (1996) 90 A Crim R 510
- R v Gavel [2014] NSWCCA 56
- R v Holyoak (1995) 82 A Crim R 502
- RA v R [2024] NSWCCA 149