AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
District Court 3 November 2025

R v Hawkins

[2025] NSWDC 476

Sexual offences
CRIME SENTENC E REGISTERABLE PERSON ORDER

Citation: [2025] NSWDC 476
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 3 November 2025
Judge(s): Everson SC DCJ

Background

The offender, a 26-year-old man, was sentenced for three child sexual offences committed against a 15-year-old victim on 24 September 2023 in Tamworth, NSW. The victim was living in out-of-home care at the time of the offending.

The first count was grooming a child for unlawful sexual activity (s 66EB(2A) of the Crimes Act 1900). The second and third counts were aggravated sexual intercourse with a child aged 14 to 16, with the circumstance of aggravation being that actual bodily harm was caused (s 66C(4)). Each offence carries a maximum penalty of 12 years' imprisonment and a standard non-parole period of 5 years.

The offender contacted the victim via Facebook, exchanged sexually explicit messages over several days (during which the victim disclosed being 15), then arranged to meet in person. At the meeting, the offender committed two acts of sexual intercourse involving physical force: he restrained the victim, produced a serrated knife, and proceeded to commit penile/vaginal and then oral intercourse despite the victim's distress. DNA evidence confirmed the offending. The Crown accepted it could not prove beyond reasonable doubt that the offender knew the victim did not consent, but the statement of agreed facts confirmed there was no consent.

  • What was the objective seriousness of each offence?
  • What guilty plea discount applied to each count, given the second and third counts were "new count" offences under s 25D of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999?
  • What mitigating value did the guilty pleas carry beyond their utilitarian discount?
  • How should the offender's moral culpability be assessed, taking into account subjective factors?
  • What was the appropriate sentence, including whether a registrable person order should be made under the Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Act 2000?

Decision

Objective seriousness. The Court assessed Count 1 (grooming) as having no established aggravating or mitigating factors beyond the inherent nature of the offence. For Counts 2 and 3, the Court noted that while penile/vaginal intercourse (Count 2) may generally be regarded as more serious than enforced fellatio (Count 3), enforced fellatio should not be assumed to fall below the midpoint of objective seriousness. The Court relied on R v AJP and R v PGM for this proposition. The brevity of the offending did not diminish its gravity, and the victim's proximity to turning 16 neither enhanced nor diminished seriousness.

Guilty plea discounts. The offender received a 25% discount on Count 1 for his pre-committal guilty plea. Defence counsel initially argued for the same discount on Counts 2 and 3, characterising them as "new count" offences under s 25D of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 because the particularisation of actual bodily harm had substantially changed. The Court rejected this, finding that only a 5% utilitarian discount applied to those counts under ss 25D and 25E. However, following Doyle v R, the Court recognised that the pleas carried additional mitigating value (acceptance of responsibility, facilitation of justice, and potential remorse) to be weighed separately through instinctive synthesis.

Moral culpability and subjective factors. The Court treated moral culpability as a sentencing consideration separate from objective seriousness, consistent with Veen v The Queen (No 2). The truncated judgment text indicates the Court was engaged in a detailed assessment of the offender's subjective circumstances, including the mitigating value of the pleas beyond the statutory discount.

Victim impact. The Court noted the significant impact on the victim, who was unable to describe the offending during both the initial police interview and prerecorded evidence over a year later. The Court was not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the emotional harm was anything less than substantial.

Orders Made

  • The offender was convicted and sentenced on all three counts (the specific terms of imprisonment are not set out in the truncated text available).
  • A registrable person order was made under the Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Act 2000 (NSW).
  • The offender had been in custody on remand since 5 October 2023, and this time on remand was to be taken into account.

Note: The full sentencing orders, including aggregate terms and non-parole periods, are not available in the truncated text provided. Practitioners should consult the full judgment for complete details.

Key Takeaways

  • The District Court confirmed, following Doyle v R, that the statutory discount under s 25D operates as a purely mechanical reduction, while the broader mitigating value of a guilty plea (such as acceptance of responsibility and sparing the victim from trial) must be separately assessed through instinctive synthesis, with both components constituting distinct considerations in sentencing.

  • A change in the particularisation of actual bodily harm was held to be insufficient to attract a higher discount by treating the offence as a "new count" under s 25D. The Court clarified that changes in how existing elements are particularised may not amount to a "substantial change" warranting treatment as a new count offence.

  • No rigid hierarchy of sexual acts applies for sentencing purposes: the District Court held that enforced fellatio does not inherently rank below the midpoint of objective seriousness, emphasising that the specific context and circumstances of the offending determine where an offence falls on the spectrum of seriousness.

  • Substantial harm was inferred from the victim's ongoing inability to discuss the offending, with the Court confirming that victim impact evidence does not require the victim to articulate specific details of the harm suffered. The victim's silence was itself treated as evidence of the profound and lasting impact of the offences.

  • In addition to the custodial sentence, a registrable person order was made under the Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Act 2000, imposing ongoing reporting obligations on the offender.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation:
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 66C(4), 66EB(2A)
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 25D, 25E
- Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Act 2000 (NSW)
- Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW)
- Mental Health Act 1990 (NSW)

Cases:
- Doyle v R (2022) 108 NSWLR 1; [2022] NSWCCA 81
- DPP (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1
- Droudis v R [2020] NSWCCA 322
- Ibbs v The Queen (1987) 163 CLR 447
- R v AJP (2004) 150 ACR 575
- R v Engert (1995) 84 A Crim R 67
- R v Henry [1999] 46 NSWLR 346
- R v PGM (2008) 187 A Crim R 152
- R v Simpson [2001] NSWCCA 534; 53 NSWLR 704
- Veen v The Queen (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465