AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
District Court 21 November 2025

R v Knox (a pseudonym)

[2025] NSWDC 482

Sexual offences
CRIME CHILD SEX OFFENCES SEXUAL INTERCOURSE WITH CHILD CIRCUMSTANCES OF AGGRAVATION CHILD ABUSE MATERIAL PRODUCTION

Citation: R v Knox (a pseudonym) [2025] NSWDC 482
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 21 November 2025
Judge(s): Priestley SC DCJ

Background

The offender, a man born in 1963 and referred to by pseudonym, appeared for sentence on seven charges under the Crimes Act 1900. The charges arose from prolonged sexual offending against his daughter, E, and additional offending against two other victims: G, a friend of E who slept over at the family home, and F, the offender's daughter-in-law.

The offending against E spanned approximately eight years from 2007 to 2015, beginning when she was around five years old. It commenced with repeated genital touching while E slept and escalated to fellatio, cunnilingus, and penile vaginal intercourse. The offender also filmed E showering without her knowledge on multiple occasions. Counts relating to G arose from the offender digitally touching her vulva while she slept on the lounge. Counts relating to F involved a single incident of covertly filming her in the shower. Two further counts emerged upon arrest in 2023: possession of child abuse material and possession of bestiality material found on the offender's phones.

The offender pleaded guilty and was entitled to a 25% discount on sentence. He had been in custody since his arrest on 24 August 2023.

Legal Issues

  • What is the appropriate indicative sentence for each of the seven counts, including the primary count of maintaining an unlawful sexual relationship with a child under section 66EA of the Crimes Act 1900?
  • How should the objective seriousness of each offence be assessed, including by reference to any applicable standard non-parole periods?
  • What weight should be given to the offender's subjective case, including his traumatic childhood, sexual abuse history, psychological diagnosis, expressed remorse, and early guilty plea?
  • How should the principle of totality operate to determine the appropriate aggregate sentence?
  • Whether a finding of special circumstances warranting an adjustment to the statutory non-parole period ratio was justified.

Decision

Count 1: Maintaining an unlawful sexual relationship with a child (section 66EA)

The court found that the offender maintained a prolonged unlawful sexual relationship with E from approximately 2007 to 2015, when she was aged between five and twelve (at [8]). Genital touching occurred regularly over a five-year period, always at night when E's mother was working (at [11]). The conduct escalated to include fellatio, cunnilingus, and penile vaginal intercourse, with each incident lasting approximately 30 to 60 minutes (at [17]). Sexual intercourse occurred on more than four occasions (at [19]). The court assessed this count as a serious example of a very serious offence, placing it towards the top of the middle 20% of the range of objective seriousness (at [30]).

Count 2: Filming E in the shower (section 91K(3))

The offender filmed E in the shower on multiple occasions between 2013 and 2014 when she was aged between 10 and 12 (at [31]). The court assessed the objective seriousness of this offence as close to, but slightly below, the midpoint (at [32]).

Counts 3 and 4: Indecent assault of G (section 61M(2))

The offender digitally touched G's vulva while she slept during sleepovers at the family home between 2008 and 2012 (at [33]-[34]). The court assessed both counts as serious examples of indecent assault, and placed them just below the middle of the range of seriousness by reference to section 54A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, noting that the duration of each assault was not established with precision (at [36]).

Count 5: Recording an intimate image of F (section 91P)

The offender recorded F in the shower without consent on 29 August 2019 (at [37]). The court assessed this as a distinct and serious violation occurring at a later time and involving a different victim, placed at approximately halfway to the midpoint of objective seriousness (at [39]).

Counts 6 and 7: Child abuse material and bestiality material

The offender possessed four category 1 child abuse images, assessed as low in objective seriousness, though made more serious by the very young age of one child depicted (at [49]-[50]). The bestiality material, while few in number of images, was assessed as halfway towards the midpoint of objective seriousness due to its particularly depraved nature (at [51]-[54]).

Subjective case and moral culpability

The court accepted that the offender suffered profound disadvantage in his developmental years, including sexual abuse by multiple perpetrators, placement in a boys' home, and family instability, and applied the principles from Bugmy and De La Rosa (at [77]). A psychological report supported a connection between the offender's childhood trauma and his offending attitudes. The court found this lessened his moral culpability, though it did not extinguish the need for general or specific deterrence (at [80], [98]). The court accepted the offender's remorse as genuine, supported by his letter to the victims and his early guilty plea, while acknowledging his incomplete insight into his conduct (at [70]-[71]). The court found his prospects of rehabilitation were too uncertain to assess with confidence, but noted that opportunity for contact offending had materially reduced following the disclosure by E (at [83]-[84]).

Totality and aggregate sentence

The court applied the totality principle, noting that counts 1 to 4 and the filming of E overlapped in time and arose from the same broader period of offending, while the offence against F and the material possession counts were distinct (at [103]). Taking all factors into account, the court imposed an aggregate sentence of 14 years with a non-parole period of 10 years (at [104]). A finding of special circumstances was made, attributable to the offender's first time in custody rather than any particular need for extended supervision (at [98]).

Orders Made

  • The offender is convicted of counts 1 to 7 inclusive on the indictment.
  • The offender is sentenced to a term of imprisonment dating from 24 August 2023.
  • Non-parole period: 10 years, expiring 23 August 2033.
  • Balance of term: 4 years, expiring 23 August 2037.

Key Takeaways

  • Under section 66EA of the Crimes Act 1900, the gravity of maintaining an unlawful sexual relationship with a child is assessed by reference to the nature, frequency, and escalation of the underlying unlawful sexual acts, even where those acts cannot be particularised with precision; the District Court placed this offence towards the top of the middle 20% of the range where conduct spanned approximately eight years and included multiple forms of penetrative intercourse (at [24], [30]).

  • The court confirmed that standard non-parole periods operate as legislative guideposts relevant to all cases within their scope, not only to cases assessed as falling in the middle of the range of seriousness, consistent with Muldrock (2011) 244 CLR 120 (at [4]).

  • A finding of lessened moral culpability on Bugmy and De La Rosa principles does not require a direct causal connection between the offender's disadvantaged background and the offending; it is sufficient that the background has contributed, in the way described by the expert evidence, to the offender's attitudes and behaviours (at [80]).

  • Genuine remorse, an early guilty plea attracting a 25% discount, and a first-time custodial sentence may each contribute to a finding of special circumstances adjusting the statutory ratio, even in cases of serious and prolonged offending (at [87]-[88], [98]).

  • In applying the totality principle to multiple counts spanning different victims and time periods, the District Court treated overlapping offending against the same victims as one series but treated distinct victims and temporally separate conduct as warranting independent weight in the aggregate sentence (at [103]-[104]).

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation
- Crimes Act 1900
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

Cases
- Cayhadi v R [2007] NSWCCA 1
- DB v R [2024] NSWCCA 18
- Hall v The Queen [2021] NSWCCA 220
- Hillman v R [2021] NSWCCA 43
- Muldrock (2011) 244 CLR 120
- R v Fisher [2024] NSWCCA 191
- R v Holder [1983] 3 NSWLR 245
- R v Pearce [2020] NSWCCA 61
- RA v R [2024] NSWCCA 149
- The Queen v Olbrich [1999] HCA 54