AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
District Court 18 November 2025

R v Dunn

[2025] NSWDC 519

Sexual offences

Citation: R v Dunn [2025] NSWDC 519
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 18 November 2025
Judge(s): Wass SC DCJ

Background

The accused, a man now aged 76, faced six counts of historical child sexual offending against a complainant referred to as H. The offending occurred when the accused was employed by H's family at their service station, beginning when H was approximately five years old and continuing until she was ten, at which point she reported the matter to police. The accused was in his late forties to early fifties at the time.

The charges included aggravated indecent assault of a person under 16, an act of indecency with a child under 16, and four counts of sexual intercourse with a child aged between ten and sixteen. The offending was characterised by sustained grooming, regular frequency, and conduct carried out in the family home and other locations in close proximity to H's parents and other adults.

The accused was found unfit to stand trial due to advanced dementia. The matter proceeded by way of a special hearing under the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW) (the MHCIFP Act). The present judgment addressed the nomination of limiting terms following special verdicts returned on 7 May 2025, recorded in the companion judgment R v Dunn [2025] NSWDC 516.

  • Whether, on the limited evidence available at the special hearing, the accused committed each of the six charged offences
  • What limiting terms were appropriate in place of conventional sentences, given the accused's unfitness to be tried under the MHCIFP Act
  • How the sentencing discretion should be exercised in light of advanced dementia, the historical nature of the offending, the objective seriousness of each count, and applicable aggravating and mitigating factors
  • Whether the accused should be detained in a correctional centre or placed in another form of supervised arrangement pending Mental Health Review Tribunal review

Decision

The court had already returned special verdicts on 7 May 2025 finding that, on the limited evidence available, the accused committed all six offences. The penalty hearing addressed what limiting terms to nominate. There was no evidence that the accused suffered any cognitive impairment at the time of the offending; his dementia was relevant only to the penalty phase.

Her Honour found the offending to be serious across all counts. It involved sustained grooming of a young child, regular and repeated conduct over several years, a large age disparity, and offending that took place within the family home where H was entitled to feel safe. The introduction of rewards such as chocolate and coins demonstrated forethought and premeditation. Count 6 was aggravated by the presence of another child in the room when the offending commenced.

The court identified the historical maximum penalties as guideposts and also had regard to current sentencing patterns and practices as required by ss 21B(1) and 21B(3) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW). Applicable aggravating factors included the age of the victim, the breach of trust, and the commission of offences in the home. The advanced dementia was treated as a mitigating factor, as was the absence of prior convictions. The court structured the limiting terms cumulatively to reflect the totality principle.

On the question of placement, the court ordered detention in a correctional centre rather than leaving the accused in the care of a family member. Her Honour noted that the family member's view that the accused remained a person of good character was inconsistent with the gravity of the findings, and that leaving the accused in that care arrangement would amount to taking no meaningful action at all.

Orders Made

  • Special verdicts returned on 7 May 2025: on the limited evidence available, the accused committed all six charged offences
  • Count 1 (aggravated indecent assault, maximum 7 years): limiting term of 15 months, commencing 22 September 2025 and expiring 21 December 2026
  • Count 2 (act of indecency, maximum 2 years): limiting term of 12 months, commencing 20 April 2026 and expiring 19 April 2027
  • Count 3 (sexual intercourse with child, maximum 8 years): limiting term of 4 years, commencing 19 April 2026 and expiring 18 April 2030
  • Count 4 (sexual intercourse with child, maximum 8 years): limiting term of 4 years, commencing 17 April 2029 and expiring 16 April 2033
  • Count 5 (sexual intercourse with child, maximum 8 years): limiting term of 4 years, commencing 15 April 2032 and expiring 14 April 2036
  • Count 6 (sexual intercourse with child, maximum 8 years): limiting term of 5 years, commencing 13 April 2035 and expiring 12 April 2040
  • The accused referred to the Mental Health Review Tribunal, which is to be notified of the orders
  • The accused is to be detained in a correctional centre pending Tribunal review
  • Custody from 14 September 2022 to 8 November 2022 (56 days) taken into account by backdating the commencement of the limiting term for count 1

Key Takeaways

  • Under the MHCIFP Act, where an accused is found unfit to be tried, a special hearing proceeds and the court may return a special verdict that, on the limited evidence available, the accused committed the offence charged; limiting terms are then nominated in lieu of conventional sentences.

  • Advanced dementia rendering an accused unfit to be tried does not preclude the court from imposing limiting terms, and the cognitive impairment is treated as a mitigating factor at the penalty stage rather than as a bar to the proceedings.

  • Sustained grooming conduct, including the use of rewards to secure a child's compliance and silence, is treated as evidence of premeditation and forethought that aggravates the objective seriousness of child sexual offending.

  • The District Court confirmed that historical maximum penalties function as guideposts in determining limiting terms, while current sentencing patterns and practices must also be considered as required by ss 21B(1) and 21B(3) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW).

  • Detention in a correctional centre was ordered as the only appropriate disposition where no adequate community-based arrangement existed and where leaving the accused in a private carer's custody would not constitute a meaningful response to the gravity of the findings.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation
- Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW), ss 63(2)-(5), 64
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 61M(1)-(2), 61N(1), 66A, 66C(1)-(2)
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 21A(2)(ea), (eb), 21A(3)(i), 21A(5A), 21B(1), (3), 25AA(3), 54(c)

Cases
- Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571
- GS v R [2016] NSWCCA 266
- LIU v R [2023] NSWCCA 30
- PN v R [2024] NSWCCA 86
- R v Allen (a pseudonym) (No 2) [2024] NSWDC 300
- R v AN [2005] NSWCA 239
- R v Antin (a pseudonym) (No 2) [2021] NSWDC 584
- R v Wheeler [2000] NSWCCA 34
- Regina v Graham Edward Mailes [2004] NSWCCA 394
- RS v R [2013] NSWCCA 227
- Tsoumbanellis v R [2025] NSWCCA 107
- VP v R [2021] NSWCCA 11