AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
District Court 12 December 2025

R v Tumai

[2025] NSWDC 547

Sexual offences

Citation: R v Tumai [2025] NSWDC 547
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 12 December 2025
Judge: Baker SC DCJ

Background

The offender, a 47-year-old man, was sentenced for 17 offences arising from the sexual abuse of his then-partner's two daughters, aged 9 and 12. The offending occurred over a concentrated period from December 2022 to February 2023 at a family home on the Central Coast, after the offender moved in with the children's mother.

The offences included six counts of sexual intercourse with a child under 10 years, two counts of aggravated sexual intercourse with a child aged between 10 and 14 years, one count of intentional sexual touching, and four counts of aggravated use of a child under 14 years to produce child abuse material. Four Commonwealth offences of using a carriage service to make available child abuse material were also before the court. Police recovered 926 photographs and videos of the victims from the offender's phone.

Three additional offences were taken into account on Forms 1 and a Form s.16BA, including grooming offences against both victims and a possession of child abuse material charge. The offender entered guilty pleas at the earliest opportunity.

  • What was the appropriate aggregate sentence across 17 State and Commonwealth offences of varying gravity, including offences carrying maximum penalties of life imprisonment?
  • What weight should be given to general and personal deterrence, given expert findings of paedophilic and hebephilic interests and a high risk of violent sexual recidivism?
  • Whether a Bugmy finding applied in light of the offender's background, and if so, what effect it had on the sentencing discretion.
  • Whether the Form 1 and Form s.16BA offences warranted an uplift to the indicative sentences for the principal charges.
  • What reporting period should be specified under the Registrable Person Order, and whether the multiple offences could be treated as a single registrable offence for the purpose of calculating that period.

Decision

Baker SC DCJ identified the offending as extremely serious. The six offences of sexual intercourse with a child under 10 years carried a maximum penalty of life imprisonment and a standard non-parole period of 15 years each. The judge approached sentencing by first forming an indicative sentence for each offence, then constructing an aggregate sentence through a process of appropriate accumulation and concurrency, designed to reflect the totality of the criminality without being crushing.

The court accepted expert evidence that the offender had paedophilic and hebephilic interests and posed a high risk of violent sexual recidivism. These findings carried significant weight in the assessment of general and personal deterrence and the need to protect the community. The court acknowledged a Bugmy finding in relation to the offender's background, consistent with the High Court's direction in Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37 that the effects of profound disadvantage do not diminish over time and remain relevant at sentence, though this did not displace the primacy of community protection in the circumstances.

The Form 1 and Form s.16BA matters, including grooming offences against both children and a carriage service offence involving indecent material sent to a person under 16, were each found to be sufficiently serious to warrant an uplift to the relevant principal charges. The guilty pleas, entered at the earliest opportunity, attracted a 25% utilitarian discount applied to each indicative sentence. The court took care to ensure that accumulation did not erode that discount.

On the Registrable Person Order, the court declined to treat the multiple registrable offences as a single offence for the purpose of calculating the reporting period. Given the different nature of the offences, the two separate victims, and the duration of the offending, the court was not satisfied it was appropriate to invoke the discretion under s 2E of the Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Act 2000 (NSW). A reporting period of 15 years was imposed, commencing upon the offender's release from government custody.

Orders Made

  • Aggregate sentence of imprisonment imposed across 13 State offences and 4 Commonwealth offences (specific term not reproduced in the provided text).
  • Sentence backdated to commence 9 March 2023, the date of the offender's arrest.
  • A 25% discount applied to each indicative sentence to reflect the utilitarian value of the early guilty pleas.
  • Form 1 and Form s.16BA offences taken into account, resulting in uplift to indicative sentences for the relevant principal charges.
  • Registrable Person Order made under the Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Act 2000 (NSW), with a reporting period of 15 years commencing upon release from government custody.
  • Court directed to provide the offender with a copy of the order, written notice of reporting obligations, and a verbal explanation of those obligations.
  • Copies of the order to be provided to the Commissioner of Police and the supervising authority.

Key Takeaways

  • A Bugmy finding acknowledging the effects of the offender's background remained relevant at sentence but did not displace the significant weight given to general deterrence, personal deterrence, and community protection where expert evidence established a high risk of violent sexual recidivism.
  • Under s 2E of the Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Act 2000 (NSW), a court may treat multiple registrable offences as a single offence for the purpose of calculating the reporting period, but the District Court here declined to do so where offences were distinct in nature, involved two separate victims, and extended over a sustained period.
  • Expert findings of paedophilic and hebephilic interests were treated as significant aggravating factors bearing on deterrence and the need to protect the community from further offending.
  • Grooming and possession offences placed on Form 1 and Form s.16BA were each found sufficiently serious to attract an uplift to the indicative sentences for the principal charges, reinforcing that courts will scrutinise the gravity of ancillary matters carefully rather than treating them as inconsequential.
  • Consistent with established authority, the 25% utilitarian discount for early guilty pleas was applied to each indicative sentence individually, with the court expressly guarding against the accumulation process eroding the benefit of those pleas.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation
- Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Act 2000 (NSW)
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 66A(1), 66C(2), 66DB(a), 66EB(3), 91G(3), 91H(2)
- Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)
- Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW)
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
- Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth), ss 474.22(1), 474.27A(1)

Cases
- Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; 249 CLR 572
- DPP (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1; [2010] NSWCCA 194
- Lane v R [2025] NSWCCA 113
- Minehan v R [2010] NSWCCA 140; (2010) 201 A Crim R 243
- R v Hutchinson [2018] NSWCCA 152
- R v Kinnaird [2025] NSWDC 501
- RG v R [2025] NSWCCA 36