AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
District Court 29 August 2025

R v RM

[2025] NSWDC 590

Sexual offences

Citation: R v RM [2025] NSWDC 590
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 29 August 2025
Judge: Anderson SC DCJ

Background

The offender, a man born in 1952, was found guilty by a jury at the Dubbo District Court on 7 March 2025 of four sexual offences against two of his granddaughters, referred to as HP and MP. HP was born in 2006 and MP in 2009. The offences occurred approximately two years apart, with the offence against HP taking place around May 2021 and the offences against MP on 6 March 2023.

The offences involved intentional sexual touching of HP (then aged 14) and MP (then aged 13), as well as two counts of aggravated sexual assault against MP. The aggravated sexual assaults involved digital penetration and oral sexual contact. Both occurred at the offender's home while he was in a position of trust as the girls' maternal grandfather.

The matter came before Anderson SC DCJ for sentencing. The offender had a minimal criminal history, with no prior sexual offending, and had never previously received a custodial sentence.

  • What findings of fact were available to the sentencing judge consistently with the jury's verdicts, including an acquittal on one count?
  • What weight should be given to the offender's lack of remorse and absence of insight as sentencing factors?
  • How should the standard non-parole period and the statutory requirement to sentence in accordance with current practices (under s 25AA of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999) operate in this case?
  • What aggregate sentence was appropriate having regard to all relevant factors, including the offender's antecedents, the abuse of a position of trust, and the nature of the offending?

Decision

Facts consistent with the jury's verdicts: Anderson SC DCJ made factual findings consistent with each guilty verdict. In relation to HP, the court accepted her evidence that the offender lifted her top and sucked her breast, continuing after she told him to stop. In relation to MP, the court found that on 6 March 2023 the offender touched her breasts, then digitally penetrated her vagina, and then performed oral sexual contact on her, in rapid succession. The court declined to make additional adverse findings invited by the Crown regarding ongoing conduct towards HP, given the jury's acquittal on a related count.

Admission evidence and lack of remorse: The court placed considerable weight on the offender's own post-offence conduct. His text messages to MP the following day, his admissions to MP's mother, and statements during his police record of interview all amounted to acknowledgements of what had occurred. The court found that, despite this, the offender displayed no genuine remorse and lacked insight into his wrongdoing. A neuropsychological report tendered on his behalf offered no organic explanation for his conduct, which the court noted only reinforced its conclusion about the absence of remorse.

Sentencing considerations: The court acknowledged the offender's otherwise minimal criminal history and the genuine shock expressed by his family and friends. Anderson SC DCJ accepted that this conduct was generally out of character. However, the court declined to treat the offending as a complete aberration, noting it involved two child victims over two years and occurred in the context of a significant abuse of the trust placed in him as their grandfather. The offender received some leniency for his antecedents but was not entitled to any discount for a guilty plea given he was convicted after a jury trial. The court applied s 25AA of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, which requires child sexual offences to be sentenced in accordance with current practices and sentencing patterns, not those at the time the offences were committed.

Aggregate sentence: Anderson SC DCJ imposed an aggregate sentence of eight years with a non-parole period of four years and six months. The court indicated individual sentences for each count before arriving at the aggregate, treating the standard non-parole periods as legislative guideposts reflecting parliament's assessment of the seriousness of the offences.

Orders Made

  • Conviction recorded on each of the four offences.
  • Count 1 (intentional sexual touching, victim HP): Indicative sentence of 2 years and 3 months.
  • Count 3 (intentional sexual touching, victim MP): Indicative sentence of 2 years.
  • Count 4 (aggravated sexual assault, victim MP): Indicative sentence of 5 years and 8 months, with an indicative non-parole period of 2 years and 10 months.
  • Count 6 (aggravated sexual assault, victim MP): Indicative sentence of 5 years, with an indicative non-parole period of 2 years and 6 months.
  • Aggregate sentence: 8 years imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 4 years and 6 months, commencing 31 August 2024, expiring 30 August 2032; non-parole period expiring 28 February 2029.
  • The offender is to be placed on the NSW Child Protection Register.

Key Takeaways

  • Under s 25AA of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, a court sentencing child sexual offences must apply current sentencing practices and patterns, not those in place at the time of the offence, in recognition of the ongoing understanding of trauma caused by sexual abuse.
  • Where a jury acquits on a related count, a sentencing judge cannot make additional factual findings against the offender that are inconsistent with that acquittal, even where the Crown invites such findings.
  • The District Court treated the offender's post-offence admissions to the victim, her mother, and police as relevant to assessing remorse, and found the absence of any neuropsychological explanation for the conduct confirmed a genuine lack of insight rather than a medical basis for leniency.
  • An offender's otherwise minimal criminal history and good character can attract some leniency in sentencing, but do not operate as a complete answer to serious and repeated child sexual offending involving abuse of a position of familial trust.
  • Standard non-parole periods for offences under s 61J(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) function as legislative guideposts representing parliament's assessment of seriousness, and the court is required to have regard to them when structuring sentences for aggravated sexual assault.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation:
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 61J(1), 66DB(a)
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), s 25AA

Cases:
- Dipangkear v The Queen [2010] NSWCCA 156