AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
District Court 18 February 2026

R v JA (No. 2)

[2026] NSWDC 10

Sexual offences

Citation: R v JA (No. 2) [2026] NSWDC 10
Court: District Court of New South Wales (Criminal)
Date: 18 February 2026
Judge(s): Priestley SC DCJ

Background

This decision concerns an application by the Crown for a Registrable Person Order (RPO) under the Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Act 2000 (NSW) against a young offender referred to as "JA." JA had been found guilty by a jury on 24 October 2025 of one count under s 66A and one count under s 66DA(b) of the relevant criminal legislation — offences involving a child victim aged six. The offender was aged either 15 or 16 at the time the offences were committed.

On 13 February 2026, JA was sentenced to two Community Correction Orders (CCOs), which included a condition requiring psychological treatment. The full sentencing reasons are set out in the companion judgment, R v JA [2026] NSWDC 7. In that judgment, Priestley SC DCJ assessed the offences as falling in the low range of objective seriousness and found that the offender had excellent prospects of rehabilitation and was unlikely to reoffend. The court also noted evidence that additional instances of similar misconduct had occurred, though their precise nature and frequency could not be determined.

Following the announcement of the sentence, the Crown sought an RPO, which would subject JA to reporting obligations for a period said to extend to seven years. JA opposed the order, contending that he did not pose a risk to the sexual safety of children and that the order was therefore not warranted.

  • Whether the court should be satisfied that the offender poses a risk to the lives or sexual safety of one or more children, or of children generally, as required by s 3C(1)(b) of the Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Act 2000 before making an RPO against a person who was a child at the time of the offences.

  • How the mandatory considerations in s 2C(3) of the Act — including the seriousness of the offences, the ages of offender and victim, the impact of the order on the offender, the likelihood of reoffending, and any other relevant matters — should be weighed in the circumstances.

  • Whether the rehabilitative principles applicable to sentencing young offenders are relevant to the exercise of the discretion under s 3C(1)(b).

  • As a subsidiary procedural matter, whether the judge is required to personally complete the RPO forms and notice documents in open court, or whether the Crown (as the party seeking the order) can be directed to prepare them.

Decision

Priestley SC DCJ declined to make the RPO. His Honour began by noting the critical distinction in the Act between adult and juvenile offenders: where an offender was a child at the time the offences were committed, the court retains a discretion and must be positively satisfied that the offender poses a risk to the sexual safety of children before an RPO can be made. This stands in contrast to the position for adult offenders, where (upon conviction) registration is mandatory.

The court worked through each of the s 2C(3) factors. The offences were assessed as being in the low range of objective seriousness. The offender was 15 or 16 at the time, and the victim was six. While there was evidence of other occasions of similar misconduct, the court was unable to determine their precise nature or frequency beyond finding they were of similar seriousness to the charged offences. Importantly, the sentencing judgment had already found a low likelihood of reoffending and excellent prospects of rehabilitation. The offender was described as a young, hard-working, well-supported, and pro-social individual who had lived without incident with younger stepsiblings for more than two years since the last offence.

His Honour acknowledged the Crown's arguments — particularly the finding of additional misconduct, the offender's continued denial of guilt, the need for psychological treatment, and the offender's ongoing contact with children. However, the court found that these matters were outweighed by other considerations. The additional misconduct occurred when the offender was young and immature, and was of similar low-range seriousness. The requirement for psychological treatment under the CCOs was characterised as an additional safeguard that actually reduced any residual risk, rather than as an indicator of dangerousness.

The court also had regard to the significant practical impact an RPO would have on the offender's work, travel, and daily life over a seven-year period, and weighed this against the low likelihood of reoffending. His Honour gave effect to the sentencing principles applicable to young people — emphasising rehabilitation and the promotion of a pro-social adult life — and referenced the second reading speech for the relevant amendment, which explicitly sought to alleviate reporting burdens for juveniles unlikely to pose an ongoing risk.

On the procedural point, his Honour observed that s 3J of the Act requires the court to "arrange" for the offender to be given relevant documents and to verbally explain certain matters, but does not require the judge personally to complete the forms. The court indicated that it would be more efficient for the Crown, as the party seeking the order, to prepare the completed documentation in advance.

Orders Made

  • The Crown's application for a Registrable Person Order under s 3C of the Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Act 2000 was dismissed.

Key Takeaways

  • Under s 3C(1)(b) of the Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Act 2000 (NSW), where an offender was a child at the time of the offending, a court retains a genuine discretion to decline to make a Registrable Person Order. The court must be positively satisfied that the offender poses an ongoing risk to the sexual safety of children; the mere fact of conviction for a registrable offence is not sufficient.

  • Principles governing the sentencing of young offenders, particularly the emphasis on rehabilitation and avoiding unnecessary impediments to a pro-social adult life, were found to be relevant to the exercise of the reporting order discretion, extending those principles beyond the sentencing context itself.

  • A finding in the companion sentencing judgment that JA was unlikely to reoffend carried significant weight in the reporting order analysis and outweighed factors such as the existence of additional uncharged misconduct and continued denial of the offending.

  • The District Court held that a requirement for psychological treatment imposed as a condition of a Community Correction Order could militate against a reporting order, as it provided an independent mechanism for managing any residual risk without the potentially counterproductive burden of registration.

  • In a practical observation that did not determine the outcome, Priestley SC DCJ expressed the view that the Crown, as the party seeking a reporting order, should prepare the completed forms and notice documents in advance rather than leaving that task to the presiding judge.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation:
- Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Act 2000 (NSW), ss 2C, 3C, 3J

Cases:
- R v JA [2026] NSWDC 7 (the companion sentencing judgment)