Citation: [2026] NSWDC 122
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 24 April 2026
Judge(s): Priestley J SC DCJ
Background
The offender, a father, was sentenced on 14 charges arising from the prolonged sexual abuse of his daughter, referred to as "A," who was aged between 2 and 4 years at the time of the offending. The offending occurred between 16 June 2022 and 16 May 2024.
Eight of the charges were for sexual intercourse with a child under the age of 10, contrary to s 66A(1) of the Crimes Act (NSW), each carrying a maximum penalty of life imprisonment and a standard non-parole period of 15 years. Two further state charges related to the aggravated use of a child under 14 to produce child abuse material (s 91G(3)) and possession of child abuse material (s 91H(2)). Four charges were brought under the Commonwealth Criminal Code concerning the use of a carriage service to transmit, possess, and access child abuse material.
The offender was arrested on 15 May 2024 following the execution of a search warrants at his home, which uncovered an iPhone and a hard drive containing extensive child abuse material, including recordings of his abuse of A. The offender had been actively participating in online chat groups, sharing material and discussing his offending with other users.
Legal Issues
- The appropriate sentences for 14 charges spanning both Commonwealth and state legislation, including offences carrying maximum penalties of life imprisonment and mandatory minimum terms
- The application of totality and proportionality principles where there was significant overlap in criminality between various charges (for example, the recordings of the s 66A offences formed the subject matter of the child abuse material charges)
- The correct approach to structuring sentences where aggregate sentencing was available for state offences but could not be applied across a mix of Commonwealth and state offences
- The weight to be given to the offender's early guilty plea, limited rehabilitation prospects, and personal circumstances (including a diagnosis of paedophilic disorder) in mitigation
- Assessment of objective seriousness for offences involving the sexual abuse of a very young child by her father, who was in a position of trust and authority
Decision
The Court found the offending to be of extreme objective seriousness. Priestley J SC DCJ described the s 66A offences as falling in the high range of objective seriousness, noting the very young age of the victim (3 to 4 years old), the fact that the offender was her father, the repetitive and escalating nature of the abuse, the recording of the abuse for distribution, and the child's expressions of pain and protest during the assaults. The offender's conduct in online chat groups, where he shared the material, discussed his offending, and suggested meeting other offenders to "share" children, demonstrated a deeply entrenched pattern of behaviour.
In mitigation, the Court accepted the offender's early guilty plea, entered at the first available opportunity, which attracted a 25% discount on sentence. The plea was given utilitarian value as it spared the child victim from having to give evidence. The Court also took into account the offender's background, including a difficult childhood marked by family instability, substance abuse, and some history of being a victim of sexual abuse, although the offender's account of his upbringing was largely uncorroborated. A diagnosis of paedophilic disorder was noted. The Court found the offender's prospects of rehabilitation to be low, based on expert evidence and the nature of the offending.
The Court imposed separate sentences for the Commonwealth and state offences. For the state offences, an aggregate sentence was imposed. For the Commonwealth offences, the Court imposed a partially cumulative sentencing structure, with count 14 (accessing child abuse material using a carriage service, which carried a mandatory minimum sentence of 7 years) treated as a stand-alone sentence partially accumulated upon the other Commonwealth sentences. The Court stated indicative sentences for each count within the aggregate.
In structuring the overall sentence, the Court applied the principles of totality and proportionality. It noted the significant overlap in criminality between certain counts (particularly between the sexual intercourse offences and the child abuse material offences based on the same recorded conduct) and ensured a degree of concurrency to avoid double punishment. The Court also applied the special circumstances finding under s 44 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act to vary the statutory ratio between the non-parole period and the balance of term for the state offences, given the length of the overall sentence and the need for an extended period of supervised release.
Orders Made
- State offences (Counts 3 to 12): Aggregate sentence of 26 years and 3 months imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 17 years and 6 months, commencing 15 May 2024
- Commonwealth offences (Counts 1, 2, 13, 14): Count 14 was sentenced to 12 years imprisonment (with a non-parole period of 7 years and 6 months), partially accumulated upon the other Commonwealth sentences. Count 1 received an indicative sentence of 9 years; Count 2, 6 years; Count 13, 6 years. The effective Commonwealth sentence was structured to partially accumulate on the state sentence
- Overall effective sentence: Total term of 32 years imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 22 years and 6 months, commencing 15 May 2024. The earliest eligibility date for release on parole is 14 November 2046; the sentence expires on 14 August 2056
- A non-publication order was made in respect of the victim's identity
Key Takeaways
- Offences involving the sexual abuse of a very young child by a parent, combined with recording and online distribution of the abuse, were found to fall within the highest range of objective seriousness for s 66A(1) offences under the Crimes Act.
- The District Court held that a 25% discount for an early guilty plea remained appropriate even in cases of overwhelming evidence, recognising the utilitarian value of sparing a child victim from giving evidence at trial.
- Aggregate sentencing cannot be applied across a combination of Commonwealth and state offences, requiring separate sentencing structures for each jurisdiction's charges.
- A diagnosis of paedophilic disorder, while relevant to understanding the offending, did not materially reduce the offender's moral culpability, particularly given the deliberate, sustained, and escalating nature of the conduct.
- In applying the totality principle, the Court recognised that a degree of concurrency was warranted where the criminality of multiple charges substantially overlapped, such as where the act of sexual abuse and the act of recording that abuse for distribution arose from the same conduct.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Legislation:
- Commonwealth Criminal Code, ss 474.22(1), 474.22A(1), 474.19(1)(a)(i)
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 66A(1), 91G(3), 91H(2)
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 44, 54A
Cases cited:
- Cahyadi [2007] NSWCCA 1
- Delzotto v The King; Hurt v The King [2024] HCA 8
- DPP v TH [2023] NSWCCA 81
- Grange [2023] NSWCCA 6
- Hall v The Queen [2021] NSWCCA 220
- R v BH [2023] NSWCCA 278
- R v Holder [1983] 3 NSWLR 245
- R v Hutchinson [2018] NSWCCA 152
- R v Williams [2025] NSWCCA 63