Citation: R v Justin Lloyd Rickard [2026] NSWDC 166
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 29 May 2026
Judge(s): Newlinds SC DCJ
Background
The offender, a 52-year-old man with a long history of child sexual offending, pleaded guilty to six charges: five counts of failing to comply with an Extended Supervision Order (ESO) under s 12 of the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW), and one count of using a child under 14 years of age to produce child abuse material in circumstances of aggravation (the child being under 10) under s 91G(3) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW).
The Supreme Court had imposed the ESO in 2019 after being satisfied the offender presented an "unacceptable risk" of committing further child sexual abuse offences. Despite that order, the offender engaged in a sustained pattern of non-compliance across late 2024 and early 2025. On 22 February 2025, while subject to the ESO and in breach of multiple conditions, the offender caused a six-year-old boy to attend his home, ostensibly as a babysitting arrangement procured through a social media application, and took 11 photographs of the child naked.
The offender had been in custody since his arrest on 7 March 2025. He had previously been sentenced in June 2025 for other, unrelated breaches of the same ESO. A forensic psychologist diagnosed multiple psychiatric conditions, including paedophilic disorder. The court assessed prospects of rehabilitation as low and prospects of reoffending as high.
Legal Issues
- What was the objective seriousness of the principal offence (aggravated use of a child to produce child abuse material) and each of the five ESO breach offences?
- What weight should be given to the offender's subjective circumstances, including a deeply traumatic childhood, psychiatric diagnoses, and Bugmy factors (disadvantage arising from background deprivation)?
- To what extent should sentences for the ESO breaches be concurrent with each other and with the principal offence, having regard to the totality principle?
- How should the sentence account for pre-sentence custody and the partially served sentence for unrelated ESO breaches?
- What discount was appropriate for the guilty plea?
Decision
The court found the principal offence to be objectively very serious, placing it slightly above the midrange of conduct captured by s 91G(3). Although no direct physical sexual contact occurred and the images were still photographs rather than videos, the court described the act of photographing a naked six-year-old boy for sexual gratification as "abhorrent and serious." The offender's claim that the offence was opportunistic was accepted only in a very loose sense; the court found the conduct formed part of a clear pattern of offending.
Each ESO breach was found to be serious and deliberate. The court emphasised that breaching an ESO subverts the entire protective regime designed to manage the risk posed by high-risk offenders and to protect vulnerable children. The court accepted the offender's submission that the breaches formed a related cluster only in part. It rejected the proposition that all sentences should run wholly concurrently, holding that significant accumulation was required so the total punishment was proportional to the high level of repeated criminality. The court stated it ought not be the law that the more an offender offends, the less each subsequent penalty becomes.
On subjective matters, the court accepted the forensic psychologist's evidence of profound childhood disadvantage and trauma, including parental separation, institutional care, and childhood sexual assault. These Bugmy factors were given weight consistent with Bugmy v The Queen, but the court also applied Veen (No 2), recognising that mental illness and disorder may reduce moral culpability while the need for community protection, particularly of vulnerable children, remained a dominant consideration.
A 25% discount was applied for the early guilty plea under s 25D(2)(a) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999. To account for pre-sentence custody referable solely to these offences, and to allow for partial accumulation with the sentence already being served for the unrelated breaches, the court backdated the commencement of the sentence to 7 June 2025.
Orders Made
- The offender was convicted and sentenced on all six counts.
- The sentence was backdated to commence on 7 June 2025 to account for 38 days of pre-sentence custody solely referable to these offences and to accumulate 50% of the non-parole period of the prior sentence for unrelated ESO breaches.
- A 25% discount was applied for the plea of guilty.
- Significant (but not total) accumulation was imposed across the ESO breach sentences and the principal offence, consistent with the totality principle.
- (The specific aggregate term and non-parole period are contained in the full, untruncated judgment.)
Key Takeaways
- Repeated and deliberate breaches of an Extended Supervision Order were treated as serious criminal conduct warranting significant cumulative punishment, even where the breaches arose from a related course of conduct over a concentrated period.
- Under the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006, the court emphasised that ESO conditions exist to protect the community, particularly vulnerable children, and that subverting the regime through non-compliance attracts significant consequences.
- Profound childhood deprivation and diagnosed psychiatric conditions, including paedophilic disorder, were accepted as mitigating factors consistent with Bugmy v The Queen, but the principle in Veen (No 2) meant that community protection remained a dominant sentencing consideration.
- Low prospects of rehabilitation and high prospects of reoffending were significant factors in the sentencing assessment, reinforcing the weight placed on specific and general deterrence and community protection.
- Where two of the five ESO breach counts were charged on s 166 certificates, the District Court applied the Local Court jurisdictional limit of two years' imprisonment to those individual counts.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Legislation:
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 91G(3)
- Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW), ss 5B, 5D, 12
- Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Act 2000 (NSW)
- Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), ss 166, 168(3)
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), s 25D(2)(a)
Cases:
- Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571
- Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa [2010] NSWCCA 194; 79 NSWLR 1
- Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59
- Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610
- State of New South Wales v O'Hara (Final) [2024] NSWSC 225
- Veen (No 2) v The Queen (1988) 164 CLR 465