AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
District Court 29 May 2026

R v California (a pseudonym)

[2026] NSWDC 167

Sexual offences

Citation: R v California (a pseudonym) [2026] NSWDC 167
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 29 May 2026
Judge(s): Newlinds SC DCJ

Background

The offender, now 88 years old and referred to by the pseudonym "California," pleaded guilty to two counts of serious child sexual offences committed decades ago. Count 1 involved an indecent assault on his 15-year-old sister-in-law ("Victim 1") in 1962, when the offender was 24 or 25. The victim had been living with the offender and her sister (the offender's wife), and was asleep in the offender's car when the assault occurred.

Count 2 involved maintaining an unlawful sexual relationship with his biological daughter ("Victim 2") over approximately six years, from 1973 to 1979, when the victim was aged 10 to 15. The offending involved numerous types of sexual acts, many occurring regularly or on many occasions over that period. The abuse only ceased when the offender separated from his first wife and moved out of the family home. At the time of the offending, the offender was a serving NSW police officer.

The offender entered guilty pleas in the Local Court on 15 January 2026, had no prior criminal history, and had not spent any time in custody before sentencing.

  • Whether the offence under s 66EA(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) (maintaining an unlawful sexual relationship with a child), enacted in 2018, could apply retrospectively to offending that occurred in the 1970s.
  • The appropriate assessment of objective seriousness for historical child sexual offences, including how sentencing courts should treat all conduct within a s 66EA relationship (not just individually particularised acts).
  • The relevance of the offender's advanced age (88), poor health, and the likelihood he would die in prison, and the weight to be given to general deterrence, specific deterrence, and rehabilitation in those circumstances.
  • Whether the threshold for full-time imprisonment under s 5 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) was met.
  • The appropriate aggregate sentence, including the degree of accumulation warranted where offending involved multiple victims and different types of conduct.

Decision

The Court confirmed that s 66EA of the Crimes Act has retrospective operation, relying on the High Court's decision in Xerri v The King (2024) and the express terms of s 66EA(7). There was no dispute between the parties on this point. The Court was required to take into account the maximum penalties prescribed at the time of the unlawful sexual acts (s 66EA(8)), while sentencing in accordance with current sentencing patterns and practices (s 21B(1) CSPA) and contemporary understanding of the trauma of child sexual abuse (s 25AA CSPA).

On the objective seriousness of Count 2, the Court found the offending fell well above the mid-range for a s 66EA offence. The conduct involved a father abusing his biological daughter over six years, including forced oral sex, digital and penile penetration, and a particularly traumatising act involving a knitting needle. Many of the acts occurred "regularly" or on "many occasions." The Court described the conduct as "beyond reprehensible, depraved, abhorrent" and the breach of trust as "incomprehensible." Count 1 was assessed as falling just below mid-range for its offence type.

General deterrence was given significant weight, with the Court emphasising that courts must consistently send a clear message that repeated, intentional sexual abuse of children will receive significant punishment, even where decades have passed before the offending comes to light. However, limited weight was placed on specific deterrence and rehabilitation given the offender's age. The offender's advanced age and ill health were acknowledged as factors that would make imprisonment significantly more onerous, but they did not displace the need for a custodial sentence.

The Court found the s 5 threshold was "undoubtedly crossed" and that no sentence other than full-time imprisonment was appropriate. It was acknowledged as likely that the offender would die before becoming eligible for parole. A 25% sentencing discount was applied for the guilty pleas entered in the Local Court.

Orders Made

  • The offender was sentenced to full-time imprisonment by way of an aggregate sentence, with some (but not total) accumulation between the two counts.
  • The offender was made subject to a Registrable Persons Order under the Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Act 2000 (NSW).
  • A 25% discount was applied to the sentence for the guilty pleas.

(Note: The full text of the judgment was truncated; the precise term of the aggregate sentence and non-parole period were not available in the portion provided.)

Key Takeaways

  • Section 66EA(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) applies retrospectively to unlawful sexual relationships with children that existed before the provision's commencement on 1 December 2018, provided the conduct constituted unlawful sexual acts during the period of the relationship, as confirmed by Xerri v The King (2024) and the express terms of s 66EA(7).

  • Sentencing for a s 66EA offence requires the court to consider all of the offender's conduct within the unlawful sexual relationship established by the evidence, not merely the individually particularised "ingredient" offences. The focus of s 66EA is on the existence of a particular kind of relationship rather than proof of a specific number of individual acts.

  • An offender's extreme age and poor health, even where death in custody is likely, do not preclude a substantial custodial sentence for objectively serious child sexual offences. These factors bear on the conditions of imprisonment but do not outweigh the sentencing purposes of general deterrence and denunciation.

  • General deterrence retains significant weight in sentencing for historical child sexual offences, regardless of the delay between offending and sentencing. The District Court reiterated that courts must send a clear and consistent message against intentional and repeated sexual abuse of children.

  • Under current sentencing requirements, courts must apply present-day sentencing patterns and practices (s 21B(1) CSPA) and contemporary understanding of the trauma of child sexual abuse (s 25AA CSPA), while also taking into account the maximum penalties that applied at the time the offending was committed (s 66EA(8)).

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation:
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 66EA(1), 66EA(7), 66EA(8), 76 (repealed), 79 (repealed)
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 3A, 5, 21A, 21B, 22A, 25AA, 25D
- Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Act 2000 (NSW), ss 3C, 16C, 17, 18

Key Cases:
- Xerri v The King (2024) 278 CLR 276; [2024] HCA 5
- RA v R [2024] NSWCCA 149
- R v Fisher [2024] NSWCCA 191
- MK v R [2024] NSWCC 127
- EG v R [2015] NSWCCA 21
- R v Lamey [2025] NSWCCA 17
- Da Silva v R [2024] NSWCCA 216
- GS v R [2016] NSWCCA 266
- Ryan v The Queen (2001) 206 CLR 267
- Richards v R [2023] NSWCCA 107
- PW v R [2019] NSWCCA 298