Citation: R v Alan Bruce Cooper (aka Deighton) [2026] NSWDC 168
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 29 May 2026
Judge(s): Newlinds SC DCJ
Background
The offender pleaded guilty to five counts of aggravated sexual assault (under s 61J(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)) and one count of sexual intercourse without consent (under s 61I), with two further aggravated sexual assault counts taken into account on a Form 1. The offences were committed against three separate victims across three distinct episodes occurring in July 2015, April 2017, and February 2024.
The offending involved extreme violence, including strangulation, choking, deprivation of liberty, and prolonged sexual assaults in isolated locations. In each instance, the offender used physical force to overpower the victim, and in the first episode, he acted in company with a co-offender. Two of the three victims sustained documented injuries consistent with strangulation and physical assault.
The offender had a significant criminal history, including a prior sentence of 4 years and 7 months' imprisonment for offences involving detention and intentional choking. At the time of committing some of the offences before the court, the offender was on bail for a contravention of an Apprehended Domestic Violence Order.
Legal Issues
- What was the objective seriousness of each offence and each episode of offending?
- What discount was appropriate for the guilty plea, given its timing?
- What role did the offender's background disadvantage and substance abuse history (assessed under Bugmy v R and DPP (Commonwealth) v De La Rosa) play in sentencing?
- What weight should be given to the purposes of sentencing under s 3A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, particularly community protection, specific deterrence, and denunciation?
- How should the principle of totality (per Mill v The Queen and Pearce v The Queen) be applied given the multiple offences, multiple victims, and the prior sentence?
Decision
The sentencing judge characterised all of the offending as objectively very serious. The national park offences against Victim 1 (Counts 1, 2, and 3) were described as a very serious example of this type of crime. They involved an isolated location, offending in company, a seatbelt and rope used around the victim's neck, multiple forms of sexual assault, and a duration of several hours. The shower offences (Counts 4 and 5) were similarly assessed as very serious. The offending against Victim 2 involved strangulation during a prolonged sexual assault, and the offending against Victim 3 included punching, choking, and the use of stockings to strangle the victim.
The court applied a 10% sentencing discount for the guilty plea, reflecting that the plea was entered after committal for trial and after a trial date had been set. This timing placed it well beyond the earliest opportunity to plead, limiting the available discount under the legislation.
The court considered the offender's background, including his history of childhood sexual abuse (which the offender himself referenced in a later conversation with Victim 1) and lengthy history of substance use. These factors were assessed in accordance with Bugmy and De La Rosa. However, the court found that the offender's prospects of rehabilitation were low, given the pattern of serious offending over nearly a decade against multiple vulnerable victims. The planned nature of at least some of the offending, including luring victims to isolated locations and using drugs as inducements, was treated as a significant aggravating factor under s 21A.
Protection of the community and specific deterrence were identified as particularly important sentencing considerations. The court also took into account the principle of totality, including the offender's earlier sentence, to ensure the aggregate term of imprisonment was just and proportionate to the overall criminality.
Orders Made
- The offender was sentenced to a lengthy term of imprisonment (the specific aggregate sentence was detailed in the full judgment beyond the truncated text provided).
- The sentence was backdated to commence on 1 April 2024, the date the offender was first remanded in custody.
- Two counts (Counts 3 and 4) were taken into account on a Form 1 attached to Counts 1, 2, and 5.
- A 10% discount was applied to each count for the guilty plea.
Key Takeaways
- Each of the three episodes of offending was assessed as a very serious example of aggravated sexual assault, with aggravating features including strangulation, deprivation of liberty, offending in company, use of threats, and the targeting of vulnerable victims in isolated locations.
- A guilty plea entered after committal and after a trial date had been fixed attracted only the minimum 10% discount, reflecting the limited utilitarian value of the late plea.
- Background disadvantage and a history of substance abuse, assessed under the Bugmy and De La Rosa frameworks, did not substantially mitigate sentence where the offending was planned, repeated over many years, and directed at multiple victims.
- Low prospects of rehabilitation, combined with the gravity and pattern of offending, led the court to prioritise community protection and specific deterrence as the dominant sentencing purposes.
- The principle of totality required the court to consider the prior 4-year-and-7-month sentence alongside the current offences, ensuring the cumulative punishment was proportionate to the totality of the offender's criminal conduct.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Legislation:
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 61J, 61I
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 3A, 5, 21A
Cases:
- Bugmy v R (2013) 249 CLR 571
- Cahyadi v R (2007) 168 A Crim R 41
- DPP (Commonwealth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1
- DS v R; DM v R [2022] NSWCCA 156
- Mill v The Queen [1988] HCA 70
- Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610
- R v Harris [2007] NSWCCA 130
- R v Johnson [2004] NSWCCA 76