Citation: R v Dillon-Henderson [2026] NSWDC 224
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 20 May 2026
Judge: Bourke SC DCJ
Background
Following a jury trial at Katoomba, the offender was convicted on five counts arising from sexual offences against two child victims. The first victim (referred to as HS, born July 2011) was the younger sister of the offender's then-partner. The second victim (referred to as HH, born September 2009) was similarly the younger sister of another of the offender's partners.
The offences against HS spanned multiple incidents at residential properties in Blackett and Werrington Downs. They included digital penetration of a young child (count 1) and three separate incidents of sexual touching (counts 3, 4, and 5). The offence against HH (count 6) occurred on the night of her fourteenth birthday, while she was asleep in a shared bed, and involved skin-to-skin touching of her breasts, stomach, and hip area for between ten and twenty minutes.
The offender did not plead guilty and maintained his innocence throughout, although his counsel accepted that the Crown's proposed findings of fact fairly summarised the trial evidence. No discount for a guilty plea was available.
Legal Issues
- What findings of fact were appropriate, consistently with the jury verdicts and the trial evidence?
- Where did each offence sit in the range of objective seriousness?
- What subjective factors bore on the appropriate sentence?
- How should the principle of totality apply across five offences involving two victims?
- Whether special circumstances existed to justify adjusting the standard ratio between the head sentence and the non-parole period?
Decision
Findings of Fact
Bourke SC DCJ determined the facts for sentencing purposes, applying the standard that aggravating matters must be proved beyond reasonable doubt and mitigating matters on the balance of probabilities. His Honour adopted the Crown's agreed factual summary as the basis for those findings. The facts disclosed a pattern of deliberate, predatory conduct, including in one instance the offender actively distracting a sibling who was present in the room.
Objective Seriousness
Count 1 (digital penetration of HS, then aged between eight and ten years) was treated as the most serious offence. The conduct was sustained over approximately five minutes, the victim expressed pain and repeatedly asked the offender to stop, and he continued regardless. The sexual touching offences, while serious, were assessed at a lower level of objective gravity, with variations between them reflecting differences in duration, intrusiveness, and context.
Subjective Factors and Special Circumstances
His Honour identified this as the offender's first period of custody and noted his relative youth. A finding of special circumstances was made under the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, warranting a departure from the standard non-parole period ratio to allow for a more extended period of post-release supervision on parole.
Totality
Applying the principle of totality, the court was required to ensure the aggregate sentence reflected, but did not exceed, the overall criminality across all five offences. His Honour noted that some degree of notional accumulation was necessary given four separate offences against one victim and a fifth against a second. The overlap in time between counts 4 and 5 (both occurring on the same day) warranted limiting the degree of accumulation for those two counts. The involvement of a separate victim in count 6 required additional notional accumulation. An aggregate sentence was imposed rather than a series of individually accumulated fixed terms.
Orders Made
- Aggregate head sentence of four years and six months imprisonment, commencing 29 November 2025, expiring 28 May 2030.
- Non-parole period of two years and nine months, expiring 28 August 2028.
- The indicative individual sentences were:
- Count 1: head sentence of three years four months, non-parole period of two years
- Count 3: fifteen months imprisonment
- Count 4: thirteen months imprisonment
- Count 5: twenty-two months imprisonment, non-parole period of one year ten months
- Count 6: two years imprisonment
- The offender is subject to registration obligations under the Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Act 2000.
Key Takeaways
- The District Court confirmed that where an offender is convicted after a contested trial, no discount for a guilty plea is available, even where the offender maintains innocence throughout sentencing.
- A finding of special circumstances justified a reduced non-parole period ratio where the offender had no prior custodial experience, was relatively young, and required a meaningful period of supervised parole upon release.
- Totality principles required the court to construct an aggregate sentence that reflected the full criminality of multiple offences without effectively discounting for the fact of multiple offending. The involvement of two separate victims weighed in favour of a higher aggregate term.
- Where separate offences occur on the same day against the same victim, the degree of notional accumulation is appropriately limited compared with offences separated in time or involving different complainants.
- Facts for sentencing must be consistent with the jury's verdicts and proved to the applicable standard: aggravating matters beyond reasonable doubt, mitigating matters on the balance of probabilities.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Legislation
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 66C(1), 66DB(a)
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
- Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Act 2000 (NSW)
Cases
- Baines v R [2016] NSWCCA 132
- BP v R [2010] NSWCCA 159
- Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37
- Cahyadi v R [2007] NSWCCA 1
- Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa [2010] NSWCCA 194
- NK v R [2025] NSWCCA 73
- Porter v R [2019] NSWCCA 117