AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
1
District Court 16 July 2026

R v DV

[2026] NSWDC 259

Sexual offencesDomestic & family violence

Citation: R v DV [2026] NSWDC 259
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 16 July 2026
Judge(s): Fitzsimmons SC DCJ

Background

The offender, a man born in 1981, was the stepfather of the victim, a girl born in 2006. He had lived with the victim and her mother since the victim was approximately four to six years old, and he married her mother in August 2016. The offending began when the victim was 15 and continued until she was 18, ending only upon disclosure in September 2024.

The abuse commenced in mid-2021 under the guise of assisting the victim with make-up and photography, with the offender directing her into sexualised poses and producing child abuse material. It escalated to repeated sexual intercourse from January 2022 and became increasingly serious and degrading over the following three years. At one point the offender showed the victim a spreadsheet he had maintained recording every sexual encounter between them.

On 3 December 2025, the offender pleaded guilty to 17 offences and asked the court to take a further 18 offences into account on Form 1. The charges included aggravated sexual intercourse with a child aged 14 to 16, sexual intercourse and sexual touching of a person under special care at various ages between 16 and 18, production and possession of child abuse material, and attempted sexual intercourse with a person under care.

  • The appropriate objective seriousness of each group of offences, including the significance of the offender's position as the victim's stepfather and long-term carer
  • Whether, and to what weight, mitigating factors applied, including the guilty plea, the absence of prior convictions, and evidence from a forensic psychologist
  • How to apply the standard non-parole period provisions (under the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999) to the most serious charges
  • How the totality principle should govern the construction of an aggregate sentence across 17 offences spanning three years of escalating abuse
  • The appropriate degree of concurrency versus accumulation among the individual indicative sentences

Decision

Objective seriousness and aggravating features: Fitzsimmons SC DCJ found the offending to be of high objective seriousness across all categories. The offender held a position of trust and authority as the victim's stepfather, having lived with her for approximately a decade before the abuse began. The offending began with the production of child abuse material and escalated to penetrative sexual intercourse, continuing with increasing depravity over three years. The court noted the offender's deliberate grooming conduct and the existence of the spreadsheet as particularly troubling features.

Special care provisions: The charges covering the period when the victim was aged 16 to 18 were brought under the special care provisions of the Crimes Act 1900, which criminalise sexual conduct by a person in a supervisory or parental role even where the other person is above the general age of consent. The court found the offender plainly fell within those provisions as the victim's stepfather and long-term carer.

Expert evidence and mitigating factors: A forensic psychological report was tendered on behalf of the offender, but the court addressed the weight to be given to expert opinion where the offender himself had not given evidence. Following the approach in relevant authorities, the court was cautious about accepting conclusions that depended on self-reported history from the offender. The guilty plea (entered on 3 December 2025) was treated as a mitigating factor under s 22A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, as was the offender's absence of prior convictions.

Totality and aggregate sentence: The court identified that the offences, though committed against a single victim, required a meaningful degree of accumulation among the indicative sentences. The abuse spanned approximately three years, involved escalating depravity, and the possession of child abuse material was treated as a standalone offence unrelated to the conduct directed at the victim, warranting significant accumulation. Applying the totality principle, the court determined that an aggregate sentence of 26 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 17 years appropriately reflected the full criminality of the offending.

Orders Made

  • The offender is convicted of all 17 offences.
  • An aggregate sentence of 26 years imprisonment is imposed, commencing 24 September 2024 and expiring 23 September 2050.
  • A non-parole period of 17 years is imposed, expiring 23 September 2041; the offender's earliest eligible release date is 23 September 2041.
  • The sentence is backdated to 24 September 2024 (date of arrest), reflecting 660 days already served in custody.
  • Pursuant to s 3C of the Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Act 2000, the offender is to be a registerable person for 15 years commencing upon release from custody.
  • The Court Registry is directed to provide copies of the Registerable Person Order and Form 3 Document to the offender, the NSW Commissioner of Police, and the offender's supervising authority.

Key Takeaways

  • The District Court confirmed that a stepfather who has resided with and cared for a child for many years before commencing abuse falls squarely within the aggravating circumstance of abusing a position of trust or authority, and within the special care provisions covering conduct toward older adolescents.
  • An escalating pattern of offending over multiple years, moving from child abuse material production to repeated penetrative sexual abuse, will be treated as calling for meaningful accumulation of sentences even when all offences share a single victim.
  • Where expert psychological evidence is tendered in mitigation but the offender does not give evidence, courts will be circumspect about the weight attributable to conclusions that depend on the offender's self-reported account.
  • Under the totality principle, an aggregate sentence must reflect the full criminality of a prolonged and escalating course of conduct rather than simply the gravity of any individual offence considered in isolation.
  • A conviction for possession of child abuse material that is factually distinct from contact offending against the same victim may attract significant accumulation relative to the sentences for those contact offences.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) ss, 66C(4), 66DB(a), 73(3) 72A(1)(a), 73(1), 73A(1)(a), 91H(2), 344A(1)
- Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Act 2000 s 3C
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 ss, 22A, 53A, 54 A(1)

Cases
- Butters v R [2010] NSWCCA 1
- Chamseddine v R [2017] NSWCCA 176
- EG v R [2015] NSWCCA 21
- Giles-Adam v R; Preca v R [2023] NSWCCA 122
- Hall v R [2021] NSWCCA 220
- Imbornone v R [2017] NSWCCA 144
- Lloyd v R [2022] NSWCCA 18
- Munro v R [2006] NSWCCA 350
- Pfitzner v R [2010] NSWCCA 314
- Porter v R [2019] NSWCCA 117
- R v Brown [2023] NSWDC 477
- R v De Leeuw [2015] NSWCCA 183
- R v Gavel [2014] NSWCCA 56
- R v MAK; R v MSK (2006) 167 A Crim R 159; [2006] NSWCCA 381
- R v Elfar [2003] NSWCCA 358
- R v McGourty [2002] NSWCCA 335
- R v Palu [2002] NSWCCA
- RA v R [2024] NSWCCA 149
- Ryan v R [2001] HCA 21; 206 CLR 267
- Snounou v R [2025] NSWCCA 231
- Tukuafu v R [2024] NSWCCA 84