AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
District Court 11 June 2026

R v MACINTYRE

[2026] NSWDC 271

Other

Citation: R v MacIntyre [2026] NSWDC 271
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 11 June 2026
Judge(s): D Barrow SC DCJ

Background

The offender stood trial in March 2026 on six counts arising from conduct directed at a teenage victim he had first encountered at a soccer match. At the time they met, he was 39 years old and she was 14. The offender cultivated a close relationship with the victim and her family over an extended period, providing gifts, paying for holidays, and initiating regular social contact.

A jury unanimously convicted him on four counts: one count of grooming a child aged between 14 and 15 years for unlawful sexual activity (a NSW offence under the Crimes Act 1900), and three counts of using a carriage service to transmit child abuse material (Commonwealth offences under the Criminal Code Act 1995). The jury acquitted him on two counts of sexual touching.

The sentencing hearing required the court to resolve disputed facts consistent with the jury's verdicts, apply both NSW and Commonwealth sentencing frameworks to the respective offences, and determine an appropriate overall sentence reflecting totality.

  • What facts could properly be found on sentence, consistently with the jury's verdicts (including the acquittals on counts 2 and 3)?
  • What sentence was appropriate for the grooming offence under the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), including whether the standard non-parole period applied?
  • What sentence was appropriate for the three Commonwealth child abuse material offences, including whether a recognizance release order was warranted and whether "exceptional circumstances" existed for immediate release?
  • How should the sentences be structured (concurrently, cumulatively, or partially cumulatively) to reflect totality and proportionality?
  • What was the appropriate reporting period under the Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Act 2000 (NSW)?

Decision

Fact-finding after jury verdict: His Honour applied the established principles governing sentencing fact-finding after a jury trial. Findings adverse to the offender must be proved beyond reasonable doubt; facts favourable to the offender need only be proved on the balance of probabilities. Despite the acquittals on counts 2 and 3, his Honour found the victim to have been an honest and careful witness. The acquittals were explicable on narrow grounds (temporal uncertainty and insufficient jury satisfaction) rather than any finding that the victim was untruthful. Her evidence relevant to count 1 was accepted.

Grooming offence (Count 1): His Honour found that while the offending may not have begun with grooming intent, the conduct evolved to include providing gifts with the requisite intention to make it easier to procure the victim for unlawful sexual activity. The conduct also included entering the victim's bedroom at night during the Hamilton Island trip, attempting to give her a vibrator, and exchanging explicit photographs. His Honour imposed a sentence of 2 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 12 months, finding special circumstances that justified departing below the standard non-parole period of 4 years.

Commonwealth offences (Counts 4 to 6): His Honour was satisfied that the threshold under s 17A of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) was crossed and that no sentence other than imprisonment was appropriate. The court rejected the submission that exceptional circumstances existed to warrant immediate release on a recognizance release order. Each count received a sentence of 2 years imprisonment, with release on a recognizance release order after 8 months. The non-parole period was made partially cumulative on the count 1 sentence, reflecting only modest accumulation given the offences were against the same victim and formed part of a course of conduct.

Totality and structure: Applying the principle of totality, the court calibrated the overall sentence to 2 years and 6 months. The partial accumulation of the Commonwealth non-parole period on the NSW sentence was considered sufficient to reflect the seriousness of the conduct without producing a result disproportionate to the overall criminality.

Child protection reporting order: His Honour considered s 2E of the Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Act 2000 (NSW), which permits the court to treat multiple offences as a single offence where appropriate. Because all offences were committed against the same person and formed a course of conduct over the same period, the court set the reporting period at 8 years rather than the 15 years sought by the Crown.

Orders Made

  • Count 1 (grooming): Convicted and sentenced to 2 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 12 months. Special circumstances found. Sentence commences 28 February 2026; earliest release date 27 February 2027.
  • Counts 4, 5 and 6 (child abuse material via carriage service): Convicted and sentenced to 2 years imprisonment on each count, to be released on a recognizance release order after 8 months, commencing 28 August 2026. Release date 27 April 2027.
  • The Commonwealth non-parole period is partially cumulative upon the count 1 sentence, consistent with ss 19(5)-(7) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth).
  • Overall effective sentence: 2 years and 6 months.
  • Recognizance release order conditions include: good behaviour, supervision by Community Corrections, compliance with directions, no interstate or overseas travel without written permission, participation in rehabilitation programs, and reporting to Campbelltown Community Corrections within 7 days of release.
  • Child protection reporting order: 8 years.

Key Takeaways

  • Where a sentencing court makes fact-findings after a jury trial, acquittals on related counts do not automatically discredit a witness; his Honour found the victim credible on the counts for which a conviction was returned, and the acquittals were explicable on narrow evidentiary grounds.
  • A sentencing judge applying both NSW and Commonwealth sentencing frameworks to offences arising from the same course of conduct must structure individual sentences that together reflect totality and proportionality, with partial accumulation of non-parole periods permissible under ss 19(5)-(7) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth).
  • Under s 2E of the Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Act 2000 (NSW), a court may treat multiple offences against the same victim, forming a single course of conduct over a common period, as a single offence for the purpose of fixing the reporting period, potentially resulting in a shorter reporting period than would otherwise apply.
  • Standard non-parole periods and maximum penalties function as legislative guideposts rather than presumptive or determinative benchmarks, and both may be departed from where the sentencing judge identifies appropriate reasons, such as a finding of special circumstances.
  • The absence of a guilty plea removes any entitlement to a utilitarian discount, but the District Court confirmed the offender could not be additionally penalised merely for exercising the right to plead not guilty and stand trial.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) ss 5; 66EB(3)
- Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) sch 1 (‘ Criminal Code’ ) s 474.22(1)
- Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) ss 3 definition of ‘child abuse material’; 16A (2)(a); 16A(2)(p) ; 16A (1)(n); 17A; s 19(5)-(7) ; 20(1)(b); 20(1)(b)(ii)
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) s 54A( 2)
- Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Act 2000 (NSW) s 2E

Cases
- Minehan v R [2010] NSWCCA 140
- R v Hutchinson [2018] NSWCCA 152
- R v Gavel [2014] NSWCCA 56
- R v Power [1999] NSWCCA 25
- R v Edwards (1996) 90 A Crim R 510
- Vasquez v R [2026] NSWCCA 49