AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
District Court 31 July 2026

R v CD

[2026] NSWDC 277

Sexual offencesDomestic & family violence
PARENT AND STEP

Citation: R v CD [2026] NSWDC 277
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 31 July 2026
Judge: Montgomery DCJ

Background

The offender, a man now aged 55, was convicted by jury on 19 February 2026 of 19 sexual offences against four victims. The offending spanned approximately 20 years, from 2004 to early 2024. All of the offences occurred within the family home where the offender lived as the de facto stepfather and, later, step-grandparent to the victims.

The victims included his partner's adult and adolescent children and, ultimately, a grandchild of the family who had been placed in his and his partner's care by Family and Community Services. The offences ranged from assault with acts of indecency, aggravated indecent assault, and non-consensual sexual touching through to aggravated sexual intercourse with a child under 14 years. All but a small number of the offences were classified as domestic violence related.

The offender had no prior criminal history of any significance, apart from a minor traffic offence in 2004. He was arrested in April 2024 and remained in custody from that date, accruing approximately two years and three months of pre-sentence custody by the time of sentencing.

  • What aggregate sentence was appropriate across 19 offences of varying objective gravity against four victims over approximately two 20 years?
  • Which offences crossed the threshold in section 5 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (requiring that no sentence other than imprisonment may be imposed), and how should the approach in R v RJ [2023] NSWCCA 273 apply to those that did not?
  • What weight should be given to the offender's subjective circumstances, including his background, under the principles established in Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571?
  • Whether any mitigation was available on account of the offender's alleged intoxication at the time of offending.
  • What findings of fact could properly be drawn from the jury's verdicts, applying Cheung v The Queen (2001) 209 CLR 1 and Olbrich v The Queen (1999) 199 CLR 270, particularly regarding the offender's state of mind as to consent?

Decision

Issue 1: Objective gravity and facts of offending

Montgomery DCJ proceeded on agreed facts of offending, with one modification. The Crown contended the offender actually knew one victim (X1) was not consenting to the conduct in Count 1. The Court found that actual knowledge of non-consent could not be inferred beyond reasonable doubt from the verdict alone. Instead, the Court found the offender had simply not turned his mind to whether X1 was consenting and treated the question as irrelevant. That finding was supported by the circumstances: the offender was in a position of power as a stepparent figure and proceeded to examine a 17-year-old's exposed breasts without any request or indication of consent.

The offending was characterised by a serious abuse of the trust and authority inherent in the offender's role as stepfather and later step-grandparent. The Court identified varying degrees of objective gravity across the 19 counts, with the most serious conduct involving aggravated sexual intercourse with a child under 14 years (Count 17, attracting a maximum of 20 years and a standard non-parole period of nine years).

Issue 2: Application of section 5 threshold and R v RJ

For offences of lesser objective gravity, the Court applied the approach taken in R v RJ [2023] NSWCCA 273, which provides a framework for dealing with offences where the section 5 threshold for full-time imprisonment has not been crossed in isolation but the overall sentencing exercise still results in imprisonment when the full course of conduct is considered.

Issue 3: Subjective factors and Bugmy principles

The Court considered the offender's personal history and background in accordance with Bugmy v The Queen, which recognises that a background of deprivation and disadvantage may moderate the weight given to general deterrence. The judgment does not indicate that this produced significant mitigation in the circumstances, given the nature and duration of the offending.

Issue 4: Self-induced intoxication

The Court declined to treat the offender's intoxication as a mitigating factor, consistent with established principle that self-induced intoxication does not reduce the culpability of an offender.

Issue 5: Aggregate sentence

The Court imposed an aggregate sentence by applying substantial concurrence across the individual terms, while accumulating some sentences to ensure the total reflected the full criminality of the offender's prolonged course of conduct. Individual sentences ranged from two months (Counts 18 and 19) up to five years and nine months (Count 17). The resulting aggregate was 8 years and 9 months, with a non-parole period of 4 years, 9 months and 23 days.

Orders Made

  • The offender is sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 8 years and 9 months, commencing 9 April 2024 and expiring 8 January 2033.
  • Non-parole period of 4 years, 9 months and 23 days, expiring 31 January 2029.
  • All offences are to be recorded on the offender's criminal record as domestic violence offences under section 12 of the Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 (NSW).
  • A Registrable Person Order is made under section 3C of the Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Act 2000 (NSW) for a reporting period of 15 years under section 3I.
  • The offender is to comply with all reasonable directions of Corrective Services.
  • The Court made a series of recommendations (not binding orders), including that the offender not reside within 500 metres of, or approach within 50 metres of, the residences of the victims; that he not initiate contact with any of the victims; that he obtain a mental health plan; that he be supervised during community-based management with residential rehabilitation; that he abstain from alcohol and illicit substances; that he engage in long-term trauma-informed psychological counselling and offending behaviour counselling; and that consideration be given to pharmacological support for alcohol abstinence.

Key Takeaways

  • The District Court applied the R v RJ [2023] NSWCCA 273 framework to manage individual counts that did not independently satisfy the section 5 imprisonment threshold, while still arriving at a term of full-time custody when the totality of the offending was assessed.
  • A prolonged abuse of a stepparent and step-grandparent role within the family home, spanning nearly 20 years and involving four victims of different ages, was treated as a significant aggravating feature going to both the objective gravity of the offending and the overall structure of the aggregate sentence.
  • Under Cheung v The Queen and Olbrich v The Queen, facts beyond those necessarily established by a jury's verdict can only be found by the sentencing judge to the criminal standard of proof. Here, the Court declined to find actual knowledge of non-consent on Count 1, instead finding only reckless indifference to the question of consent.
  • Self-induced intoxication attracted no mitigating weight, confirming the consistent application of that principle at sentencing.
  • An aggregate sentence imposed across 19 offences of varying gravity must, by reference to the totality principle, represent the full criminality of the course of conduct through a combination of concurrence and accumulation, rather than simply reflecting the most serious individual offence in isolation.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation
- Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Act 2000 : ss 3C, 3I
- Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 : s 15A
- Crimes Act 1900 : ss 61L, 61M(1), 61M(2), 61KC(a), 66C(2), 66DB(a), 578A
- Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 : s 12
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 : ss 3A, 5, 10, 21A, 21B, 25AA

Cases
- Al Dhaifa v R [2024] NSWCCA 108
- Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571; [2013] HCA 37
- Cheung v The Queen (2001) 209 CLR 1; [2001] HCA 67
- DPP v Burton [2020] NSWCCA 54
- MRW v R [2011] NSWCCA 260
- Olbrich v The Queen (1999) 199 CLR 270
- PC v R [2022] NSWCCA 107
- R v Dillon Henderson [2026] NSWDC 224
- R v DV [2026] NSWDC 259
- R v RJ [2023] NSWCCA 273
- Rahim v The King [2026] NSWCCA 93