AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
District Court 26 May 2026

R v Holland

[2026] NSWDC 279

Other
CRIME SENTENCE

Citation: R v Holland [2026] NSWDC 279
Court: District Court of NSW
Date: 26 May 2026
Judge(s): Bourke SC DCJ

Background

The offender was convicted by a jury of a single count of sexual intercourse with a child under 14 years in circumstances of aggravation, contrary to s 66C(2) of the Crimes Act 1900. The circumstance of aggravation was that the complainant was under his authority. The maximum penalty for this offence is 20 years' imprisonment, with a standard non-parole period of nine years.

The complainant was a child aged approximately ten to eleven years at the time of the offence. The offender had been in an intimate relationship with her mother for several years, and the complainant was effectively in his care during a family sleepover. On a single occasion likely in June or July 2018, the offender digitally penetrated the complainant's genitalia while she lay in bed beside him, continuing the contact for approximately five to ten minutes.

The complainant told her mother that same night, but the mother dismissed the disclosure as attention-seeking and directed the complainant to apologise to the offender. The matter was not reported to police until October 2020, the investigation was closed in April 2021 at the complainant's mother's request, and then reopened in December 2023, leading to the offender's re-arrest and trial.

  • What was the appropriate assessment of the objective seriousness of the offence?
  • What weight should be given to the offender's personal circumstances, including background and the absence of prior sexual offences?
  • What sentencing adjustments were required in light of the offender already serving a sentence imposed by another judge?
  • How should totality principles apply when setting the commencement date and non-parole period for a new sentence to run consecutively?

Decision

Objective seriousness: Bourke SC DCJ assessed the offence as falling in the lower range of mid-range seriousness. The sexual conduct involved digital penetration of the complainant's genitalia and lasted five to ten minutes. Significant aggravating features included the complainant's very young age, the breach of the trust she had placed in the offender as a step-parent figure, the fact the offending occurred at night while the complainant lay in the same bed, and the complainant's inability to respond due to shock. The court accepted that the offence caused the complainant ongoing harm, including mental health difficulties.

Personal circumstances: The court noted the offender had no relevant prior convictions and had led an otherwise law-abiding life. However, as the court observed, limited weight can be given to good character in the context of serious sexual offending against a child. The offender's upbringing, including disadvantage consistent with the principles in Bugmy v The Queen, was taken into account to a modest degree.

Sentence structure and totality: The offender was already serving a sentence imposed by Judge Woodburne SC. Applying totality principles drawn from Mill v The Queen and Qin v The Queen, the court set a commencement date of 6 December 2026 to ensure the offender served additional actual custodial time referable to this offence. The court acknowledged this would increase the total effective non-parole period to approximately 74% of the total effective head sentence, disturbing the special circumstances finding made by Judge Woodburne SC. The court found this outcome was nonetheless necessary to adequately reflect the purposes of sentencing for this offence.

Parole period: Despite the increase in the non-parole period relative to the head sentence, the court was satisfied that a remaining parole period of two years (from 5 April 2030 to 6 April 2032) was adequate to support the offender's reintegration into the community.

Orders Made

  • Head sentence of four years and ten months, commencing 6 December 2026 and expiring 5 October 2031.
  • Non-parole period of three years and four months, expiring 5 April 2030.
  • The sentence was ordered to commence on a future date to account for the offender's concurrent custodial obligations under a pre-existing sentence.

Key Takeaways

  • The District Court confirmed that sexual offences against children require substantial weight to be given to general deterrence, and that actual imprisonment will ordinarily be required.
  • Under s 25AA of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, a sentencing court must assess harm to child victims of sexual abuse as it is currently understood, rather than by reference to historical attitudes.
  • Good character and the absence of prior sexual convictions carry limited mitigating weight where the offence involves a serious breach of trust and sexual abuse of a child.
  • Totality principles may, in some circumstances, justify a total effective non-parole period that represents a higher proportion of the total head sentence than would ordinarily apply, where the sentencing court is satisfied a lesser outcome would not adequately reflect the gravity of the conduct.
  • A commencement date set in the future, rather than from the date of sentencing, is an available mechanism to ensure an offender already in custody serves additional time specifically referable to a new offence.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation
- Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Act 2000
- Crimes Act 1900
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

Cases
- Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37
- Commonwealth DPP v De La Rosa [2010] NSWCCA 194
- Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59
- Qin v The Queen [2022] NSWCCA 137
- Simpson v R [2014] NSWCCA 23