AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
District Court 6 March 2026

R v McTiernan (a pseudonym)

[2026] NSWDC 34

Sexual offences

Citation: [2026] NSWDC 34
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 6 March 2026
Judge(s): Priestley SC DCJ

Background

The offender (referred to by the pseudonym "McTiernan") pleaded guilty to two counts of maintaining an unlawful sexual relationship with a child under section 66EA of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). The offender had adopted two girls — referred to as "E" and "P" — upon marrying their mother. Both victims were subjected to sustained sexual abuse during their childhoods.

The offending against E (sequence 4) occurred between 1971 and 1980, when E was aged between approximately 5 and 14 years old. The offending against P (sequence 3) occurred between 1981 and 1983, when P was aged approximately 4 to 6 years old. The offending involved a range of serious sexual conduct including cunnilingus, touching of genitalia, attempted penetration, inciting the children to perform sexual acts, and the taking of exploitative photographs. Both courses of conduct involved a gross breach of trust by an adoptive father against very young, vulnerable children in their home environments.

A significant complicating factor in sentencing was that the offender had already served 12 years' imprisonment in South Australia (2012–2024) for similar sexual offending against a third victim, "A," committed in that state during a period that overlapped with and followed the NSW offending. The offender was arrested by NSW authorities upon or around his release from the SA sentence on 28 March 2024, and had been in continuous custody since. The court was therefore required to grapple with the principles of totality and proportionality in determining the appropriate sentence, given that the offender had already spent approximately 14 years in prison overall.

  • Objective seriousness: How should the court assess the gravity of two separate counts of maintaining an unlawful sexual relationship with a child, each involving prolonged offending against very young victims?
  • Totality and proportionality: How should the sentence for the NSW offending be calibrated in light of the 12-year sentence already served for related offending in South Australia, so that the aggregate punishment is just and proportionate to the offender's total criminality?
  • Applicable maximum penalty: The maximum sentence for each count under section 66EA is life imprisonment, with no standard non-parole period. How should this legislative guidepost inform the sentence?
  • Aggravating and mitigating factors: What weight should be given to the breach of trust, the victims' extreme youth, the domestic violence context, and the guilty plea?
  • Domestic violence considerations: Both offences were characterised as domestic violence offences (as reflected in the charge description), requiring the court to take into account the relevant statutory principles.

Decision

The court accepted the parties' shared characterisation of both offences as "very grave examples" of section 66EA offences. In relation to E, the offending spanned approximately nine years and involved escalating sexual abuse from age 5 through to attempted vaginal penetration at around age 14. In relation to P, the abuse occurred fortnightly over approximately three years from the age of 4, including the production of exploitative photographs. The court emphasised the gross breach of trust involved — the offender was the adoptive father of both victims — and noted that both children were entitled to feel safe in their home environments.

The court gave careful attention to the principles of totality and proportionality. The offender had already spent 12 years in custody for the SA offending against a third victim, and the NSW offending formed part of what was, in substance, a broader pattern of predatory sexual abuse of children within the offender's family. The court needed to ensure that the total period of imprisonment reflected the totality of the offender's criminality without being "crushing" or disproportionate when viewed as a whole. At the same time, the court recognised that the NSW offending was extremely serious in its own right and warranted a substantial sentence.

The life imprisonment maximum was treated as a legislative guidepost indicating the legislature's view of the seriousness of the offence category. The court also noted the offender's guilty plea, which was given appropriate weight in mitigation, and took into account the time already spent in custody attributable to the current matters (approximately two years from March 2024).

(Note: The full text of the judgment was truncated and the final sentence and orders are not available in the extract provided. The reasoning summarised above is based on the portion of the judgment that was accessible.)

Orders Made

  • The specific sentences and orders imposed are not available from the truncated text of the judgment. Practitioners should consult the full decision on NSW Caselaw for the final orders.

Key Takeaways

  • Totality and proportionality remained central when sentencing across jurisdictions. The District Court ensured that the aggregate punishment, taking into account a substantial sentence already served interstate for related offending, was just and proportionate to the total criminality, and was neither inadequate nor crushing.

  • Under section 66EA of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), offences attract a maximum of life imprisonment with no standard non-parole period. The District Court treated this maximum as a legislative guidepost, and the absence of a standard non-parole period placed additional emphasis on the Court's own assessment of objective seriousness.

  • A gross breach of trust by a parental figure was treated as a powerful aggravating factor. Significant weight was given to the fact that the offender was the adoptive father of both victims and that the offending occurred in home or family environments where the children were entitled to feel safe.

  • Where the statutory minimum number of constituent acts is low (two or more), the actual volume of offending bore heavily on objective seriousness. In both sequences, the number of offences far exceeded the threshold, underscoring the sustained and habitual nature of the abuse captured by the "unlawful sexual relationship" offence.

  • Agreed facts and the correct characterisation of constituent offences proved significant to the sentencing assessment. The District Court drew attention to the importance of the parties properly identifying the nature of each unlawful sexual act (for example, whether touching of the clitoris constituted indecent assault or sexual intercourse), as this directly affected the evaluation of objective seriousness.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation:
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 66EA
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)

Cases cited:
- Burr v R [2020] NSWCCA 282
- Cahyadi [2007] NSWCCA 1
- DPP v Rokomaqisa [2025] NSWCCA 112
- EG v R [2015] NSWCCA
- Hall v The Queen [2021] NSWCCA 220
- Langbein v R [2008] NSWCCA 38
- Mill v The Queen [1988] HCA 70
- R v ABS [2005] NSWCCA 255
- R v Holder [1983] 3 NSWLR 245
- R v King [2023] NSWDC 100
- R v Knox (a pseudonym) [2025] NSWDC 482
- R v Obbens [2022] NSWCCA 109
- R v Todd (1982) 2 NSWLR 517
- R v Rowe (1991) 52 A Crim R 196
- Regina v Simpson (2001) 53 NSWLR 704