AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
District Court 25 September 2026

R v Biggart

[2026] NSWDC 353

Sexual offences
SENTENCE S66EA OF THE CRIMES ACT 1900

Citation: R v Biggart [2026] NSWDC 353
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 25 September 2026
Judge: Mahony SC DCJ

Background

The offender pleaded guilty to maintaining an unlawful sexual relationship with a child contrary to section 66EA(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), an offence carrying a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. The victim was aged 13 and 14 years during the offending period. She was the daughter of a close family friend, and she called the offender "Uncle Tony."

The offending occurred over approximately 19 months between April 2016 and December 2017. The agreed facts detailed 14 separate incidents comprising 20 sexual acts, including digital penetration, penile-vaginal intercourse, cunnilingus, and fellatio. The offender committed many of these acts in the victim's own home, and several while her mother was absent. He also provided the victim with alcohol on one occasion.

The offender was arrested in August 2023 and ran from police, giving rise to a related charge of hindering police in the execution of their duty. He had prior convictions for dangerous driving occasioning death and dangerous driving occasioning grievous bodily harm, for which he had previously served a custodial sentence. He had been in custody for 909 days awaiting sentence.

Legal Issues

  • What was the appropriate assessment of objective seriousness for a section 66EA offence of this kind, where the pre-2018 maximum penalties for the underlying acts were relevant to the sentencing exercise?
  • Which aggravating and mitigating factors applied, including the offender's position of trust, criminal history, childhood disadvantage, and expressed remorse?
  • What weight should be given to the Bugmy principles given the limited duration and subsequent resolution of the offender's childhood adversity?
  • Whether a finding of quasi-custody was warranted for the period during which the offender was subject to onerous bail conditions.
  • Whether special circumstances existed under section 44 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 to justify a longer than usual parole period.

Decision

Objective seriousness and the sentencing framework

The court found the offending fell well within the mid-range of objective seriousness for a section 66EA offence and at the upper end of that mid-range (at [93]). The gravamen of the offence was the repetitive and persistent nature of the unlawful sexual relationship rather than any single act (at [64]). The 20 unlawful sexual acts across 14 incidents, involving the most serious forms of sexual contact, over 19 months with a child aged 13 to 14, supported that assessment. The court noted the offender's high moral culpability arising from his exploitation of a position of trust as a family friend whom the victim called "Uncle Tony," the significant age difference, and the power imbalance he abused (at [67], [96]).

Because the offending predated the 2018 amendments to section 66EA, the court applied the maximum penalties applicable at the time of the individual acts, which were referable to the then section 61J (aggravated sexual assault), carrying a maximum of 20 years imprisonment. This approach followed the High Court's guidance in Xerri v The King (at [61]).

General and specific deterrence

The court held that general deterrence is paramount in sentencing for persistent and ongoing child sexual offending (at [94]). Parliament's prescription of life imprisonment as the maximum penalty reflects the serious deleterious impact such offending can have across a victim's lifetime. Specific deterrence also had a role to play, given the nature and duration of the conduct (at [95]).

Subjective factors and Bugmy principles

The court accepted that the offender expressed genuine remorse and demonstrated insight into the harm caused to the victim (at [99]). It accepted evidence of childhood exposure to domestic violence and drug abuse for approximately one to two years when aged between 5 and 7, after which he was raised by his father in a stable environment (at [100]). While the Bugmy principles were engaged, the court found that only modest weight could be given to them, having regard to the limited duration of the adversity and the stable upbringing that followed (at [103]). The forensic psychologist's assessment that the offender's risk of re-offending was moderate or medium relative to other sex offenders, and that he would be unlikely to access rehabilitation programs in custody, led the court to characterise his prospects of rehabilitation as guarded pending community-based treatment (at [104]).

Quasi-custody and special circumstances

The court declined to make a finding of quasi-custody for the 129 days the offender was subject to onerous bail conditions, including home detention, concluding those conditions defined the limits of his liberty for a relatively short period and were not sufficiently onerous to warrant backdating his sentence on that basis (at [107]). The court did, however, make a finding of special circumstances under section 44 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, to extend the period of supervision on parole and allow the offender access to treatment programs and community reintegration support (at [109]).

Related offence

The court convicted the offender of the related charge of hindering police but imposed no further penalty pursuant to section 10A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (at [118]).

Orders Made

  • Convicted of maintaining an unlawful sexual relationship with a child (Count 1).
  • Sentenced to 15 years imprisonment, backdated by 909 days to commence on 29 March 2024.
  • Non-parole period of 8 years, commencing 29 March 2024 and expiring 28 March 2032.
  • Balance of term of 7 years, expiring 28 March 2039.
  • Registrable Person Order under the Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Act 2000 (NSW) for 15 years following release from custody, with written notice of reporting obligations to be provided by the Secretary of the Department of Communities and Justice.
  • Convicted of the related offence of hindering police; no further penalty imposed pursuant to section 10A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.

Key Takeaways

  • In sentencing for a pre-2018 section 66EA offence, the District Court applied the maximum penalties applicable to the individual unlawful sexual acts at the time they were committed, consistent with the High Court's approach in Xerri v The King, rather than the current life imprisonment maximum for the relationship offence (at [61], [77]).

  • Where a child sexual offender abused a position of trust as a family friend over 19 months, committed 20 sexual acts across 14 incidents, and exploited a significant age and power imbalance, the sentencing court assessed the offending as falling at the upper end of the mid-range of objective seriousness, with general deterrence identified as paramount (at [93]-[94]).

  • The Bugmy principles were engaged by the offender's early childhood exposure to domestic violence and drug abuse, but the court gave them only modest weight where the adversity lasted approximately one to two years and was followed by a stable upbringing in the care of his father (at [103]).

  • A finding of quasi-custody for a period of onerous bail conditions, including home detention, was declined where those conditions endured for only 129 days and were not considered sufficiently onerous in all the circumstances to warrant backdating the sentence on that basis (at [107]).

  • Special circumstances under section 44 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 were found where the offender was unlikely to access sex offender rehabilitation programs in custody due to his moderate rather than high-risk assessment, making an extended parole period appropriate to support community-based treatment and reintegration (at [104], [109]).

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation
- Child Protection ( Offender’s Registration) Act 2000 (NSW)
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
- Crimes ( Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
- Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW)

Cases
- Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571; [2013] HCA 27
- Burr v R [2020] NSWCCA 282
- MK v R [2024] NSWCCA 127
- R v Fisher [2024] NSWCCA 191
- R v Lamey [2025] NSWCCA 17
- R v LPCM [2025] NSWCCA 78
- RA v R [2024] NSWCCA 149
- Xerri v The King (2024) 278 CLR 276; [2024] HCA 5
- YA v R [2026] NSWCCA 38