AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
District Court 12 March 2026

R v Entwhistle

[2026] NSWDC 87

Sexual offences
CRIME SENTENCE SEXUAL TOUCHING CHILD UNDER 16 YEARS

Citation: [2026] NSWDC 87
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 12 March 2026
Judge(s): Bourke SC DCJ

Background

The offender (referred to by the pseudonym "Entwhistle" pursuant to a pseudonym order) was the step great uncle of the victim, a girl born in September 2008. The offender occupied a position of trust within the family: he was a very close friend of the victim's father and was regarded as a quasi father figure to him, giving the offender regular access to the victim and her younger sister.

In November 2025, the offender stood trial on a five-count indictment (with count 4 in the alternative to count 3). A jury found him guilty of four counts: three counts of intentionally sexually touching a child under 16 years (counts 1, 2, and 5 under s 66DB(a) of the Crimes Act 1900, each carrying a maximum penalty of ten years' imprisonment) and one count of aggravated sexual assault of a child under 16 (count 3 under s 61J(1), carrying a maximum penalty of 20 years' imprisonment and a standard non-parole period of ten years). The offender had pleaded not guilty and proceeded to trial, meaning no sentencing discount for a guilty plea was available.

The sentencing proceedings required the Court to resolve a number of factual disputes arising from the trial evidence — including the duration of the offending conduct, certain details of the physical acts, and whether the offender made a threatening remark to the victim afterwards — before determining the appropriate sentence.

  • Factual findings for sentence: What facts could be established consistently with the jury's verdicts, and how should contested aspects of the Crown's proposed facts (including duration of offending, whether the offender restrained the victim, and whether the offender made a threatening remark) be resolved?
  • Objective seriousness: Where each offence sat on the spectrum of objective seriousness, having regard to the maximum penalties and, for count 3, the standard non-parole period.
  • Aggravating and mitigating factors: Assessment of aggravating features (including the age of the victim, the familial/trust relationship, and the circumstances of the offending) and any available mitigation.
  • Totality and sentence structure: The appropriate individual and aggregate sentences, including the application of the totality principle, given the multiple offences arising from two distinct episodes of offending.

Decision

The judgment's published text is truncated, so the full reasoning and final sentence are not available for analysis. However, the portions that are available reveal the Court's careful approach to the factual disputes that were central to sentencing.

Factual findings: The Court indicated it would resolve each disputed aspect by reference to the whole of the evidence, including an assessment of the honesty and reliability of the victim's testimony. Key disputes included: (a) the duration of the touching in count 1 (the victim said approximately 20 minutes, and alleged that the offender was intermittently touching his own penis); (b) whether the offender forcibly held the victim's legs apart and "locked" her in during the second incident; (c) whether the offender rubbed his penis against the victim's leg during the second incident; (d) whether the incident on 5 August 2023 lasted from approximately 3:37 pm to 4:10 pm and whether the victim could see the microwave clock from her position; and (e) whether the offender said "He won't believe you" as the victim walked away — a statement with obvious aggravating implications if accepted.

Context of the offending: The first incident (count 1) occurred during a car trip when the offender and the 13-year-old victim were alone; the victim awoke to find the offender touching her upper inner thigh and genital area. The second episode (counts 2, 3, and 5) occurred at the victim's father's home when the victim was 14; it involved escalating conduct from touching the victim's legs and thigh, to forcing her legs apart and digitally penetrating her vagina through her clothing (causing pain), to pulling down her pants and kissing her exposed upper buttocks. The Court noted the victim froze during both incidents, a well-recognised response to sexual assault.

Disclosure and delay: The victim made an immediate complaint to her younger sister, made a contemporaneous note on her phone, and subsequently disclosed to school friends, before ultimately telling her mother in late March 2024. The Court noted her explanation for the delay — she had hoped the offender, who was hospitalised with heart issues, might not recover, and disclosed when he was released from hospital. Her distress and withdrawal were corroborated by her mother. The offender denied the allegations when confronted by the victim's father, and police were contacted on 28 March 2024.

Sentencing principles: The Court confirmed it would treat the maximum penalties and (for count 3) the standard non-parole period as important guideposts, consistent with Muldrock v R (2011) 244 CLR 120. No discount for a guilty plea applied.

Note: Because the published text is truncated, the final sentence imposed, the resolution of each factual dispute, and the complete reasoning on objective seriousness and mitigating factors are not available for summarisation. Practitioners should consult the full judgment.

Orders Made

  • The full orders are not available from the truncated text. The offender was convicted of counts 1, 2, 3, and 5.
  • It is apparent from the legislation cited that the offender would be subject to reporting obligations under the Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Act 2000.

Key Takeaways

  • The District Court resolved contested facts for sentencing consistently with the jury's verdicts, applying the criminal standard of proof (beyond reasonable doubt) for aggravating matters and the balance of probabilities for mitigation, illustrating the rigour required when the Crown's proposed facts were partially contested.
  • Evidence that the child victim froze during the offending and delayed formal disclosure for some months was accepted by the Court, which recognised that such responses are well established in child sexual assault cases and may be relevant to both credibility assessments and the assessment of harm.
  • Digital contemporaneous records, including the victim's phone notes and disclosures to her sister and friends, were significant features of the evidence, highlighting the increasing importance of such material as corroboration in sexual offence prosecutions.
  • The offender's quasi-parental role within the family provided context for both his access to the victim and her reluctance to disclose, and the breach of trust inherent in such a familial relationship was treated as a well-established aggravating factor.
  • For count 3 (aggravated sexual assault), the standard non-parole period of ten years was applied as a guidepost rather than a starting point, consistent with the approach established in Muldrock v R.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation:
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 61J(1), 66DB(a)
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
- Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Act 2000 (NSW)

Cases:
- R v CMB [2014] NSWCCA 5
- Clarkson v R (2011) 32 VR 361
- R v PGM [2008] NSWCCA 172
- DPP v De La Rosa [2010] NSWCCA 194
- Muldrock v R (2011) 244 CLR 120