CDPP v Bedford [2026] VCC 212

(i) Lucy, [3] a female who was then 12 years old;

(ii) Tom, [4] a male who was then 12 years old; and

(iii) Alex, [5] a male who was then 13 years old.

1. At around 6.00 pm on 18 February 2024, Lucy and Alex were at Parkfield Reserve in Noble Park, where they met up with Lucy's friend, Tom. The children found some writing on a park bench near the playground, which read, 'SUGAR DADDY TEXT 0421 650 330 SIMON', this number being yours at the relevant time. The Crown case is that you had previously written this text on the bench.
2. The children decided to call this number as a prank. Calls were made from Lucy's phone, each of which you answered and spoke to the children:

(a) at 6.13 pm, lasting 2 minutes and 16 seconds;

(b) at 6.16 pm, lasting 45 seconds; and

(c) at 6.18 pm, lasting 35 seconds.

1. There are some relatively minor inconsistencies between the children's accounts of the conduct of these calls, relating predominantly to which particular child made each comment to you,[6] and whether the calls were primarily on speaker and audible to all three children, or were recounted by the caller who had held the phone to their ear.[7] However, the Crown case, which you have accepted through your plea, is that in substance, during these calls:

(a) Lucy and Tom spoke to you at various points;

(b) they asked you if you were a sugar daddy, and whether you would be their sugar daddy;

(c) you said your name was not Simon, and that you were in your 40s;

(d) they told you they were 12 or 13 year old girls;

(e) they made sexual jokes and asked you to meet them for sex and to bring condoms;

(f) they told you their location;

(g) you agreed to their propositions and said you would meet them at the park.

1. The children recall that after these initial calls, Tom came to possess or already had with him, a kitchen knife.[8] They became scared and then ran to hide in a nearby public toilet block, looking out through a grill to observe if anyone was coming.
2. You arrived at the park just before 6.40 pm. The children could see you from where they were hiding in the toilet block and decided to call you again at 6.39 pm. They watched you answer the call, which lasted for 1 minute and 16 seconds, in the course of which Lucy remembers Tom telling you that they were in the toilets.
3. At 6.43, you texted Lucy's phone asking, 'Are you in the toilets?' You then approached the toilets and banged on the doors while shouting gibberish, before walking away.
4. The children ran out of the toilets onto a nearby hill. You walked towards them and they called out to you, calling you a paedophile and asking if you were there to meet 13-year-old girls. You denied this and said you were just going for a walk.
5. Lucy called your number three further times at 6.49, 6.50 and 6.54 pm, each of which went unanswered, but from which they could hear your phone buzzing in your pocket, confirming you as the man that they had spoken to earlier in the evening.
6. At this point, Tom and Alex recall that Tom brandished a knife; Lucy recalls that the children chased you. In any event, you pulled out your wallet and handed them $200, possibly to Lucy alone, or $100 each to Tom and Lucy, offering the money so that the children would not call the police. You then ran back to your red Ford sedan, in which the children saw you drive away.

1. Upon leaving the park, at about 7.25 pm, the children called Triple 0 and provided police with your phone number, detailing the incident from around 20 to 40 minutes prior. They provided a description of you, of the number written on the table, and the interactions that they had had with you, both over the phone and in person when you arrived.
2. That evening, Victoria Police attended Lucy's residence in response to the call where Tom and Alex were also present at the time. The visit and their conversations with Lucy and Alex were recorded on body‑worn camera; the substance of the conversation with Tom was detailed in police notes. These conversations largely reflect the case to which you have now pleaded, including to the effect that:

(a) they called you having found your phone number on a park bench;

(b) you denied that your name was Simon and that the two parties discussed having sex over the phone, the children having made it clear that they were 12 or 13;

(c) you said you would come to meet them in the park, which you did;

(d) they were hiding in the bathrooms when you attended and you proceeded to bang on the doors to the toilets;

(e) they confronted you afterwards, at which time you firstly stated you were there just going for a walk, before ultimately offering them $200 not to call the police - I note that police recovered two $100 bank notes from Lucy and Tom; and

(f) they also said that you had left in a red car.

1. Police took photographs of the call log, text message and screenshot of the active calls from Lucy's phone.
2. From 6 March to 20 May 2024, members of Victoria Police attended Parkfield Reserve and located text written on multiple benches near the playground, reading 'Sugar Daddy, Text 0421 650 330, Simon'.

(ii) Record of Interview and Other Admissions

1. On 10 April 2024, you participated in a Record of Interview with members of Victoria Police, in the course of which you made various comments and admissions, including:

(a) that your phone number was the one ending in 330, to which no-one else had access;

(b) that you attended the park in Noble Park on 18 February at about 6.45 pm and went to the toilet. You saw young kids who looked about 10 on a nearby hill who said to you 'Your name's Simon' and pulled two knives on you, causing you to respond 'No, you've got knives';

(c) that they followed you into the street, causing you to give a boy and a girl $100 each out of concern about getting stabbed; you chose not to report the incident because they looked about 10 years old and would have just received 'a slap on the wrist';

(d) the boy asked you for your phone number, which you provided; you received some calls after you left, but you blocked the number. You did not answer any of the calls because you were driving. You said you had your phone with you at the park;

(e) you did not write the text on the benches and had no idea how it got there. You were not sure what a sugar daddy was but thought that it meant someone with money who dated younger women; and

(f) you were pretty sure the number was blocked by the time of your interview and could not remember what they said. You said you regularly had people ringing you and making silly comments but did not take much notice of it, with scammers and silly phone calls occurring approximately about a week, whom you block. You said you would normally answer the phone to and talk to anybody.

1. On 13 May 2024, you called Senior Constable Samantha Manning, telling her you had further information to provide in relation to the investigation, suggesting you participate in a further interview.
2. Senior Constable Manning declined to conduct a further interview but met with you on 14 May and had a conversation. This was not recorded, but she recalls you telling her:

(a) that you wanted to 'fill in the holes' in your story, having not been honest in your interview;

(b) that when you received the first call on 18 February, you assumed it was from someone you had given your number to on a dating app. The caller told you 'I'm 13, I want sex', to which you said 'No'. The caller also said something about condoms;

(c) you went to the park on the relevant date because you thought the caller might have been someone you met online. Once there, you received another call, in which the caller said she was in the toilets, so you went to the toilets to check who was there;

(d) you saw children about 100 metres away; a girl in the group shouted 'got any condoms', to which you replied 'No';

(e) they called you again and you pushed your phone into your pocket to block the sound of the phone ringing. They said, 'we've got knives, stab him'. The girl followed you out of the park and you told her to leave you alone. They asked you for money and you gave it to them;

(f) they called you three more times as you drove home, blocking the number once you got there;

(g) after your interview, you went to Parkfield Reserve and removed any text with your number on it from the benches; and

(h) since the interview, you had been 'examining [your] heart' and 'looking at what caused the situation'.

1. Turning now to the procedural history.[9]
2. You were charged with this offence on 18 February 2025. You were committed to this court on 18 July last year by way of straight hand up brief, at that stage indicating a plea of not guilty.
3. After an initial directions hearing on 18 August and continuing resolution discussions, defence sought a Sentence Indication which was heard before me on 30 October 2025. I indicated on 6 November that were you to plead guilty to the charge before the court, I would sentence you to a disposition not involving a term of immediate imprisonment, whether that be by way of a recognisance release order on which you would be released forthwith, or by way of a community corrections order should you be assessed as suitable for such an order. You accepted this indication and you were arraigned on 12 November 2025.
4. Your representatives then sought an adjournment to obtain a further psychological assessment for you, which was tendered at the plea held on 27 January this year.

1. As this offending is a Commonwealth offence, you fall to be sentenced in accordance with the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth). I am required under that Act to impose a sentence that is of a severity appropriate to all of the circumstances of the offence.[10] Accordingly, when sentencing you on this charge, I am required to have regard to a number of matters which are set out in s16A(2) of that Act to the extent that they are relevant and known to the court, and I do so. These include your personal circumstances.[11]

(i) Upbringing, Education and Employment**[12]**

1. You are now 57 years old and 55 at the time of the offending. You are one of three siblings. You report that when you were a child, you and other family members suffered domestic violence at the hands of your father, who suffered from paranoid schizophrenia. Your father passed away three years ago which caused you and your family great distress.[13]
2. You endured difficulties in your schooling owing largely to a significant speech impediment which required speech therapy throughout your childhood, and for which you were bullied. Largely as a consequence of these difficulties, you left school at the end of Year 9.[14] I note that in recent years, this speech impediment has continued to worsen.
3. Since schooling you have worked a range of manual labour jobs, some of which exposed you to dust and chemicals, causing you ongoing physical health issues on which I will expand. You now work as a store person at Corex Recycling.[15]
4. You have always resided in your family home, and your mother, who I note supported you throughout proceedings before me, assists you with daily tasks.[16] You instruct your counsel that you live a solitary life with limited social contacts.

1. You suffer from a number of physical health issues. You underwent surgery six years ago for the removal of spinal tumours, complications of which caused you reduced function in your left arm, rendering you unable to drive for a year and requiring intensive assistance from your mother in the completion of simple physical tasks. Four years of rehabilitation was required before you were able to return to work and you continue to require annual monitoring of further tumours in your back.
2. You have also been diagnosed with sarcoidosis, a chronic respiratory condition due to scarring of the lungs, and silicosis, a progressive industrial dust disease. Your respiratory specialist conducts biannual reviews and has recently opined that your lung condition is deteriorating.[17]

1. Between the ages of 18 and 35 you report having been a heavy drinker, as well as experiencing gambling issues between the ages 24 and 35.[19] Dr Anthony Cidoni assessed you as presenting with a clear history of a previous gambling disorder.[20]
2. You are assessed by neuropsychologist Ms Laura Scott as presenting with an unusual psychological profile; while you exhibit some 'isolated areas of impairment', your 'cognitive function is largely within normal limits' and does not account for your level of 'functional and social disability', as you continue to rely on your mother's support in daily life, and have formed 'few long-time social ties outside immediate family members'[21]. Ms Scott opines that you exhibit 'strong suggestions of a Cluster A personality disorder' with further psychiatric reviews required for a 'more comprehensive assessment of personality', noting that at the very least there is no evidence of you having an intellectual disability.[22]
3. Dr Anthony Cidoni similarly opines that any mental health conditions you may have are 'very difficult to diagnose'.[23] He does find that you present most notably as lacking in social functioning, with 'an element of depression' and low self-esteem.[24]
4. Finally, psychologist Mr Simon Candlish also found that you meet the criteria for a mild personality disorder, the prominent features of which include detachment (social and emotional) and negative affectivity.[25] He opined that your thought processes 'are likely to be marked by confusion, indecision, distractibility and difficulty concentrating', with you having reported a personality style involving 'a degree of adventurousness, risk-taking and impulsivity' revealing 'impairment in interpersonal functioning with social withdrawal and isolation'.[26]
5. The general tenor of these psychological assessments is that no clear diagnostic profile seems to comprehensively account for impairments in your social and executive functioning. However, Ms Mildenhall on your behalf emphasised that your lack of discrete diagnoses is no impediment to the application of Verdins principles, which are not reliant on the labelling of particular conditions. The key aspect here is how any mental impairments you experience were relevant at the time of your offending, informing an assessment of moral culpability, and at the time of sentence, informing the onerousness of a particular disposition.
6. To this end, Ms Mildenhall submits that all six limbs of Verdins have application here.[27] With respect to limbs 1 to 4, reliance was placed on several expert psychological observations, including:

(a) Ms Scott's opinion that you have 'impaired functional capacity' which makes you highly reliant on your mother's support, rendering you likely to 'struggle to cope if she were no longer available to assist' due to the nature of a particular sentencing disposition (for example, imprisonment);[28]

(b) Ms Scott's further opinion that while you have the 'capacity to process information to make calm and reasoned decisions', your 'severe impairments in planning and organisation skills are likely detrimental to [your] decision making', making it difficult for you to 'anticipate the likely outcome of a given choice', especially in pressured scenarios which amplify your 'chaotic and disorganised' thinking; this is said to reduce your moral culpability for the offending;[29]

(c) the consistent opinion of Mr Candlish is that your 'social and emotional underdevelopment', especially concerning the problems meeting your sexual needs which are reflected in this offending, impacts upon your 'ability to consider the appropriateness of such behaviour'. This is particularly so where your offending is opportunistic and exhibits inadequate understanding of the consequences and harm of your actions. This evidence is said to be probative in suggesting that the weight given to general and specific deterrence as a sentencing consideration ought be moderated.[30]

1. In relation to Verdins[31] limbs 5 and 6, Ms Scott opines that you are particularly naïve and impressionable, exposing you to a greater risk of victimisation in custody;[32] Mr Candlish similarly concludes that you are 'vulnerable to being stood-over and bullied as well as manipulated'.[33] It is therefore submitted both that custody would be more onerous on you than someone without your mental health conditions, and further that those conditions would likely deteriorate were you to go into custody.
2. The prosecution does not accept that Verdins principles have application here.[34] At the sentence indication, which took place prior to the additional report of Mr Candlish, Ms Baxter on behalf of the prosecution noted that:

(a) Dr Cidoni did not make any particular diagnosis or identify a significant disorder of mood, anxiety or psychosis; and

(b) that Ms Scott found that you were of average intelligence and that you exhibited deficits in some domains already outlined, your cognitive function was in the normal range overall, leaving unexplained your apparent level of functional and social disability.

1. The prosecution also submits that your functional deficiencies are overstated, noting that you have maintained consistent employment, and supported both your father and your mother in their declining health.
2. Ms Baxter noted that while the more recent report of Mr Candlish did diagnose you with a mild personality disorder,[35] there was no basis to necessarily prefer this opinion to that of Dr Cidoni, who abstained from making one in August 2025. In any event, the prosecution submits that this disorder, however diagnosed, does not cause the clinically significant level of impairment required by the authorities in justifying a mitigation of penalty.[36] I was also referred to the matter of Boucher v The Queen,[37] where the Court of Appeal deemed reasonably open a finding by the sentencing judge that a 'moderate' severity personality disorder was not of requisite clinical significance.
3. The prosecution also highlighted what it submits is an inconsistency between findings that you struggle with social withdrawal and empathy on one hand, and evidence that you are gainfully employed, deny issues with co-workers and socialise regularly with members of your church group on the other.
4. Further, the prosecution submitted that the appropriate view of Mr Candlish's report is that the 'core driver to the offending' is an inability 'to meet [your] sexual needs in an age appropriate way',[38] that Mr Candlish found you understand sexual interactions with children were wrong and that you had a capacity for self-control, is said to contradict his findings that your behaviour was impacted by your social and emotional under-development, when regard is had to the duration of your offending and the multiple opportunities you had to desist.[39]
5. I have had close regard to all of these submissions. Ultimately, I accept the application of all six Verdins principles, albeit to quite a moderate extent.[40] I particularly rely on the remarks of the Court of Appeal in the Verdins judgment itself to the effect that:[41]

The sentencing court should not have to concern itself with how a particular condition is to be classified. Difficulties of definition and classification in this field are notorious. There may be differences of expert opinion and diagnosis in relation to the offender. It may be that no specific condition can be identified. What matters is what the evidence shows about the nature, extent and effect of the mental impairment experienced by the offender at the relevant time.

1. Notwithstanding some degree of inconsistency in the particular diagnoses provided, borne out of psychological material in this matter, is the sense that you have significant social and functional deficiencies and are prone to impulsive behaviour in your interactions with others, impacting your ability to understand the wrongfulness of your conduct.
2. True it is that you otherwise exhibit the ability to perform a variety of activities and participate in social networks with reasonable effectiveness. However, I do not interpret the authorities as requiring absolute deficiency in these domains in order for Verdins principles to be enlivened for offending, and in circumstances such as yours. I am certainly not suggesting that your will was overborne by these deficiencies entirely or that the matters addressed by the Verdins principles are eliminated from consideration - simply that you are impacted to an appreciable degree by these deficiencies, and thus the weight of these considerations is moderated to an extent.
3. In my view, the prosecution's submissions against the application of the principles, while validly drawing attention to aspects of the evidence which militate against their assuming significant weight, cleave too closely to seeking a discrete formal diagnosis which can directly and comprehensively explain these matters. Thus, for example, I do not accept that it is an inconsistency as the prosecution contended in written submissions, for Mr Candlish to find on the one hand that you knew what you did was wrong, and that you have some capacity for self-control; and on the other hand that your ability to consider the appropriateness of your behaviour was impacted by your under-development.[42] Impacted does not suggest overborne. There is a degree to which your culpability has been impacted in this case, albeit not eliminated entirely.
4. As such:

(a) I accept that you have difficulties with impulsivity, consequential thinking and in fully comprehending the nature of your conduct, especially in chaotic or rapidly unfolding situations; thus I find that limb 1 is applicable to a very limited extent;

(b) given your mental impairments and how they would contribute in particular to opportunistic offending such as this, you are a less suitable vehicle for general deterrence than someone without those impairments, enlivening limb 3; further, the need to deter any further offending is likely better addressed through community and familial supports than a custodial disposition, enlivening limbs 2 and 4, each to a moderate extent; and

(c) your particular social and communicative vulnerabilities in custody, and the increased isolation this would necessitate from the family support on which you are reliant, make limbs 5 and 6 applicable, again to a very moderate extent only.

1. On a different note, you also report to Dr Cidoni several instances where you felt coerced or otherwise compelled to provide people money, including 'people who came over once and threatened to kill' you, demanding $1,000 in an incident you did not report to police; occasions on which you would give small amounts of money, for example to people from church because you felt generous and your 'heart said so'; and on one instance where you gave money to a woman you were speaking to about dating, at her request, before refusing to provide any additional money, at which time she ceased contact.[43]
2. I interpret from the fact that your counsel draws these examples to my attention, that you have a general propensity for distributing money to others when the option or request that you do so arises. Thus, by extension, it might be suggested that you were less likely to have brought and/or given money to the victims to your offending out of a calculated attempt to exploit them, but rather out of a spontaneous and unsophisticated response to circumstances in which you were distressed. Ultimately by your plea, you of course accept that you intentionally used your phone in preparation or planning to procure a person under 16 for sexual activity. Thus while I am prepared to accept that it cannot be proved beyond reasonable doubt that you took money with you to Parkfield Reserve on this occasion with the express intention to buy your victims' silence, ultimately I find that little turns on it when assessing the objective gravity of the offending, given that it was already complete at the time this offer was made; nor on your moral culpability, given the availability of more robust expert evidence in making this assessment, on which I have already commented at length.

1. Four character references were tendered on your behalf, provided by people you have met through your church group, an employment supervisor, and your mother.[44] They describe you as a generous contributor to your social, community and work groups, regularly volunteering your time and energy to assist and engage with others. You are said to be a polite and respectful person for whom this offending is considered a distinct aberration in behaviour.
2. Your mother in particular speaks of how you have repeatedly dealt with adversity in your life, including your speech impediment, issues with gambling and alcohol, and your physical health problems.[45] She describes how much you have helped to care for her in recent months as her health has declined, affording her the ability to remain in the comfort of her own home. You are lucky to have such deep and ongoing support from your mother, and it bodes well for your prospects of rehabilitation.

1. You have admitted a small number of dated prior matters, including offensive/indecent behaviour in public place, stalking, and criminal damage, from over 25 years ago and for which you received a community corrections order.[46]
2. Your counsel submits these priors are of very little weight in the present sentencing exercise, given they are dated and occurred in the context of alcohol and gambling abuse issues from which you have since rehabilitated.

1. I turn now to your prospects of rehabilitation.
2. Mr Candlish found that you would be a moderate-low risk of sexual offending (of a kind of the index offending) and a low risk of sexual offending (being contact offending). Neither risk scenarios are considered imminent. Mr Candlish notes no history of contact sexual offending and that you appear to understand the importance of managing risk through the avoidance of children.[48] You do not appear to have an antisocial orientation and show capacity for self-control. Corrections have also assessed you as a medium risk of re-offending.[49]
3. However you do have a dated but somewhat relevant prior criminal history. You also appear to at least when interviewed initially by Corrections, have demonstrated little insight into your offending, focusing instead on the fact that the children had a knife at the park rather than your own offending behaviour.[50] Clearly offence specific treatment is important here. Overall I consider that your prospects of rehabilitation are reasonable given that your last offending was over 25 years ago, that you are gainfully employed and that you have the ongoing support of your mother. Your prospects are enhanced if you engage in appropriate treatment and rehabilitation.

1. I take into account your plea of guilty. The prosecution accepts it was a plea entered at the first reasonable opportunity. It is of considerable utilitarian value and demonstrates a willingness to facilitate the course of justice. By your plea, you have saved the community the expense of a trial, and significantly, this means that the three children are not required to give evidence. You entered a plea following a sentence indication hearing at a time when the matter had not yet been set down for trial.

1. I now turn to the nature and gravity of the offending.
2. Parliament has made clear that predatory offending involving grooming of children for the purposes of luring them to meet for sexual purposes is serious, as is reflected in the maximum penalty applicable. Here you believed you were communicating with 12- or 13-year-old girls, which was mostly the case in terms of the children's age. You understood that you were to meet for sex and you agreed to be their sugar daddy. There was a discussion about bringing condoms. The prosecution submits the conduct was not fleeting, pointing to the fact there were three separate phone calls initially.
3. However I note the total duration of the calls at that stage was three and a half minutes and that the children involved initiated the contact. Nevertheless, you were an active participant and you should have known better as the adult. These were children and whilst this might have started out as a prank on their behalf, this is perhaps indicative of their naivety and vulnerability.
4. I accept that your decision to travel to the park was spontaneous. The trip there took 9 minutes and you arrived 20 minutes after your last phone conversation with the children. During this time you had an opportunity to stop and think about what you were doing and to desist. You chose not to. You attended there for the sole purpose of meeting children, and once there you attempted to locate those children, including attending at the toilets to find them.
5. Pausing there I accept the submission made on your behalf that it cannot be inferred that the advertisement for a sugar daddy was explicitly seeking children to contact you.[53]
6. The prosecution submits the children armed themselves because they were 'understandably afraid'.[54] It is unclear whether the knife was already on one of their person or whether they had left the park to collect the knife before you arrived. The evidence on this is somewhat conflicting as between the children. Whilst they may have been afraid, they too nonetheless also had the opportunity to retreat but remained so they could see who the male was. Again, given their age, this may not be all that surprising and is again reflective of their naivety.
7. Ultimately whether you carried money with you to the park so as to pay the children off, the reality is they were given money, likely in order to discourage them from reporting the matter. Whether this was initiated by them or you is not entirely clear. The presence of the knife appears to have played some role in your decision to do so.
8. The prosecution submits your moral culpability is high. This is disputed by your counsel. I am not entirely in agreement with the prosecution that your moral culpability is high, particularly having regard to the matters that I have found with respect to Verdins[55]. But equally I agree that the offending was not low level. I accept the offending was unsophisticated and whilst this was a prank by the children, you were not aware that this was a prank, believing it to be legitimate. Again, whether this was naïve on your behalf or borne out of some sort of desperation to fulfil a desire, the fact is you went there for the sole purpose of meeting children on the understanding it may lead to sexual activity.
9. I note there are no victim impact statements here, but I accept it is reasonable to conclude there was likely a degree of harm suffered by one or more of those children who were, as the prosecution submits, understandably afraid.[56]

1. As indicated, I have had regard to the matters set out in s16A(2) of the Act.[57]
2. These include the nature and gravity of the offending as I have already addressed, your personal circumstances, your plea of guilty and the timing of the plea and your prospects of rehabilitation.
3. General deterrence is of significance here. Pursuant to s16A(2)(ja) of the Crimes Act I am obliged to have regard to the importance of sending a message to the community that those who use a carriage service to prepare or plan to procure a child to engage in sexual activity must expect significant punishment.[58]
4. The sentence that I impose also needs to deter you from considering such offending in the future, given that it is not entirely out of character.[59] I must also give primary consideration to the principles of just punishment, denunciation and protection of the community. The community generally requires protection from those committing offences of this nature. Offending such as this is becoming all too prevalent and there is a need to protect the most vulnerable in our community from predators who use online and carriage services to exploit vulnerable children.
5. The sentence I pass must balance the interests of the community in denouncing criminal conduct with the community's interests in ensuring that as far as possible, you are rehabilitated.
6. Essentially it is in the community's interests to see you rehabilitated, and ultimately I consider the community is best served if you are able to do so in the community as a contributing member of society, actively engaged in employment and treatment. I also have regard to principles of parsimony.

1. I must have regard to current sentencing practices.
2. As the High Court set out in The Queen v Pham,[60] when sentencing for a Commonwealth offence, I must have regard to sentences that have been imposed in other states and territories.
3. No two cases are alike and current sentencing practices are but one factor to take into account. Both parties have provided me with a number of comparable cases and I have had regard to each of those cases. I note that the cases submitted by your counsel as comparable, were decided prior to the amendments to legislation requiring exceptional circumstances to be made out before a sentence involving immediate release on a recognisance release order can be made.

1. The court shall not impose a sentence of imprisonment for a federal offence unless having considered all of the available sentences, the court is satisfied that no other sentence is appropriate in the circumstances.[61] Having heard submissions at the sentence indication hearing and at the plea, I am satisfied that there are alternatives to immediate gaol in this case.
2. I indicated following the sentence indication that I would be prepared to impose a sentence that does not involve an immediate term of imprisonment, again either by way of a recognisance release order to be released forthwith, or by placing you on a community corrections order. I note the prosecution submitted that having regard to the gravity of the offending and the need for deterrence, that the only sentence open to the court is a term of imprisonment, some of which should be served immediately. In recent submissions in the context of the sentence indication, the prosecution have submitted that a recognisance release order with conditions is more appropriate than a community corrections order, but maintains its position initially in relation to a term of imprisonment being required.
3. You have been assessed for suitability for a community corrections order. Initially you were considered unsuitable for a variety of reasons including your behaviour towards the assessor - you were somewhat aggressive, in addition to the fact you appeared unwilling to take responsibility for your conduct and showed poor insight into your offending. Ms Mildenhall submits that you were somewhat preoccupied with the actions of the children having a knife present. This is also evident from your mother's character reference.
4. You were afforded the opportunity for a further assessment. You have now been assessed as suitable.[62] Your presentation on the second occasion was significantly improved, and this time demonstrated an ability to engage appropriately with Corrections. It is also noted that whilst there is room for improvement, you were willing to take some responsibility for your behaviour and expressed a desire to improve your decision making. Mr Broderson notes that with this improved attitude and insight into your offending, that it appears that you would be able to positively engage with treatment conditions. You have been assessed as a medium risk of general re-offending.
5. Corrections have made a number of recommendations for conditions on the order. I have considered these recommendations with a view to determining whether a community corrections order would be open to the court or whether a recognisance release order is the only option available with treatment conditions. A recognisance release order certainly be within range, having regard to the gravity of the offending and the need for denunciation and deterrence. Overall, I have concluded that the community would be best served by placing you on a community corrections order with supervision and therapeutic conditions. I am concerned that you will need to obtain a medical clearance from your GP but I am prepared to make the order on the understanding that you will provide Corrections with a medical clearance as soon as possible.
6. I also note what the court said in the matter of Boulton in relation to a community corrections order being sometimes an appropriate disposition even in the case of serious offending.[63]
7. Could you stand up please, Mr Bedord.

1. On Charge 1, you are convicted and sentenced to a community corrections order for a period of three years. There will be a number of conditions attached to the order:
   • You will be under the supervision of Corrections for a period of three years.
   • You must undergo treatment and rehabilitation as directed to address your risk of re-offending.
   • You must undertake 150 hours of unpaid community work. Your treatment and rehabilitation hours can contribute to the full amount of the unpaid community work.
2. There are also a number of core conditions attached to a community correction order.
   • You must not commit any other offence that is punishable by imprisonment during the three year period.
   • You must comply with any and all obligations and requirements prescribed.
   • You must report to and receive visits from Corrections during the period of the order.
   • You must report to the nearest community correction centre, which I believe is in Dandenong, within two clear working days from today. I would recommend that you make contact as soon as you leave court.
   • You must let a community corrections officer know within two working days of a change of address or employment.
   • You must not leave Victoria without first getting permission.
   • You must obey all lawful instructions and directions from Corrections.
3. Now you must comply with the conditions of the order, for instance if you decided not to participate in the treatment and rehabilitation; if you decided not to perform the unpaid community work; or if you were to commit further offences during the three year period, then you would likely be brought back before me on a breach and I would then need to resentence you for this offending. If I was to resentence you for this offending, it is very unlikely that you would be placed on a further community correction order. It is also likely that there would be a penalty for the breach itself.
4. In a moment you are going to be asked to sign some paperwork to indicate that you understand those conditions and agree to abide by them but I am just going to ask you in court, do you understand those conditions as I have read out?
5. OFFENDER: Yes I do, Your Honour.
6. HER HONOUR: Do you agree to abide by them?
7. OFFENDER: Yes I do, Your Honour.
8. HER HONOUR: And do you understand that if you do not comply with the conditions of the order - - -
9. OFFENDER: Sorry.
10. HER HONOUR: That's all right. If you do not abide by the conditions of the order or if you commit further offending, then this matter can be brought back before me on a breach and you will be resentenced.
11. OFFENDER: Yes I do, Your Honour.
12. HER HONOUR: All right. We'll print off the orders now.

1. I indicate that there is no pre-sentence detention.

1. I also indicate pursuant to s6AAA of the Sentencing Act,[64] that but for your plea of guilty, that is had you pleaded not guilty but been found guilty at trial, I would have placed you on a recognisance release order for a period of 14 months' imprisonment to be released after serving 8 months. That is, I would have given you an immediate term of imprisonment. We'll have the orders printed out and you can sign them, thank you. You can have a seat, Mr Bedford. Ms Mildenhall, your instructor or yourself are welcome to approach Mr Bedford while he signs the paperwork.
2. I note that the charge before the court is a class 2 offence under the Sex Offenders Registration Act and is a registrable offence.[65] Having now been convicted of this offence, you will be a registerable offender and you will be required to comply with reporting conditions for a period of eight years. There'll also be some paperwork prepared that will be provided to you and no doubt Ms Mildenhall or your instructing solicitor will take you through the details of that, unless Ms Mildenhall, you require me to do so at this stage?
3. MS MILDENHALL: No.
4. HER HONOUR: No, all right. I note that you have now signed the community correction order, a copy will be provided to you to take with you to Corrections.
5. I thank counsel for your assistance throughout the course of these proceedings. Mr Bedford, you have narrowly avoided going to gaol and I have taken into account the fact that you have pleaded guilty as I've said in relation to that determination. Adjourn the court please.

[2] Summary of Prosecution Opening dated 15 January 2026 ('Exhibit A').

[6] For example, in their VAREs, Lucy recalls effectively having only greeted you and asking your name before handing the phone to Tom, who conducted the remainder of the calls; this is generally consistent with Alex's account, who says that Lucy only asked one to two questions before Tom took the phone. Tom says only Lucy spoke with the offender.

[7] For example, Lucy recalls the phone having mostly been held to Tom's ear; Alex remembers the calls being on speaker and being able to clearly hear what the offender said. A screenshot taken on Lucy's phone at 6.19pm, during the third call, displays an active call with the offender and depicts the call being on speaker at that time: Depositions 4.01.3.

[8] Alex and Lucy describe him as having run to his home nearby to obtain this knife out of fear (VARE of Lucy dated 13/03/24 [Q46, 50-62]; VARE of Alex dated 13/06/24 [Q14, 40]). Tom states that he already had it with him, having been doing the cooking at a barbeque in the park earlier that day (VARE of Tom dated 21/03/24 [Q13, 16]).

[9] Prosecution Submissions on Sentence Indication dated 27 October 2025 and Additional Submissions dated 26 January 2026 ('Exhibit B').

[10] Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) s16A(1).

[11] Ibid s16A(2)(m).

[12] Defence Submissions on the Plea dated 21 January 2026 and Sentence Indication Submissions dated 21 October 2025 ('Exhibit 1').

[13] Ibid (SIH Submissions) 2 [5], [8].

[15] Exhibit 1 (SIH Submissions) (n12) 2 [7].

[17] Bundle of Medical Material provided by Dr Ngoc Tran comprising of a Bundle of Medical Documents, Respiratory Health Summary dated 25 October 2025 and Medical or treating health practitioner questionnaire dated 20 September 2025 ('Exhibit 6'). [3]

[18] R v Verdins & Ors [2007] VSCA 102 9 ('Verdins').

[19] Exhibit 1 (SIH Submissions) (n12) 3[8].

[20] Forensic Psychiatrist Report, Dr Anthony Cidoni, dated 17 August 2025 ('Exhibit 4') 10, [71].

[21] Neuropsychological Report, Clinical Neuropsychologist Laura Scott, dated 10 July 2025 ('Exhibit 3') 11.

[25] Psychological report of Simon Candlish, Consultant Psychologist, dated 15 January 2026 ('Exhibit 2') 11 [89].

[36] Brown v The Queen [2020] VSCA 212; (2020) 62 VR 491, 509 [68]-[69..

[37] [2022] VSCA 3 [137].

[38] Exhibit B (n9) (Additional Submissions) [10].

[42] Exhibit B (n9) (Additional Submissions) 8 [30].

[44] Bundle of Character References including that of Cameron Janky dated 15 October 2025, Bill Ponitkis dated 17 October 2025, Kathleen Vergers dated 18 October 2025 and Sue Bedford dated 21 October 2025 ('Exhibit 7').

[45] Exhibit 7 (n44) (Letter of Sue Bedford).

[46] Criminal Record of Andrew Bedford signed 1 October 2025.

[47] Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) S16A(2)(n)

[49] Community Correction Order Assessment Outcome Report of Mahlia Gladman-Muse dated 27 January 2026.

[51] Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), s16A(2)(g)

[52] Ibid S16A(2)(a).

[54] Exhibit B (n9) (Sentence Indication Submissions) 5 [15].

[56] Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), s16A(2)(d)

[59] Ibid s16A(2)(j).

[60] [2015] HCA 39.

[61] Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), s17A(1).

[62] Community Correction Order Brief Pre-Sentence Assessment Outcome Report (Re-Assessment) authored by Ty Broderson dated 16 February 2026.

[63] Boulton v The Queen [2014] VSCA 342 [6].