DPP v Anderson

1. You met the victim's mother, Ms. Deborah Anderson[2] when she was visiting Australia. You began dating, before she returned to the Philippines.
2. You continued the relationship, visiting her in the Philippines on three occasions in 2000. During one of those occasions, she became pregnant with your daughter, who was subsequently born in the Philippines in June 2001.
3. In 2002, Ms was granted an Australian VISA and she and her daughter moved to live with you at your residence in Kyneton. Ms Anderson began working as a cleaner with shifts on Tuesdays and Thursdays.
4. You and Ms Anderson were married on 25 January 2003.
5. In 2005, she began working in Kyneton, usually working five to six days per week. On 24 November 2006, you left your employment for around six to seven months, and you stayed at home to care for the victim in this matter.

1. The offending is described in detail in the prosecution opening which I will summarise.
2. On an occasion between 3 June 2008 and 2 June 2011, you were home, alone with the victim. You were sitting on a fold out couch in the lounge room, watching TV. The couch folded out into a bed and there were pillows at the head of it. Initially, you were next to each other, and you had your left arm around her waist. She cannot recall how you initiated the incident; however, you ended up moving so that you were lying on your back with your head on the pillows. She was lying face down on top of you, with her head pointed towards your feet and her legs either side of your head. You were both naked, with you having removed your own clothing. The victim cannot recall how she became naked. She had her hand on your erect penis and was rubbing it up and down for an unknown period before you ejaculated, at which time she stopped. (Part of Charge 1: Indecent Act with Child Under the age of 16 (rolled-up charge).
3. While the victim was rubbing your penis, you were licking her vagina, between her labia majora and on her clitoris. (Part of Charge 2: Incest (rolled-up charge).
4. You continued to lick the victim's vagina for about an hour and a half because, in her words 'he didn't think I came. I actually did at one point, but I let him keep going'. Eventually you said 'I can't do this anymore' and stopped licking her vagina.
5. On another occasion between 1 January 2012 and 31 January 2012, you and the victim were at home alone in your bed, you were both naked from the waist down. You were lying on your back, and the victim was lying face down on top of you, with her legs on either side of your head. In that position, you used your tongue to lick between the lips of the victim's vagina, (Part of Charge 2: Incest) whilst she used her hands to masturbate your penis with her eyes closed, because she did not want to look at your penis. (Part of Charge 1: Indecent Act).
6. While this was occurring, you suddenly stopped and asked her what she was thinking about. She said 'checkers' and you asked, 'what about checkers?' and she said, 'I don't know'. She cannot recall how that incident ended. (Part of Charge 2: Incest).
7. On another occasion between 3 June 2011 and 2 June 2013, you were at home, alone with the victim, in your bed, hugging, with the doona over the top of the two of you.
8. She cannot recall how the assault was initiated, but she ended up lying face down on top of you, while you were lying on your back. You had your head on the pillows, she was facing towards the foot of the bed, with her legs on either side of your head. You were both naked.
9. You licked the victim's vagina, on her clitoris and between her labia. (Part of Charge 2: Incest).
10. After a break for a short time, you then continued to lick the victim's vagina in the same fashion as you had earlier in the incident.
11. On another occasion between 3 June 2011 and 2 June 2014, you and the victim were home alone, in your bed, both naked. You were lying on your back, with your head on your pillow and she was lying face down on top of you, with her chest on your lower abdomen and her head towards the foot of the bed. She cannot recall how this incident began.
12. She was masturbating you and, in her words 'giving him a hand job, rubbing his dick up and down'. (Part of Charge 1: Indecent Act with Child Under 16). You were licking her vagina, on her clitoris and between the lips of her vagina. (Part of Charge 2: Incest).
13. At one point, you stopped and asked if she could rub her vagina on his penis. She turned to face you while she thought about the request and you said, 'Come on. It'll be fine, but you don't have to if you don't want to'. Eventually she said 'no' and you replied, 'that's okay'.
14. You continued to lick her vagina, and she returned to rubbing your penis with her hands, until you ejaculated.
15. During the period in which the offences occurred, she came to believe it was normal because it was something you had always done to her. You told her several times not to tell anyone.
16. Eventually the victim began to use sex as a means to an end. She knew that if she had sex with you, you would be more likely to let her play on the computer when she asked. This progressed to the point where, after you had done something sexual to her, you would tell her 'Yeah, you can do it', before she had even asked to use the computer.
17. Once she turned 13 years of age, the alleged assaults stopped almost completely.
18. Because of these assaults, she began suffering from depression and in June 2018 she was admitted to a local recovery centre.
19. On 25 May 2018 she told a registered psychologist, that you had been physically and sexually assaulting her. The psychologist told Deborah Anderson, who in turn told Victoria Police.
20. On 27 June 2018, the victim spoke to Detective Aujard from the Central Victoria SOCIT and gave details of the offences.
21. On 5 July 2018, she provided a statement to police, but she did not want police to charge you at the time.
22. Ms Anderson left your marriage and moved away to another residence with the victim.

1. In October 2018, Ms Anderson confronted you and you said the following:

(a) 'yes I've done something wrong, but she is 100% virgin';

(b) 'there was no penetration I didn't put my doodle in her vagina''

(c) 'okay I did kiss her in her vagina and after that she even cum';

(d) 'maybe I have to admit I'm guilty to make her happy'.

1. In December 2018, you repeated these admissions to Ms Anderson, and you told her you were sorry.
2. On 27 June 2018, you rang Anna Moriarty, an accredited mental health nurse. During the telephone conversation with her, you made several implied admissions to sexually assaulting the victim. You expressed some remorse for your behaviour. You said, 'it started out just as tickling and I just liked it and she enjoyed it'.
3. Since that time, you have sent various letters to the victim, through Ms Anderson. In those letters, you say the following:

(a) 'Nothing I can say will undo the wrong and hurt that I have caused. I have always felt guilty because of my behaviour.'

(b) 'I have done so much damage.'

(c) 'Celia[3], all I ever thought about was pleasing you and that made us close. I was so stupid. You didn't know and I should have.'

(d) 'I hoped with all the cuddles you had forgotten or forgiven.'

(e) 'I was violent and a product of my upbringing. I also behaved very badly to you.'

1. In June 2020, the victim provided a full statement to police indicating she wanted the police to charge you, which they did not do until February 2023.

1. Your plea of guilty in this case came on the day of empanelment, however the indictment to which you have pleaded was substantially different to the trial indictment.
2. The utilitarian value of the plea in these circumstances is limited and there is a limited basis on the plea alone to find any remorse.
3. Your plea does have utilitarian value in avoiding the use of the resources of the Court, the police and the prosecution for the time the trial would have taken and sparing the witnesses the experience of having to give evidence and re-live these matters, which would have been distressing for the victim and her mother. Your guilty plea did provide some finality to the victim in this case and gave her closure earlier than if you had run a trial and you must receive a sentencing discount to recognise these aspects of your guilty plea.
4. All of that said, the offer in this matter did come very late and in assessing the utilitarian value of your guilty plea, I take that into account as well.

1. There are other matters though that do indicate you have some remorse for the offending. There are the admissions to Ms Moriarty and to Deborah Anderson and the content of the letters you wrote to the victim. Having regard to that evidence this would have been a difficult trial for you. The Crown case struck me as very strong and those things that you said and wrote would have been significant evidence against you. In the end, I accept you took a realistic approach, and your plea indicates some remorse, although limited.
2. I accept these other matters do indicate some remorse and some level of insight into your conduct, and this is relevant to the assessment of your prospects of rehabilitation.

1. Victim Impact Statements were tendered and read out in Court.
2. The victim says she feels as though her life has been robbed from her. She says she always felt alone and isolated because of your sexual abuse and she lived in sadness and fear. She thought there was something deeply wrong with her for a long time.
3. She says in May 2022, she attempted to take her own life after a bad PTSD episode. She describes her PTSD symptoms in detail and that they interfere with her life.
4. She feels as though her youth and future have disappeared. She was a good sportsperson, and she hoped to play in the AFLW. She feels that is now out of reach.
5. She also describes financial hardship from 2018 after her mother left you. This contributed to her inability to travel to Melbourne and train for football. Her PTSD has affected her studies. She had been a high achieving student. She is unsure whether she will ever be able to study or play football again.
6. Your conduct also affected her relationship with her mother.
7. The impact of your offending on the victim has been substantial and enduring and multifaceted, none of which is surprising given the gravity of your conduct towards her.
8. Deborah Anderson says she worries about her daughter who she describes as 'so sick'. The protracted nature of the Court proceedings has been difficult for her. She describes having panic attacks after the offences came to light. She says your offending has affected her relationships with friends and family. She does not want to socialise, and she prefers to stay at home. She has become isolated. She has difficulties sleeping and has needed medication.
9. The law, of course, presumes that premature such sexual activity with children will have a substantial and enduring psychological impact and that is exactly what has occurred here.
10. The impact of your offending on the victim and her mother is a significant matter to consider in deciding the appropriate sentences in this case and it informs the need for just punishment in formulating the sentences.

1. Incest is inherently a very serious offence reflected by the maximum penalty of 25 years and is rightly regarded by the community as abhorrent offending. It is a repugnant offence that strikes at the core of the family relationship and involves a fundamental breach of trust. This is an inherent feature of the offence which underpins its seriousness rather than an aggravating feature.
2. The victim was your biological daughter. You had a responsibility to protect her innocence and nurture her; instead, you used her as an object for your sexual gratification by sexually abusing her over a protracted period during her formative years. You cultivated a sexual relationship with her. You normalised sexual behaviour for her when she was just a child and had no capacity for genuine understanding of the wrongfulness of what you were doing.
3. The charges are rolled up charges covering multiple incidents. All other things being equal a rolled up charge is more serious than a single incident offence. A rolled-up charge is governed by a single maximum penalty but in sentencing you I must have regard to the total criminality of the offending.
4. The incidents which make up the rolled-up charges were not fleeting incidents; rather they included drawn out episodes of sustained offending. For example, the first incident involved lingual; penetration over an estimate of 90 minutes, and the other incidents described also appear sustained and protracted.
5. The indecent act charges here are serious examples of that offence. The victim was your biological daughter, and you had her masturbate your penis, including to ejaculation on a couple of these occasions.
6. She was very young at the time the offences started, which is another serious aspect of this offending.
7. Whilst there is no hierarchy of seriousness in respect of the different types of penetrative offences covered by incest, I accept the submission that lingual penetration does not carry the risk of disease and pregnancy which would be an aggravating factor.
8. I take into account that the offending stopped when the victim was 13 years old. I accept the absence of some other aggravating factors such as accompanying violence or coercion but as conceded by your counsel, Mr Marsh, you were able to secure the victim's acquiescence to the offending because you were her father; therefore, coercion was not necessary. You also told the victim not to tell anyone about your behaviour.
9. There is no basis for reduced moral culpability in this case, and I consider your moral culpability for this offending to be high.

1. You were born in August 1946, and you are now 79 years of age. At the time of the offending, you were aged between 62 and 68.
2. You report a difficult childhood, with physical violence from both your father and mother. You felt unsafe, both at home and at school. You say the only one who showed you love growing up was your older sister.
3. You attended a Catholic primary school where you experienced bullying.
4. Your work history is extensive.
5. It includes a period where you were working as police officer, which you ultimately left and then performed various investigative and enforcement roles in local government.
6. In 2001, you began working for the local council, as I understand it 9-5, essentially five days a week.
7. Then, in 2008, you registered a company and began working as a mail courier for Australia Post. As part of that job, you delivered pallets of mail to different parts of Victoria.
8. So, you are a person that has been consistently employed throughout your life.
9. You retired at the age of 74.
10. The property in Kyneton in which you lived with the victim and her mother was purchased in 1988.
11. You have been married three times. You married your first wife at 18 years old, and you were together for 10 years. You had two children. The relationship ended and you divorced, and your wife moved to Queensland with the children. You have no meaningful relationship with those children.
12. You then married a woman when you were 45 years old and the relationship lasted for 10 years.
13. Your next relationship was with Deborah Anderson. You met her when you were 54 years old.
14. You are now an elderly man. You have had a diagnosis of epilepsy since the age of 18, which was poorly managed, but is now better controlled through medication, Tegretol. Poor sleep is a significant risk factor for you.
15. A medical report was tendered from Dr Russell Koh, dated 14 October 2025, which provided a summary of your current conditions. You have been diagnosed with Major Depressive Disorder with Suicidal Ideation. You take medication for high cholesterol and high blood pressure. You also take a blood thinning medication and an anti-depressant, Mirtazapine. Your medication is now supervised by custody staff, which is given to you in the late afternoon and has disrupted your sleep in the brief period you have been in custody since I remanded you after the guilty plea in this case.
16. You also have what is described as a benign essential tremor which you have had all your life.
17. Other matters of relevance concerning your psychological health are that in June 2018, after you had called Ms Moriarty, you were distressed and suicidal. She provided referrals for other psychological support, and you attended a clinic in Kyneton and were assessed as requiring involuntary treatment. You were taken by ambulance to a hospital in Bendigo where you spent six days as an impatient in a psychiatric hospital. You instructed your counsel, Mr Marsh, that you have not been suicidal since then, but you are consumed by sadness and grief at the loss of your family, which is of course is a result of your conduct.
18. A letter of support was provided from a friend whom you met in February 2020 through working at her brother's farm. She speaks about your friendship and the sadness she has witnessed in you over the last few years.

1. Other than this offending you have no convictions at all, and you have led a productive life and contributed to the community. I take into account your previous good character which I accept is relevant to your prospects of rehabilitation, the need for specific deterrence and the necessity to protect the community.

1. You are now 79 years old. I accept that the period of imprisonment I will impose for this offending will represent a significant proportion of the rest of your life. The offending itself occurred now well over 10 years ago when you were aged between 62 and 68 years old.
2. Mr Marsh submitted, and I accept that age is a mitigating factor where:

(a) imprisonment may adversely affect an offender's health[4];

(b) the offender may be less likely to pose a danger to community[5];

(c) the offender may be more likely to die in prison[6] so any period of imprisonment will represent a larger proportion of their remaining life[7]; and

(d) imprisonment is likely to be more burdensome on an older offender[8].

1. You have a range of health problems, none of which are unusual in a man of your age. I have described those issues. It was conceded by Mr Marsh that you will be able to access appropriate medical care in prison and that the prison system is not unfamiliar with the needs of elderly offenders. Of course, it may well be that your health issues will have to be managed in a custodial setting as you get older, and I take this into account. I accept that the other three limbs as described of age as a mitigating factor are relevant in this case and moderate the sentence to be imposed in this case. That said, age does not justify an unacceptably lenient sentence for serious offending such as this.
2. Your counsel further submitted, and I accept, that given the nature of your offending and your previous career as a police officer, you believe that your experience of custody will be more challenging. Generally, I accept the sentence I impose, your first, will weigh heavily on you.

1. It is not unusual in sexual offences for the first complaint about the offences to occur many years after the offence. It often takes many years for victims to process the offending and feel ready to tell others what happened to them. That is particularly so in cases like this involving sexual abuse from a parent towards a young child. In this case, the delay between the offending and the first complaint in 2018 is not unusual or inordinate and it was only another two years before a formal police statement was made, and you were interviewed in August 2020.
2. From that point on it did take a long time for this matter to be resolved. There was a significant gap which was not of your making, before you were first charged in February 2023. I was told that was due to deficiencies in police resources at that time.
3. I accept that you have had this matter hanging over your head for some seven years now with the very real prospect of a substantial period of imprisonment if convicted. I also accept that the time that it has taken since the commission of the offences means you are now to be sentenced as an elderly man whereas you would have been sentenced as a much younger person in your sixties had the offending come to police attention closer in time to the commission of the offences.
4. The time that has elapsed since the offending allows me to assess your prospects of rehabilitation based on what has happened since. You have not reoffended and in my opinion, having regard to your age and the other factors referred to by your counsel, it is unlikely that you will ever be able to offend again in the way you did against your daughter.
5. Current sentencing practices mean current sentencing practices at the time of sentence, not the commission of the offending, but under the principle of equal justice sentencing practices at the time of the offending are relevant to the sentence I impose. However, although I accept that sentencing practices for incest were less punitive at the time of the offences than they are now, that must be considered considering the decision of the High Court in Dalgliesh[9] that historical sentencing practices for incest were inadequate, a factor your counsel readily conceded.
6. Current sentencing practices of course are a guide but not a controlling factor in deciding the appropriate sentence.

1. The totality principle requires that the overall sentence must be just and proportionate to the total criminality of your offending. In this case, the rolled-up incidents comprising the indecent act charge all occurred during the incidents covered by the rolled-up incest charge, and very substantial concurrency is appropriate. Nonetheless the indecent act charges were serious and elevated the gravity of the incidents in which they occurred and some cumulation is appropriate.
2. In sentencing for these offences, some of the more punitive sentencing purposes are important. Through the sentence I impose I must express the community's denunciation of this type of offending which I have already observed is reviled by the public.
3. The sentence I impose must send a signal to anyone minded to commit such offences that substantial punishment will follow detection and conviction.
4. Just punishment must also be emphasised for this offending, which has had such a destructive impact on the victim and her mother.
5. Having regard to your age, the absence of prior convictions and my view as to the likelihood of your reoffending, specific deterrence and community protection are of limited significance.
6. I must also as best I can attempt to facilitate your rehabilitation and your ultimate reintegration into the community.
7. The non-parole period is the minimum period justice requires you to serve before becoming eligible for release. It mitigates punishment in favour of rehabilitation, but it must be consistent with the objective gravity of the offending.
8. In this case your counsel, Mr Marsh, submitted that I should allow for a significant period on parole to reflect the mitigating matters in this case, in particular your age and the burden of imprisonment on you. Mr Cordy accepted that that was appropriate. Of course, as I said the non-parole period must not be so low as to erode the proper application of denunciation, just punishment and general deterrence.

1. In this matter, the sentences I impose are as follows:
2. Charge 1, indecent act, you are convicted and sentenced to three years' imprisonment.
3. Charge 2, incest, you are convicted and sentenced to seven years and six months' imprisonment.
4. I order that eight months of the sentence on Charge 1 is cumulative on the base sentence for Charge 2. That makes a total effective sentence in this matter of eight years and two months.
5. I fix a non-parole period in this matter of four years and 10 months.
6. Pre-sentence detention of 22 days will be deducted from the sentence that I have imposed.
7. I will make a Sex Offender Registration order for life, there being a class 1 and a class 2 offence.
8. Pursuant to s6AAA, I indicate that but for your guilty plea the sentence imposed would have been 10 years and four months with a minimum non-parole period of seven years and two months.
9. Any other orders required?
10. COUNSEL: No.
11. HIS HONOUR: All right. Do you want this link just briefly or not? Or you'll talk to him separately?
12. MR MARSH: I'll just indicate over the link that I will arrange a conference with Mr Anderson in the coming couple of days.
13. HIS HONOUR: All right. All right, thank you.

[4] R v Iles [2009] VSCA 197 at [19]

[7] See, for example R v King (1993) 66 A Crim R 74, 79; R v Vella [2001] VSCA 174

[8] R v DD (No 2) [2008] VSCA 15

[9] DPP v Dalgliesh (a Pseudonym) [2016] VSCA 148 ('Dalgliesh').