DPP (Vic) v Chatterton; DPP - [2014] VSCA 1 - VSCA 2014 case summary — Zoe

DPP (Vic) v Chatterton; DPP - [2014] VSCA 1 - VSCA 2014 case summary — Zoe

[60]

the respondent's insight into his offending was at a fairly formative level. The respondent had some awareness of targeting that particular age group because there was a lesser chance of rejection or humiliation and they were less likely to judge him;
the respondent seemed able to reflect that he misled and exploited the complainants in some way. The respondent seemed to underestimate the seriousness of what he was doing and did not understand the effect of his behaviour on the complainants;
the respondent had more hebephilic tendencies than paedophilic ones, in that his focus was on the pubescent age groups rather than the pre-pubescent ones;
the respondent fell into the high risk category for re-offending and the most important component in reducing that risk would be treatment;
the respondent had difficulty talking about his offending but said he was willing to address his issues and engage in treatment;
the respondent's prior criminal history was of professional concern as it increased the risk to the community and made rehabilitation more difficult. It also made the need for treatment more urgent;
the respondent was both sexually interested in children and also targeted that age group as a means of avoiding rejection. The respondent was in denial about having any sexual interest in children;
the respondent was likely to respond well to structured treatment in a supportive non-judgmental environment but his avoidant personality and intimacy deficits would require more long term treatment and his denial of sexual interest could create a hurdle. When given structure, the respondent was a fairly compliant person;
it was likely that the respondent was interested in males as a sexual orientation and he had great difficulty coming to terms with that;
it was Dr Barth's experience that, while offenders may possess child pornography of younger children, they were able to compartmentalise viewing that on the internet as opposed to in real life. With adolescent boys, the offender could fool themselves into thinking the complainant was enjoying the contact and consenting to it;
Dr Barth did not agree with the previous assessment conducted by Dr Pamela Matthews (a clinical psychologist who assessed the respondent in relation to his 2011 offending) in which she concluded that the respondent had a development disorder and was operating at the age of 14. Dr Barth thought that the respondent was sexually immature and displayed intimacy avoidant behaviours;
Dr Barth queried the respondent as to why he would not approach girls the same age as the complainants as opposed to boys but the respondent was not able to shed any light on that;
the contact with SR was a superficial, self-gratifying encounter which did not show a genuine intimate connection. This did not change Dr Barth's opinion that the respondent had trouble maintaining genuine intimate friendships with adults;
in relation to Dr Matthews' report stating that the respondent had victim empathy, Dr Barth said that the longer the offending continues, the more the offender can justify his behaviour in his mind. Dr Barth suggested that may be why Dr Matthews saw the respondent as being empathetic and Dr Barth thought the respondent underestimated the seriousness of his actions;
as to remorse, it was difficult to distinguish between being sorry for being in court and being sorry for the offending. Dr Barth thought the respondent was sorry for being in court but his remorse for the offending was still at a superficial level;
in re-examination, Dr Barth said that all his findings remained predicated on the respondent having not received treatment and that the respondent's understanding of his own sexuality may improve with appropriately tailored treatment;
trying to involve a third party in the offending was a fairly rapid escalation in the respondent's offending;
the respondent's potential willingness to engage in treatment was a positive in terms of his prospects of rehabilitation. However, the challenges were significant and he would require therapeutic follow up. A real part of any rehabilitation would have to be carried out in the community;
Dr Barth interpreted the respondent's frankness with police as being real rather than manipulative; and
Dr Barth agreed with the judge's assessment that the respondent's ability to empathise or understand that he was dealing with children was very stunted.