DPP v Cook [2025] VCC 1747

HCA 41_; Peter Brown v The Queen_ [2019] VSCA 286;

Stalio v The Queen [2012] VSCA 120; Hague v

The Queen [2019] VSCA 218; McL v R [2000] HCA 46;

[2000] HCA 46; 203 CLR 452; Gordon v The Queen [2013] VSCA 343; DPP v Dillon (a pseudonym) [2025] VSCA 266.

Sentence: Total effective sentence is six years and four months,

**1 Benjamin Cook, on 29 October 2025, you pleaded guilty on arraignment to five charges of an indecent act with a child under the age of 16 and two charges of sexual assault of a child under the age of 16. Your crimes were perpetrated against three young female victims and one young male victim. These crimes were committed in three distinct periods of time, being firstly, from February 2010 to June 2010, secondly, from March 2012 to January 2015 and thirdly, with the male victim in July 2019.

2 The context surrounding these crimes is broadly similar. I will elaborate in more detail shortly. In each case, you were known to the children and had an opportunity to sexually abuse them after befriending their mothers. For the first victim, you met the mother through a relative and later through the school the children attended. For the male victim, you met his parents through your volunteer work in childcare. All of this occurred in the town where you lived at the time, in north-east Victoria.

3 Before describing briefly what you did so as to enable an assessment of the gravity of each offence, I will return back to the words that commence the report of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. What was said was:

'The sexual abuse of a child is a terrible crime. It is the greatest of personal violations. It is perpetrated against the most vulnerable in our community. It is a fundamental breach of the trust that children are entitled to place in adults. It is one of the most traumatic and potentially damaging experiences and can have lifelong adverse consequences'.[1]

4 The Court of Appeal in our state relatively recently described sexual abuse of children as:

'Inherently evil and depraved. It violate[s] the most basic norms of civilised behaviour, and [strikes] at the heart of the value which our society places on the lives and wellbeing of each of its young persons'.[2]

5 I refer to these powerful descriptions of what sexual abuse of children means to victims and to the wider community, because it is important that we in the courts do not become immune to the dreadful conduct and the enduring consequences of child sexual abuse, simply because, sadly, we deal with this appalling criminality day after day. It must remain at the fore in the sentencing process that sexual abuse of vulnerable children is at the worst end of human behaviour. Protecting and nurturing children is a basic tenet of our community.

6 When a deviant sexual offender like you, Benjamin Cook, sexually abuses young children as you did, the courts must reassert proper values and vindicate the child victims by imposing severe penalties that remove you from our society for years. As to what you did, I note you accepted the facts and circumstances set out in the prosecution opening dated 24 October 2025, which was read and then tendered on your plea.

7 What the agreed facts and circumstances establish is that when you were in your early 20s and through to your early 30s, you worked, volunteered or studied as an early learning educator in north-east Victoria. In those roles, at school and in childcare centres, you met local children and formed friendships with their parents. The parents trusted you, in part, because of your role in education and childcare. That is particularly so with respect to the fourth victim. As I pointed out, you met the mother of victims 1 and 3 by reason of first knowing her brother. But as was set out, the parents in both cases, that is the first group of offending and the last victim, went as far as to offer you accommodation in their family homes when you advised them that you would otherwise be homeless.

8 As I have said, there were four victims whose ages at the time of your abuse were between seven to ten, but in the main, they were between seven and eight years old. The circumstances that gave rise to Charges 1 and 4 involve two victims. In 2010 you were a volunteer in the local primary school as a teacher's aide but came to meet the mother of these victims via your family. In that context, you became friendly with the mother of victims 1 and 3. As I understand it, both children did attend the primary school in any event. You came to tell the mother that you had nowhere to live and she offered you a bed in one of the rooms in her house. The mother came to trust you and would ask you to look after and babysit the children when she was at work or out.

9 Victim 2 was a next-door neighbour who played regularly with victim 1.

Victim 1 spoke of you giving her chocolate bars and, at times, kissing her inappropriately. This was not a charged act, and you are not set to be punished for it, but it sets out the context of grooming. The first charge involves you taking victim 1 into the family bathroom. You asked her to sit on the top edge of the bath. She had no underwear on. You directed her to use her finger to penetrate her vagina, starting with her little finger. You watched her and gave instructions.

10 On a separate occasion, when you were babysitting victim 1, you and she went to the next-door neighbour's house to visit victim 2. Once there, you stood in front of both victims, who were seated on a couch. You dropped your pants, exposing your naked penis to the young children. On another occasion, when you were in the company of the neighbour, victim 2, you touched her on the outside of her vagina. With victim 3, the younger sister of victim 1, you kissed the child on the lips. She was between eight or nine years old and lying on your bed at the time.

11 Some years passed before you met the parents of victim 4. You met the parents of victim 4 in 2018. You were engaged by the parents to provide extra tutoring to assist in schooling. The parents ultimately trusted you so as to allow victim 4, then a seven-to-eight year old boy, to stay overnight and on weekends at your house. In June 2019, you moved into the parents' home, as you were experiencing housing difficulties. In July 2019, the parents and younger siblings attended a funeral in Melbourne, staying over a few nights. You remained as the babysitter and carer for victim 4 over the weekend.

12 During one of those nights, you went into victim 4's bedroom and asked him to come into your bed. Once there, you asked to touch his penis, promising treats if victim 4 allowed you to do that. You then pulled his pyjama shorts down and fondled the young victim's penis for some minutes. The next morning, when the victim asked why you did it, you just told him not to worry about it and later bought him chocolates and a lollypop. The victim says that this behaviour happened twice during the time his parents were at the funeral.

13 On a separate occasion after the funeral weekend while you were still living at victim 4's house, you asked the victim to get into your bed. You then pulled down your own pants and had the victim touch your penis. Before he did, you showed him how to masturbate your penis. You told the victim not to tell his parents or you would get into big trouble. A few months later, after you had moved out in August 2019, the victim did tell his mother that you had invited the victim into your bed. He did not, however, tell of the touching because he feared that you would get into big trouble.

14 Another six months or so passed and he told his mother more details. A complaint was then made to the police in June 2020. However, the victim did not want to proceed formally with the matter at that point. As it turned out, victim 1 had spoken of your sexual abuse to a sports coach. That man spoke to the police in mid-2019. The police investigation commenced in January 2020. However, other statements were not obtained until late 2022 and early 2023. At this point, victim 4 reinstated his complaint. You had been arrested and interviewed in August 2020 in relation to the allegation of victim 1. You denied any sexual misconduct and blamed or alleged that the victim, then at age seven or eight, was sexually forward with you to which you told her no.

15 You were arrested again and interviewed in May 2023. You denied any sexual misconduct, blaming the young victims for initiating sexual contact which you resisted. Your criminal charges proceeded through the County Court of Victoria with cross-examination of each victim prior to the matter heading towards trial. A trial was listed for the circuit commencing 6 October 2025. Your lawyers and the prosecutors negotiated a resolution. You sought a sentence indication in which it was indicated that the type of sentence would be a head sentence and a non-parole period. Shortly thereafter, you pleaded guilty on arraignment to the seven charges.

16 In assessing the gravity of your crimes, what makes them or some of them very serious examples of these always serious crimes is the following.

Firstly, your offending involved a comprehensive breach of trust. You were an adult entrusted to look after and protect the very young victims who were in your care at the time of your offending. You breached the trust of the children who should have been safe in your company. You breached the trust of the children's parents. You were living in the family homes and had been shown real generosity by the victim's families when you found yourself with difficult housing issues.

17 You exploited those circumstances, including in one instance when a single mother was away from the house with work and, in another instance, with the last victim, when his parents were away in Melbourne for a family funeral. Additionally and importantly, you breached the trust of the whole community, who expect adults like you to look after and not violate children.

18 Secondly, the gravity of your crimes is elevated by the very young age of each victim. They were between seven to ten years old, well under puberty, when you offended against them. Your acts were that of a predatory paedophile. Your sexual interest was in pre-pubescent female and male children.

19 Thirdly, your dreadful conduct was spread over nearly a decade, with offending commencing in 2010 and the last offending against the male victim occurring in 2019. I acknowledge that these were distinct episodes or periods of offending, and in the interim, no offending occurred. However, it cannot be ignored that you sexually abused children when you had the opportunity to do so in the 10 years from your early 20s to your 30s.

20 Fourthly, while your crimes of indecent act and sexual assaults were not penetrative, the Court of Appeal said in 2016 in Morris that touching offences that amounted to indecent acts or sexual assaults:

'While not penetrative, each such act is a serious invasion of the victim's bodily integrity and autonomy'.[3]

21 While almost all of your crimes involve touching of the genitalia by you or by the child, I do acknowledge that one charge involved kissing alone, which was not at the same level of seriousness as the other offending. Additionally, exposing your adult penis to young children is appalling behaviour, but it did not involve further violation of the children. At the same time, two of the charges are rolled up counts involving more than one incident of sexual abuse.

22 I do acknowledge that there were not any aspects of additional gratuitous violence or sexualisation by, for instance, taking photographs or films. However, as has been repeatedly said by our Court of Appeal, the absence of aggravating factors does not mitigate.

23 The process of individualised sentencing requires me to sentence you on the basis of the circumstances of your offending. That is, what you did, not what others may have done in other cases or what might be imagined at the extreme end of the range of offending.

24 Another important consideration when assessing gravity and moral culpability is the impact of what you did upon each of the victims. I had the significant benefit of a victim impact statement from victim 1, which was read by her to the court and victim impact statements from victims 3 and 4. The Court also received statements from the parents of victims 1, 3 and 4.

'What happened to me stole my sense of safety, trust and innocence. I was far too young to understand what was happening but deep down I knew it was wrong. From that moment everything changed. For years I carried feelings of shame, guilt and confusion that I didn't know how to process. Even now I sometimes find myself blaming that little girl I once was, the one who should have been protected not harmed...I hide behind a smile and a laugh, pretending everything is fine while burying those memories as deep as I can.'

25 She said the emotional pain has never gone away, it has lived inside her for her whole life. It makes her feel completely alone; trapped in a way she cannot explain. She said there are times where she cannot help but wonder if things in her life could have been different. She feels deep pain and guilt wishing that the little girl she once was had been able to speak up sooner. She said the experience has changed how she sees the world and people in it. It has made it difficult for her to trust and relax. She says she constantly questions people's intentions and finds it hard to let her guard down because she learnt far too early that safety is not guaranteed, even around people who should protect you the most.

26 She said the events take their toll on her every single day; from the moment it happened until now. She says the whole legal process was of its own kind of pain and a constant reminder of what had happened, exacerbated by the uncertainty that has hung over her while she waited for it to be finalised. She has lived in a state of tension, waiting for the day that she could finally start to process and heal. She speaks of the police statement being extremely hard. This has impacted upon her every day and always will. The pain resurfaces, without warning, memories flashing through her mind. She has fought, despite everything, to rebuild herself, and every day she works on her mental health and her healing.

27 She wants the Court to understand that it is not just a bad memory or something that can be left behind. This trauma that lives inside her is how she thinks, it is how she feels, and how she moves through life. She says to you, Mr Cook, that this is your behaviour. You did not just hurt a child in the moment. You changed her life forever. Her innocence and sense of safety was stolen by you and the trust broken, and years of her life that should have been full of laughter, love and possibility were forever altered. She describes this conduct as cowardly, cruel, monstrous and extremely harmful.

28 She concludes by indicating that what you have not taken from her is her strength. Although she has been broken, what has remained is the courage to keep living. She has taken back what you had tried to steal. She speaks now not with fear but with power because you no longer have or own her silence. She will remember all this for years, and the lives that have been damaged by your actions. She hopes that everyone knows that the shame is for you to carry, it is not hers.

29 Her sister speaks of the anger being bottled up inside until it screams out. She feels ashamed, and she does not know why she did not tell anyone. She feels bad about that, for not telling her mother. She was worried about people finding out and being embarrassed that people might look at her differently. She is still scared all the time. She is wary of men that are too polite or too nice to her or to children. It affects her energy. Sometimes she feels she cannot get out of bed. She cries often and does not have the capacity to do many things she needs to do. It has affected her relationship with her sister. She hopes that this might change now that it is finally behind them both.

30 Their mother speaks of when she was first told about this by her daughters, that she was angry and cried a lot. She is sick to the stomach that she could not protect her children from you as the predator that she had trusted to bring into the family home. It hurt not just her, but her children, as she knows they have to live with this for the rest of their lives. She speaks from experience, sadly, and it brought back trauma and memories of what had happened to her when she herself was sexually assaulted as a child. Memories that she had buried deep in the back of her mind. It has placed her mental health on edge, making her cry. It causes difficulty with her getting to sleep.

31 Victim 4, the young boy, says in his victim impact statement that it is hard to trust people. He feels frustration and anger that he trusted you, that his whole family trusted you, and that trust was broken. That makes him feel even more angry. He felt confused. What happened has made him more socially anxious and he has fears sometimes of the same things happening again. He feels like he cannot talk to people because of his fear of judgment or being teased. He said he has tried counselling and he knows it is not his fault but knowing this does not take away the memories. It is now part of his life.

'Even though I never asked for this, I still experience intrusive thoughts of what happened at least once a week, I try to keep them out, but they still come in'.

32 He speaks about the financial difficulties his parents experience in engaging a therapist for him. He speaks of being scared of talking to older males, and when he has to talk to them, it causes him concern. He feels like the crime has reduced his self-confidence, and he worries about it happening again.

33 His mother describes him as a happy eight year old, full of laughter and completely free of worry. He loved his days at school, playing with his mates and coming home. She says that innocence was stolen from him and from their family. She says victim 4 would cry himself to sleep, gripped by fear and shame that he could not put into words.

'As a parent, watching my son's spirit dim, knowing the pain he had been made to feel, has been unbearable'.

34 She says that for many years their whole family struggled immensely with the aftermath. The damage was not only to her child but also inflicted upon herself as a parent. She lives with a constant and deep pain that you brought into her life. There were years when it felt like she did not truly have her son with her, but only the shadow of who he once was. That emptiness is something she carries with her every day. She says that she hopes you understand that the damage that you did is far greater than any punishment you might receive. She says that no parent should ever have to endure what she has and it is her wish that you come to realise the depth of pain and the lasting impact of your actions upon her son and the entire family.

35 She says that she would like to say directly to you that what you did was wrong and she hopes that you never have to feel fear like her son did. She hopes that no one ever hurts someone you love in your presence. That is, she hopes you learn from this because you have taken so much from their family.

'You took our confidence. You took our dignity. You took my son's innocence'.

36 Of course, individualised sentencing involves not just my assessment of your offending conduct and its impact on victims, I must also take into account your personal circumstances, and I turn to those now. You are now 37 years old. You were 21 to 22 during the time of Charges 1 to 4. A little older, 23 to 26 at the time of Charge 5 and 31 at the time of Charges 6 and 7.

37 Your parents separated when you were three. You were raised by your mother and remain close to her. She provided as supportive an environment as she could. You have two younger siblings. One is a half-sibling. Your father had significant mental health difficulties and diagnoses. You have not had much to do with him and have not spoken to him for the last 12 years or more. After the separation, in your early primary years, you went to access visits in which your father was disparaging of your mother. It is submitted that there was violence, including sexual, physical and emotional abuse directed at your mother before separation. But I do note that you were three years old when your parents separated. On one occasion at an access visit, your father repeatedly punched your mother at the pick-up. She was taken to hospital and access was ceased, as I understand it, for some time.

38 At school, you struggled. You were diagnosed as being on the autism spectrum, or as was the terminology at the time, Asperger's syndrome. You had teacher's aides which assisted you, but at the same time caused difficulties in socialising and being bullied. You did, after school, embark on a number of tertiary courses in the area of early childhood education and childcare. You had voluntary and paid placement jobs over a number of years, up until the COVID pandemic. Thereafter, and following your arrest, you lost a retail job and have since been on a disability pension. Living close to your mother, you help her with her significant health issues.

39 I read the letters from your mother, aunts, and an uncle and note they see good aspects in your personality. Your mother wrote of your treatment as a child and adolescent for your mental health problems and your ongoing mental health struggles. I had the benefit of your treating psychologist, Ms Therese Heyman's letter dated 24 October 2025 and a range of historical medical records relating to assessments and treatments that occurred during your childhood and adolescence, including in‑patient treatment.

40 In recent weeks, I have had the benefit of a medicolegal risk and general assessment provided by Dr Susette Sowden, Clinical and Forensic Psychologist, dated 20 November 2025. It was a very helpful and well-considered report. Doctor Sowden outlined your family dynamics, education, working history, the offending, and your reactions, subsequent to your plea and remand. She carefully went over your offending to extract your explanations.

41 The way it was done means I had a sense of your authentic remorse for what harm you caused. In that sense, your developing insight was captured in the following paragraph. She said:

'Mr Cook said he has insight into the impact of his sexual abuse on the children. He said he knows he has ruined their lives and has taken away their innocence. He said he also knows he betrayed their trust. Mr Cook said that he also knows that he betrayed the trust of the children's parents. He said he feels extremely sorry about what he has done, and no words can describe his bad feelings. He said he feels terrible and feels he made the worst mistake of his life. He said he hates himself for it as it was wrong and he should not have done it'.

42 Doctor Sowden then carefully analysed your pre-existing diagnosis in a well-considered way. She wrote of your developmental diagnosis, that is, your autism, described as Asperger's syndrome, in your early years and the assessments that established that diagnosis. But she describes that you were a high‑functioning individual with some features of autism spectrum disorder. As to your ADHD, she considered this while this was established it was not particularly concerning for your day-to-day life, and certainly not connected to your offending.

43 Her analysis of your post-traumatic stress disorder was particularly perceptive. She delved into episodes of family violence and bullying and considered some symptoms of PTSD existed. It was, as a disorder, resolving and stabilised. Dr Sowden describes your PTSD symptoms as having abated. This, in my view, means that the role of post-traumatic stress disorder in sentencing is at best moderate. Doctor Sowden opined that the operative and potentially enduring factor is your borderline personality disorder, evidenced by your deception of the victims' parents and in your antisocial personality traits. Of these diagnoses she wrote:

'Mr Cook is considered to meet the criteria for a Borderline Personality Disorder in that he suffers: frantic efforts to avoid abandonment; identity disturbance; persistently unstable sense of self; impulsivity including his sexual behaviour with children without considering the impact on the children or their parents; emotional instability; intense anger towards his father and stress‑related paranoia (i.e. being very anxious about others perceive him [sic] and thinking people think negatively about him'.

'Mr Cook is also considered to have mild Antisocial Personality Disorder tendencies due to his willingness and ability to deceive the parents of the children he sexually abused. Deception is a core feature of antisocial personality disorder (ASPD), characterised by a pervasive pattern of lying, conning, and manipulating others for personal gain or pleasure'.

45 As to your risk and paedophilic disorder, she considered that as a consequence of the appropriate testing using risk testing protocols, you were a moderate risk of like-offending into the future. Her assessment was that facing the consequences of your paedophilic conduct and having a sense of the harm it caused, and because you have no access to children, your paedophilic disorder was in remission. Doctor Sowden recommended treatment for you which she considered may reduce your risk from moderate to low.

46 For sentencing purposes, it does not seem to me that any of your diagnoses were realistically connected to your offending so as to lower your moral culpability. On the contrary, your borderline personality disorder and your antisocial personality traits operate to increase the need for weight to be given to protection of the community. The High Court in Bugmy[4] endorsed what was said in the important New South Wales sentencing case of Engert[5], where mental ill-health was seen at the same time as mitigating with respect to one sentencing purpose but aggravating with respect to another sentencing purpose. The High Court said:

'The point was made by Gleeson CJ in R v Engert in the context of explaining the significance of an offender's mental condition in sentencing:

"A moment's consideration will show that the interplay of the considerations relevant to sentencing may be complex and on occasion even intricate. In a given case, facts which point in one direction in relation to one of the considerations to be taken into account may point in a different direction in relation to some other consideration. For example, in the case of a particular offender, an aspect of the case which might mean deterrence of others is of lesser importance, might, at the same time, mean that the protection of society is of greater importance".'[6]

47 Finally, with respect to your mental health, it was submitted that your conditions would make prison more onerous and prison may make your conditions worse. While nothing was put forward as to your difficulties in prison thus far, it is early days. You have only served 27 days on remand. I will, to a limited extent, ameliorate your sentence as a consequence of your conditions making gaol for you more onerous and potentially causing them to worsen. Doctor Sowden briefly offered an opinion in support of that proposition.

48 As to the submission that your upbringing was disadvantaged or dysfunctional, such that there ought to be moderation of your moral culpability, on all the evidence, especially the latest psychological report, I consider that the mitigatory matters raised in the High Court in Bugmy and later, in our

Court of Appeal in Hermann[7] and Ale[8], are not sufficiently established to warrant mitigation. Of course, as the High Court made clear in Dalgliesh[9], I have considered all aspects of you as the offender and ensured that they have been well considered in the instinctive synthesis.

49 A final but important aspect of your personal circumstances is that you do not have any prior criminal history. It was said by the Crown that your prior good character enabled you to have access to children. Upon consideration of further material read by your counsel from the statement of the mother of victims 1 and 3, I consider that the operation of s 5AA[10] does not reach the standard where I would be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that your prior good character gave you access to the children in that case.

50 Thus, your prior good character does have relevance to those offences, including that of victim 2. It is not the case with respect to victim 4. I am satisfied that you were assisted in the commission of the offence by reason of your prior good character, which enabled you to tutor the children. Although there was a friendship between you and the mother, that was outside the institutional environment. I am satisfied to the criminal standard that your prior good character ought not factor into consideration of those offences.

51 I have taken into account your plea of guilty. As noted, these pleas of guilty came as the trial was about to be called on, and there had been significant cross‑examination of all victims. Nonetheless, you relieved the female victims of giving evidence in a trial. Your plea of guilty is of value to the whole criminal justice system. The plea is further evidence of your remorse, which I make clear I consider to be established following the reading of the report of Dr Sowden.

52 Your sentence will be less because of your pleas of guilty. The relatively new standard sentencing regime captures your offence as committed against victim 4. That means there are two statutory guideposts for those two offences, Charges 6 and 7. The guideposts are 10 years of imprisonment as the maximum term and four years imprisonment as the standard sentence. The four years standard sentence is what parliament has provided as the statutory guidepost for middle range seriousness as assessed by objective factors alone.

53 The statutory guidepost for the other charges of indecent act with a child under the age of 16 is a maximum term of 10 years imprisonment. As for the standard sentencing, I consider your offending to be less than the middle level in the range of seriousness considering objective factors alone. As to the statute, the Court of Appeal decision in Brown[11] made clear that a finding such as I have just indicated is part of the continuing instinctive synthesis of all factors. If it has not been made clear, I do consider your moral culpability to be very high. You knew what you were doing was wrong, but you went ahead anyway, putting your perverse satisfaction in front of the needs and the vulnerabilities of the children.

54 The earlier offences against victims 1, 2 and 3 were before the commencement of the standard sentencing, and earlier sentencing cases can be considered as comparators if it is appropriate to do so. I am also mindful of the Court of Appeal decisions in Stalio[12] and Hague[13] where reference to sentences passed at the time of the offending was said to be relevant if discernible and were not to be seen as "cap and collar"[14] to sentencing in later years. I have considered the matters articulated in Stalio and Hague and have approached the setting of a just and appropriate sentence on the basis that sentences for sexual offences have become sterner so as to properly express the community's concern and Parliament's stated intention in its alterations of the Sentencing Act 1991.

55 By operation of statute, you will become a serious offender after I impose sentences which are inevitably gaol terms for Charges 1 and 2. The consequences of being declared a serious offender are twofold. Firstly, the protection of the community becomes the primary sentencing purpose and, secondly, the presumption of concurrency is displaced. However, there is still a role to play in the principle of totality. I will not, given the time, quote from the High Court case of R H McL v The Queen[15] or the later case of Gordon v The Queen[16], or the very recent case of DPP v Dillon[17], where the issues relating to cumulation for a serious sexual offender are in play. As I say, the principles of totality are not wholly eliminated, but the statutory provisions must be appropriately applied.

56 Turning from those technical matters arising out of the statutory provisions relating to serious offenders and the standard sentencing regime, I move to more general and important matters. I need to make clear to you that our community, our Parliament, and the courts all hold the same firm attitude that sexual offending against children is abhorrent and a serious crime. It is required that significant weight be given to the punitive sentencing purposes of denunciation by condemning what you did and the harm that you caused, but by more than just the words expressed in these sentencing remarks. There must be a practical articulation of denunciation by the imposition of years of imprisonment.

57 So too must there be significant weight given to deterrence of others. I must make clear by the imposition of years of imprisonment that if you are thinking of, or are in the least tempted, to enter the dark world of child abuse, then sentences of many years of imprisonment await. I must give primacy to the protection of the community, principally by removing you from our community for many years. To assist in protecting the community and to give you hope, I must not overlook rehabilitation. I will endeavour to establish conditions to facilitate your rehabilitation via the only tool available to me, which is the setting of the non‑parole period. Of course, whether and when you are released on parole is for others, not the Court.

58 What I need to make clear is that parliament has set controls on the fixing of a non-parole period where a standard sentencing offence is involved. It requires that the non-parole period be at least 60 per cent of the head sentence, unless there are good reasons for fixing it lower. It will not be fixed lower in your case. There are no good reasons for it. However, I do allow for a significant period of potential parole because, as was set out in Dr Sowden's report, if you get the appropriate sex offender treatment both in gaol and in the community while on parole then your risk of like offending is lowered and thus I am facilitating the protection of children into the future. However, it is essential that you do all the courses that you are required to do.

59 Thus, doing the best I can, I impose the following sentence. I will express the sentence in years and months, but ultimately, the orders for cumulation will be in months. For committing the crime of indecent act with a child under 16, Charge 1, you are sentenced to three years and two months' imprisonment. Charge 2, you are sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment. Charge 3, 18 months' imprisonment. Charge 4, two years and three months' imprisonment.

Charge 5, one month imprisonment. Charge 6, two years and six months' imprisonment. Charge 7, two years and six months' imprisonment. I order the following cumulation upon Charge 1, the base sentence, which is 38 months. That is three months of Charge 2, three months of Charge 3, eight months of Charge 4, 12 months of Charge 6, and 12 months of Charge 7 be cumulative upon each other and upon the base sentence of 38 months. That gives a total sentence in months of 76 months. That is six yours and four months and I fix a minimum non-parole period of four years.

60 I have been told you have spent 27 days in custody. This figure having been reckoned, I now declare that as part of the sentence that I have just imposed, I will ensure that this declaration is entered into the records of the court so the prison authorities know that you have done 27 days of the sentence I have just imposed.

61 Following the sentence of imprisonment, with respect to Charges 1 and 2, you are declared a serious offender pursuant to the provisions of the

Sentencing Act 1991. From Charge 3 onwards, this declaration is entered into the records of the court. You must be registered on the Sex Offenders Register upon your release from prison. These things are mandatory. The period of time is mandatory. It is life. There are a whole range of responsibilities you now have, including to be in touch with the people looking after your registration. You need to keep them advised of many, many, many aspects of your life, not just where you are living, but cars, internet connections, email addresses, a range of things that are set out in documents that you will be provided.

62 It is important that you understand that there are serious consequences if you do not abide by the requirements of the Sex Offenders Register. I will sign a document which will indicate that you have been provided with all the details of your sex offenders registration. That will come via your solicitors. I will sign a document that you have been provided with these details and I will provide the same document to the Chief Commissioner of Police, who will manage your registration thereafter.

63 Had you pleaded not guilty to these offences and been found guilty of them, I would have imposed a sentence of seven years and

10 months' imprisonment with a minimum non-parole period of five years and six months. Is there anything else required?

68 MS BYRT: I'm just trying to add it up now, Your Honour. I think it does.

69 HIS HONOUR: Yes. Thank you. All right. If there's nothing further, I thank counsel for their very considerable assistance. This was a high-quality plea, Ms Byrt and the material you gained from Dr Sowden is of a quality we rarely see. I'm very grateful for that. Thank you, Mr D'Arcy and your instructor as well. You'll look after explaining things to everyone if you have to. We can't keep anyone on the link now. We'll just finish the link and you can speak to your client in due course, Ms Byrt. Thank you.

[1] Final Report: Preface and Executive Summary, Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, p 5.

[2] Fichtner v The Queen [2019] VSCA 297, [67].

[3] Morris v The Queen [2016] VSCA 331, [60].

[4] Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571.

[5] R v Engert (1995) 84 A Crim R 67.

[7] DPP v Herrmann [2021] VSCA 160

[8] Ale v The King [2025] VSCA 92

[9] DPP v Dalgliesh (a pseudonym) [2017] HCA 41

[10] Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic).

[11] Peter Brown v The Queen [2019] VSCA 286

[12] Stalio v The Queen [2012] VSCA 120.

[13] Hague v The Queen [2019] VSCA 218.

[15] R H McL v The Queen [2000] HCA 46; (2000) 203 CLR 452.

[16] Gordon v The Queen [2013] VSCA 343.

[17] DPP v Dillon (a pseudonym) [2025] VSCA 266.