• Lawyers in Sydney
• Lawyers in Melbourne
• Lawyers in Brisbane
• Lawyers in Perth
• Family lawyers
• Employment lawyers
• Criminal lawyers
• Wills and estates lawyers
• Find a lawyer

Texts Cited: Practice Direction 2 of 2024: Procedure on Committal to the Supreme Court for Trial – Early Arraignments Parties: Director of Public Prosecutions Chase Creighton (a pseudonym) (Offender) Representation: Counsel J Melloy (DPP) E Chen (Offender) Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions Legal Aid ACT (Offender) File Number: SCC 82 of 2025 BAKER J: Introduction

1. The young person, “Chase Creighton” (a pseudonym), has pleaded guilty to the following offences: (a) Incest with a person under 10 years of age (CH2024/743), contrary to s 62(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), committed between 25 February 2024 and 12 May 2024; (b) Incest with a person under 10 years of age (CH2024/603), contrary to s 62(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), committed on 13 May 2024; and (c) Use carriage service to transmit child abuse material (CH2024/742), contrary to s 474.22(1) of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth), committed on 13 May 2024.

2. The young person also asks the Court to take an offence of use child for the production of child exploitation material (aggravated) (CH2024/604) contrary to s 64(1) of the Crimes Act into account in sentencing him on the second incest offence committed on 13 May 2024.

3. The young person had previously pleaded guilty to an additional rolled up count of incest committed between 1 April 2022 and 31 January 2023 (CH2024/745). However, the young person was 13 years old at the time of this conduct, and as a result is no longer criminally responsible due to legislative amendments to the minimum age of criminal responsibility, which commenced on 1 January 2025.

4. The maximum penalty for the offence of incest is 20 years’ imprisonment. The maximum penalty for the offence of using a child to transmit child exploitation material is 15 years’ imprisonment. The maximum penalty for the offence of use carriage service to transmit child abuse material is 15 years’ imprisonment.

The offending

5. At the time of the offences, the young person resided in his family home with his mother, his father, his eldest sister, younger brother, and younger sister (the victim).

Conduct between 1 April 2022 and 31 January 2023

6. The young person committed sexual acts upon the victim on three separate occasions between 1 April 2022 and 31 January 2023. During this period, the victim was eight years old and the young person was 13 years old. As noted above, the young person is not criminally responsible for this conduct. The first incest charge (one occasion between 25 February 2024 and 12 May 2024)

7. On an unknown date between 25 February 2024 and 12 May 2024, the young person was in his bedroom at home with the victim. The young person was then 15 years old and the victim was nine years old.

8. The young person began to tickle the victim and started giving her a massage by rubbing her back and drawing pictures on her back. They were both fully clothed.

9. The young person then asked the victim to sit down on a chair in his bedroom. He stood in front of her, pulled his pants down, and inserted his penis into the victim’s mouth. He told her to “suck it like a lollipop”. This went on for approximately 1 to 2 minutes. The young person then removed his penis from the victim’s mouth and said “don’t tell anyone otherwise I’ll be in big trouble”.

Offending on 13 May 2024

10. On the evening of 13 May 2024, the young person was at the family home. All of his family members were also at home. The young person was 15 years old and the victim was nine years old at this time.

11. At about 6:19pm, the young person began using the online social media platform Snapchat to speak with another user with the identifier ‘Abby’. The subject of this conversation eventually turned to the discussion of sexual kinks, including incest.

12. Between 7:40pm and 7:42pm, the young person asked the victim to come into the bedroom with him. He pulled his pants and underwear down and told the victim to put his penis into her mouth. His penis was not erect. The victim complied with this direction, and the young person moved back and forth, thrusting his penis into her mouth. While this was happening, the young person used his mobile phone to film two videos via the Snapchat application of the victim performing fellatio on him. These lasted for a duration of five and 10 seconds respectively and were taken from the perspective of the young person looking down at the victim’s head.

13. The young person then sent the two videos to ‘Abby’ via Snapchat, pulled his underwear and pants back up, told the victim to go back to bed, and returned to his bedroom.

Police investigation

14. On 14 May 2024, a young person who was known to the young person attended a police station with her father and reported that another friend had sent her the two Snapchat videos referenced above.

15. Police then attended the young person’s home where they immediately recognised the victim.

16. Police then commenced a record of interview with the young person in the presence of his mother. In the record of interview, the young person admitted that he had sent ‘Abby’ videos via Snapchat of his younger sister performing fellatio on him. He initially said he did this because ‘Abby’ threatened to send naked images of him to people he knows if he did not comply. The young person also said that he had not done anything of a sexual nature “to that level” with his sister before that. He said he may have tickled her and accidentally touched her buttocks on a couple of occasions in the last month.

17. Police then seized the young person’s mobile phone. The young person willingly provided police with the password to the phone. Police did not find any evidence of threats made to him by ‘Abby’ to film and send the videos, although they noted that ‘Abby’ seemed to encourage the behaviour.

18. Police then recommenced the record of interview with the young person with his mother present. When asked about the content of his conversation with ‘Abby’, the young person became visibly upset. He admitted that ‘Abby’ did not expressly threaten to send images of him to other people if he did not comply with her requests; she simply said she would no longer talk to him. The young person admitted that this did not cause him to fear for his safety or the safety of anyone else.

19. Police again asked the young person if he done anything like this before. The young person admitted that he had. He said that he did not mention it before because he was ashamed and afraid. The young person denied ever performing oral sex on the victim. He said that he only said it on the Snapchat conversation to “seem cool”. He said that he engaged in this conduct because he was “curious” and “wanted to experiment”. He said that he does get sexually aroused, but cannot physically feel the arousal due to a medical condition.

20. The young person was then placed under arrest. He spent two nights in Bimberi Youth Justice Centre before he was granted bail.

21. When the victim was subsequently interviewed by police, she disclosed that she was nervous because her mother might become angry if she heard about it. She said that the young person had told her it was all a secret. The offender’s subjective case

Family relationships

22. The young person has lived in Canberra his whole life. His parents are loving and supportive. When the presentence report author asked the person what a safe relationship looked like, he replied “what my parents have”.

23. From 2022 to 2023, the young person’s parents were also kinship carers for two young nephews. The young person’s parents described this time as quite difficult for the family, as the nephews had experienced significant trauma and displayed challenging behaviours.

24. As a result of the bail conditions imposed on the young person in relation to the present offences, he moved out of the family home in May 2024. He has lived with his grandfather since that time. The young person’s grandfather provided the court with a character reference in support of the young person. In that letter, he said the young person has caused him “no trouble” in the time he has been living with him, and that the young person has provided assistance to his grandfather while his grandfather has undergone cancer treatment. The young person’s grandfather told the Court that the young person may live with him for as long as the Court considers necessary.

Medical condition

25. The young person was born with bladder exstrophy, epispadias and renal displacement. As a result, he cannot hold urine and is required to use continence aids. The young person’s mother explained that these conditions have impacted the young person’s relationships with his peers outside of school.

Mental health

26. The presentence report notes that young person was diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in 2021, which is treated with Ritalin. He was further diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder Level Two in February 2025.

27. The young person was assessed by forensic psychologist, Ahu Kocak, on 24 September 2025. Ms Kocak subsequently prepared a report dated 30 September 2025, which was admitted into evidence. She also gave oral evidence in the proceedings.

28. Ms Kocak assessed the young person’s mood as “dysmorphic and anxious”. There were no delusions, obsessions, psychotic phenomena or suicidality present.

29. Ms Kocak assessed the young person using the Connors Fourth Edition assessment tool for ADHD. On this assessment, he received an ADHD Index probability score of 90%, which is “very high” and supports a diagnosis of ADHD.

30. Ms Kocak also assessed the young person using the Juvenile Sexual Offence Recidivism Assessment Tool II, which assesses the risk of sexual recidivism posed by male juvenile offenders aged between 12 and 18 years. The young person received a score of 8, which places him in the “high-risk range” of sexual recidivism in the next five years. However, Ms Kocak also administered the Juvenile Sex Offender Assessment Protocol II, which is another clinical tool used to assess the risk of sexual and non-sexual recidivism among males aged between 12 and 18 years. Overall, the young person scored 35%, placing him at a “low-to-moderate” risk of reoffending on this scale.

31. Ms Kocak expressed the view that the young person is suffering with ADHD and Autism Spectrum Disorder Level 1. She explained that the combined effect of these disorders is that the young person would have had a narrowed capacity to exercise age-expected judgment at the time of the offending. His ADHD symptoms are strongly dominated by impulsivity, which is his most pressing clinical need. He also has a “pronounced difficulty reading social cues, understanding other’s intentions, grasping consent, and anticipated consequences”.

32. In her cross-examination, Ms Kocak accepted that the young person may have experienced some arousal during the offending, but maintained that it was not the young person’s “driving force”. Rather, Ms Kocak was of the view that the young person was driven by a desire to “belong”. As discussed further below, Ms Kocak also maintained in cross-examination that the offender’s risk of re-offending would be increased if a further period of full-time custody were imposed.

Employment

33. The young person is currently employed at a retail outlet, where his father also works. The young person’s employer is aware of the charges to which the young person is now being sentenced, and remains willing to keep him in employment.

Victim Impact Statement

34. The young person’s parents provided a deeply affecting victim impact statement, in which they described the effect of the offending upon themselves and the family.

35. They described how, prior to the offending, they had spent every weekend together as a family, attending children’s sporting matches, and family games nights. After the offending “those weekends no longer happen … without [the young person] there, it is not the same”. They said that Christmas and Easter were also difficult, particularly knowing that the young person was “all alone”.

36. They report that the victim: … is still the same happy, caring child that she always was. There are no bad dreams and the only tears are when she talks about missing [the young person]. She loves her brother and doesn’t really understand why she can’t see or talk to him, only that she misses him terribly.

37. They also describe the effect of the offending on the young person’s other siblings, including his younger brother, who cannot understand why he cannot see his big brother, and how each of the young person’s siblings have missed out on time with their grandfather because he now has the care of the young person.

38. The offender’s mother concluded by describing their fears for the future, and the devastating effect of the offending upon the whole family: We are afraid and worry about what might happen when [the victim] gets older and begins to comprehend more what happened – will it change how she feels about [the young person] and will it affect her in a way that it doesn’t appear to now. It is hard to believe that she is not affected. We are just trying to protect her from the court process and what is happening, she would be devastated if she knew how much trouble he was in… Our family has been ripped in two and so many things have changed. When [the young person] calls on the phone and one of the children answer, he has to hang up straightaway without speaking. My phone calls to [the young person] are taken behind closed doors in secret away from the other children. This is such a difficult thing to talk to others about and to share. I no longer catch up with anyone, no longer chat with the neighbours. It’s easier not to go anywhere or do anything so I don’t have to explain. It has been so isolating. Plea of guilty th

39. The young person entered a plea of guilty on the 13 mention of this matter in the Magistrates Court, which was after the preparation of the prosecution’s brief of evidence. Relying on Mossop J’s decision in Calatzis v Jones [2024] ATCSC 42, the prosecutor submitted that the offender should receive a discount no higher than 20% in recognition of that plea. The prosecutor further submitted that the discount should be reduced further because the prosecution case was overwhelming: s 35(4) of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT). I reject both submissions.

40. As to the prosecution’s first submission, as explained by Taylor J in DPP v Joliffe-Cole [2024] ACTSC 256 at [44] – [58], the observations of Mossop J in Calatzis should not be understood as casting doubt on the appropriateness of the “‘common, if not customary’ approach” of applying a 25% discount to any plea of guilty entered in the Magistrates Court prior to committal. It must be borne in mind that in Calatzis, Mossop J was considering a prosecution appeal against a sentence imposed in the Magistrates Court, where the matter was dealt with to finality in that Court, and was not considering the appropriate discount for a plea of guilty entered in the Magistrates Court for proceedings on indictment prior to committal to this Court.

41. Like Taylor J, I do not understand his Honour to question the availability of a 25% discount in indictable proceedings where a plea is entered prior to committal, albeit following the preparation of a brief of evidence. I also agree with her Honour that a plea at arraignment under Practice Direction 2 of 2024: Procedure on Committal to the Supreme Court for Trial – Early Arraignments may properly attract a 25% discount, in recognition of “the substantial resources diverted from the conduct of a trial including those steps in furtherance of it, such as the finalisation of documents, further investigation, pre-trial applications, directions hearings and call-overs”: Joliffe-Cole at [53].

42. As to the second submission, the case against the young person was only overwhelming because of the young person’s admissions. The young person could not have been identified from the recordings alone. In other decisions where a case against an offender is only overwhelming because of the admissions made by that offender, a reduction in the discount afforded by the plea has been offset by an equivalent reduction of the sentence by reason of the offender’s preparedness to facilitate the administration of justice: DPP v Calhoun (a pseudonym) [2023] ACTSC 189 at [64]; DPP v Henry [2023] ACTSC 384 at [66]–[67].

43. The prosecutor accepted that it was open to the Court to offset any reduction in the discount afforded because of the young person’s guilty plea by a reduction of the sentence by reason of the offender’s facilitation of the administration of justice. However, the prosecutor contended that any such offset should not be “1:1”.

44. I do not agree. The making of full admissions by an offender, particularly in respect of alleged sexual offending, is in many cases, if anything, of greater utilitarian value to the administration of justice than a bare plea of guilty. The making of full admissions not only avoids the need for a contested trial, but also avoids the need for police to undertake a full investigation of the allegations.

45. I will afford the young person a 25% reduction in the sentences to be imposed by reason of the combination of his guilty plea and the admissions which he made.

46. As I would not have granted a higher combined discount in the absence of s 35(4) of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act, it is not necessary for me to consider whether the ‘overwhelming case’ exception is capable of applying to the sentencing of an offender 1 for Commonwealth offences.

Determination

47. As other decisions of this Court have remarked, the sentencing of a young person for offences of incest is difficult. The present case is no exception.

48. As the young person’s legal representative acknowledged, the offending was serious. The offending was repeated and not isolated. Whilst there was no premeditation concerning the first offence of incest, there was an element of premeditation or planning in the second act of incest, as seen in the Snapchat messages in which the young person states “its just really hard to get her away from the family”. For this reason, the second incest offence is slightly more serious than the first.

49. Further, although the young person had a reduced capacity with respect to his judgment and decision making, it is clear that he knew that his conduct was wrong. He stated as much in his record of interview. He also took steps to discourage the victim from disclosing the abuse. The offending occurred within the victim’s home, where she was entitled to feel safe.

50. However, the offending is not the most serious of offences of this nature. The young person is the victim’s older brother, which is not of the same character as the breach of trust which is characterised by an offence committed by a parent, or other adult in a caregiving relationship. No threats were made. Each of the offences were relatively short in duration (around 15 seconds for the second offence, and 1 – 2 minutes for the first offence). There was no violence which accompanied the acts, and the text messages indicate that the young person was concerned not to physically hurt the victim. The victim was 9 years old, which is at the upper end of the offending encompassed by the first two offences. In sentencing for the second incest offence, I will take into account the charge of use child for the production of child exploitation material. This also requires an increase of the sentence to be imposed for that offending: R v Campbell [2010] ACTCA 20 at [46] – [50].

51. The nature and content of the material transmitted renders the offence of use carriage service to transmit child abuse material particularly serious. The offending involved

1 Specifically, whether s 35(4) of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act is inconsistent with s 16A(2)(g) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), such that the former could not be applied by s 79 of the Judiciary Act 1902 (Cth). graphic videos of the victim performing fellatio on the young person. The breach of trust involved in the offending is an aggravating factor for this offence.

52. Fortunately, the victim impact statement does not suggest that the victim is currently suffering harm as a result of the offending. However, offending of this nature may give rise to psychological harm that manifests years after the offending. The offending has caused profound damage to the young person’s broader family.

53. The young person has been on bail for approximately 18 months. He has not reoffended, and has complied with all bail conditions since that time. His work ethic has been described by his employer as “exceptional”. The young person is also developing his family and community connections, as seen by his care of his grandfather during his grandfather’s cancer treatment.

54. The young person had limited insight into his offending when he was first arrested. He told the presentence report author that he would not apologise to the victim because he saw himself as the person who was being punished. However, he later said that he would apologise, and also recognised that the victim should not have to ask for an apology. His initial views of the offending have also developed and matured, as a result of the introspection which has been prompted by the pre-sentence report author. Whilst he initially thought that the offending was “not too bad”, following his conversations with the pre-sentence report author, he is now disgusted by his actions. I am satisfied that the young person is remorseful for his actions.

55. As outlined above, the young person has been diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder, and ADHD. These conditions are relevant for two reasons. First, is the effect of the experience of imprisonment that any sentence of full-time imprisonment would have on the offender. The young person’s parents are concerned that the young person would struggle and be in danger if he was to serve a term of full-time imprisonment as a result of his medical and psychological conditions, and their impact on his social skills and awareness. I am satisfied that the young person’s inability to read social cues would render any full-time custody more onerous.

56. The second matter of relevance in connection with the young person’s mental illness concerns his moral culpability. The prosecution accepted that the offender’s conditions were such as to reduce his moral culpability, but submitted that any consequent reduction in the need for general deterrence and/or denunciation should be entirely offset by the greater need to protect the community.

57. There are two, related, difficulties with this submission.

58. First, as the young person’s legal representative submitted, as a child, the young person is subject to a very different sentencing regime to an adult who committed like offending: see Chapter 8A of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act.

59. Section 133C of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act provides that the Court “must consider the purpose of promoting the rehabilitation of the young offender and may give more weight to that purpose [than other sentencing purposes]”. Where a young offender has good prospects of rehabilitation, those prospects must weigh heavily in the sentencing exercise: MT v The Queen [2021] ACTCA 26; 17 ACTLR 22 at [64]. Further, where the s 10 threshold is crossed, any “sentence of imprisonment must be a last resort and for the shortest appropriate term”: s 133G of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act.

60. These provisions reflect the legislature’s recognition of first, the immaturity of young offenders, who “lack the insight, judgment and self-control that is possessed by an [adult]”; second, that “there are greater prospects of rehabilitation [for young offenders] as there is still opportunity for growth” and third, that incarceration “will likely impair, rather than improve, the prospects of successful rehabilitation [of a young person]”: DPP v Eneliko & Ors [2025] ACTSC 306 at [40], citing Azzopardi v The Queen [2011] VSCA 372 at [34] – [36].

61. Second, the unequivocal evidence of Ms Kocak is that, when dynamic risk factors are taken into account, the young person is currently a low-moderate risk of reoffending, provided current safeguards remain in place. However, Ms Kocack maintained that the young person’s risk of re-offending will increase if he is incarcerated. Incarceration would disrupt the young person’s employment, community and family connections, at a critical time when he is laying the foundation of a prosocial life. The young person requires psychological treatment which will be most effective when delivered in the community. Further, Ms Kocak emphasised that the young person’s risk would be elevated if the young person “starts hanging out with quite anti-social peers”. As full-time incarceration would necessarily expose this young man to antisocial peers, it is clear that any further period of full-time custody would not only fail to further the young person’s rehabilitation, but would positively undermine it.

62. The experience of the young person following his arrest has been such as to bring home the seriousness of the offending to him. He spent two nights in full-time custody. Following his arrest, the young person has been removed from his home; he has no contact with his siblings, and considerably less contact with his parents. He misses his parents, but accepts and is respectful of the bail conditions which preclude him from returning home. He stopped going to school after the offending, and has commenced work with adults considerably older than him. As the young person’s legal representative submitted, the young person “has lost any vestiges of a normal childhood after the offending”.

63. I am required to take into account comparative cases when determining the sentence to be imposed: s 33(1)(za) of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act. The prosecution provided a helpful table of comparative cases which is annexed to this judgment. Some of those cases, such as DPP v Lock (a pseudonym) [2025] ACTSC 231, which involved the commission of depraved and violent acts, are so removed from the present case as to be of no guidance. Similarly, the sentence imposed in BM v R [2019] NSWCCA 223 which concerned conduct occurring in New South Wales is of no guidance as a result of the very different sentencing regime that applies in that jurisdiction. The decisions in DPP v Loughton (No 2) [2025] ACTSC 179, R v AQ [2021] ACTSC 74 and DPP v Vance (a pseudonym) [2024] ACTSC 308 each illustrate that sentences of full-time custody ordered to be served by way of an alternative to full-time imprisonment are open for offending of this nature.

64. Taking into account each of these matters, whilst the nature of the offending is such that the only appropriate sentence to be imposed is one of imprisonment, I do not consider it necessary, or appropriate, for that sentence to be served by way of full-time custody.

65. The present offending involves both Territory and Commonwealth offences. For the reasons given in DPP v Bobb [2025] ACTSC 491, I will commence the Territory sentences first. These will be partially accumulated, so as to take account of principles of totality: Mill v The Queen [1988] HCA 70; 166 CLR 59 at [63]. The Commonwealth sentence will then be partially accumulated on the sentences imposed for the Territory offences. Each of these sentences will be fully suspended. Section 20C of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) provides that a young person may be punished or otherwise dealt with as if the offence were an offence against the law of the State or Territory. Accordingly, the sentence will be suspended under s 12 of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act, as applied by s 20C of the Crimes Act (Cth).

66. The young person spent three days in custody following his arrest. The sentence imposed will be backdated accordingly.

67. In order to provide ongoing protection to the victim, it will be necessary for the young person to continue to live separately to her for the foreseeable future. However, I consider that this risk is best managed by broad supervision conditions that will apply on the conditions of the suspended sentence, which will enable Youth Justice and Adolescent Services to direct the young person as to where, and with whom, he may live. Child Protection Register

68. An application is also made on behalf of the young person pursuant to s 9(3) of the Crimes (Child Sex Offenders) Act 2005 (ACT) that the young person be excluded as a registrable offender on the child sex offenders register. Orders to this effect are common in cases involving young persons: see, for example, DPP v Jones [2025] ACTSC 140; R v AQ [2021] ACTSC 74 at [37]; DPP v Best [2024] ACTSC 334. The Director of Public Prosecutions did not oppose this order being made.

69. Ms Kocak gave evidence in the present case, consistent with the expert evidence in many of the cases cited above, that entry on the register often increases the risk of re-offending where the offender is a young person.

70. I have had regard to the mandatory considerations in s 9(4) of the Child Sex Offenders Act. While the severity of the offence, the seriousness of the circumstances surrounding its commission, and the harm that has been occasioned to the victim and her family, each weigh towards declining the application, the age of the offender and his prospects of rehabilitation, weigh strongly in favour of the application.

71. Having balanced each of these considerations, I am satisfied that it is inappropriate in the circumstances to include the young person on the register.

Orders

72. The orders of the Court are: (1) For incest with a person under 10 years (CH2024/743), the young person is convicted and sentenced to 1 year imprisonment, commencing 15 November 2025 and expiring 14 November 2026. (2) For incest with a person under 10 years (CH2024/603), the young person is convicted and sentenced to 1 year and 3 months’ imprisonment, commencing 15 February 2026 and expiring 14 May 2027. (3) For use carriage service for child abuse material (CH2024/742), the young person is convicted and sentenced to 9 months’ imprisonment, commencing 15 February 2027 and expiring on 14 November 2027. (4) The Territory and Commonwealth sentences are to be immediately suspended upon the young person’s entry into a good behaviour order with core conditions for the remainder of each sentence, with the following additional conditions: (a) Reside as directed by the Director-General or delegate (b) Undertake such treatment or rehabilitation programs as directed by the Director-General or delegate (c) Not travel interstate or overseas without written permission of the Director-General or delegate. (d) Be subject to the supervision of the Director-General or delegate. (5) Pursuant to s 9(3) of the Crimes (Child Sex Offenders) Act 2005 (ACT), the young person is not a registrable offender.

I certify that the preceding seventy-two [72] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Sentence of her Honour Justice Baker.

Associate: Date: 18 November 2025 ANNEXURE A – Table of Comparative Cases

Citation Objective Features Subjective Features Outcome DPP v Lock (a Charges No criminal history. For the offences of incest on a pseudonym) child under 10: 4x act of indecency on a child Age 14-18 at time of the [2025] ACTSC under 10 offences and had the benefit of 231 the sentencing regime • 5 years imprisonment 8x incest on a child under 10 applicable to young persons for • 7 years imprisonment 7x act of indecency on a child all but two offences. • 7 years 6 months under 16 Mental illness operated to imprisonment 10x incest on a child under 16 reduce moral culpability to • 4x 6 years some extend but was not imprisonment 2x unlawful confinement afforded significant weight. • 2 years 8 months Sexual assault in the third Some findings of guilt after trial. imprisonment degree Between 10%-15% discount for offences where there was a Total sentence: 16 years 6 plea of guilty. months imprisonment. Facts All offences were committed by Suspended after serving 10 the offender on their two years. younger sisters. During the offending period the offender was aged 14 to 18, V1 was 10 to 12, and V2 was 7 to 12. The facts of the offending have been redacted from the published judgment. Some insight into the offending can be gleaned from the sentencing remarks at [184]: “The offences were of the utmost gravity. The offences were degrading. A number of the offences were accompanied by threats and derogatory insults. Whilst all sexual offences involve a degree of violence, the offending in the present case, particularly against V2, involved additional violence of a depraved nature”. DPP v Bravo Charges No criminal history. In relation to the offences when (a pseudonym) the offender was a young 25 at time of sentence. [2024] ACTSC 5x act of indecency on a child person: 221 Diagnosed with cannabis use under 16 Attempted sexual intercourse disorder and major depressive 2x incest on a child under 16 under 16: 11 months 7 days. disorder. Sexual intercourse with a Sexual intercourse under 16: 9 Bugmy and Verdins principles person under 16 months. operated to reduce moral Attempted sexual intercourse culpability and need for general 3x act of indecency under 16: 6 with a person under 16 deterrence. months, 21 days, 3 months. 2x make pornographic material available to young person Citation Objective Features Subjective Features Outcome Using a child over 12 for Total sentence: 6 years 6 production of child abuse months material NPP: 2 years 3 months Facts Two of the victims (V1 and V3) were the offender’s half-siblings. The third victim (V2) was his cousin. The offender committed a number of sexual acts against V1 when he was between 12- 14, and V1 was 5-7. He was not criminally liable for these acts as the presumption of doli incapax could not be displaced. The charge of incest, committed upon V1, involved both cunnilingus and penile-vaginal intercourse when the offender was 22 and V1 was 14. The offender showered her sexual videos, touched her breasts and masturbated prior to these acts (these were separately charged). All offences committed on V2 were committed when the offender was a young person. The offender was 14-18, and V2 was 11-14. The first incident involved V2 touching the offender’s penis and performing fellation on him. The offender then attempted to insert his penis into V2’s anus. The next incident involved V2 touching the offender’s penis. The offender then masturbated until ejaculation. Plea Guilty, 25% discount DPP v Charges No criminal history. First AOI: GBO 12 months Loughton (No 2 x act of indecency on a Maintained innocence, no 2) [2025] Second AOI: GBO 18 months person under 16 victim empathy and no ACTSC 179 remorse. 2x incest on a person under 16 Citation Objective Features Subjective Features Outcome Facts ‘Without a clear motivation, it First incest: 6 months was conduct engaged in imprisonment to be served by The offender and victim were without appreciation of its way of an ICO was 120 hours of sisters. In relation to the acts of gravity’. indecency, the offender was 18 CS. and the victim was 14. The offender touched the victim’s Second incest: 8 months breasts, then touched her imprisonment to be served by buttocks, touched her breasts way of an ICO and 120 hours again, and asked to put her CS. finger inside her. These were assessed as the low and mid-range of objective seriousness. In relation to the first charge of incest, the offender was 18 or 19 and the victim was 14 or 15. The offender came into her room and held her down and inserted a finger into her vagina. In relation to the second charge, the offender was 19 and the victim was 15. The offender grabbed her breasts, then got on top of her on the bed and digitally penetrated her. The incident lasted 10-15 minutes. These were assessed as both in the low range of objective seriousness. R v AQ [2021] Charges No criminal history. Incest: 6 months imprisonment, ACTSC 74 Incest on a person under 16 wholly suspended. 16 at the time of sentence (course of conduct) AOI: 3 months imprisonment, Attended 13 psychology Act of indecency on a person wholly suspended. appointments between under 16 (course of conduct) offending and sentence which included treatment addressing Facts his responsibility for offending. The offender and victim were Good prospects of siblings. rehabilitation. The offending was preceded by Evidence of remorse. one or two incidents in NSW No clear explanation for where the offender made the offending. victim perform fellatio and touched her vagina. He was 12 or 13 and she was 8. The offending occurred over a 2-year period. The offender was13-15, and the victim was 9- 11. The offender performed repeated sexual acts on the victim which involved her performing fellatio, him rubbing Citation Objective Features Subjective Features Outcome her vagina and occasionally masturbating him to ejaculation. Plea Guilty, 25% discount DPP v Vance Charges No criminal history. GBO for 2 years. (a pseudonym) Incest on a person under 16 18 years old at time of [2024] ACTSC (course of conduct) sentence. 308 Facts Engaging with counsellor and psychologist in relation to The victim was the younger offending behaviour. sister of the offender. The offending period spanned two Genuine remorse, years. The offender was age acknowledgment of harm 14-16. The victim was 11-14. caused, demonstrated maturity. The offending involved about No identified explanation as to 10 occasions of sexual why offending occurred. intercourse, involving penile-vaginal, penile-oral, digital-vaginal, and cunnilingus. The offender desisted on his own volition, although the reason was not entirely clear. BM v R [2019] Charges Age and mental condition Appeal allowed. NSWCCA 223 Sexual intercourse with a child operated to reduce objective Aggregate sentence on Counts seriousness and moral under 10 (Count 1) 1 and 2: 1 year 6 months culpability. 3x indecent assault (Counts 2- imprisonment 4) Noted that sentencing regime Aggregate NPP: 9 months. recently changed such that only options were a CCO or Facts full-time imprisonment. The offender was the cousin of the victim. At the time of the first incident, the offender was sentenced on the basis he was 13 years and 10 months old, and the victim was 4 or 5. The offender inserted a lollipop into her vagina and rubber her vagina with his bare hand. The second incident occurred years later, where the offender kissed the victim and grabbed her buttocks. Plea Guilty.