DPP v Douglas

1. Whilst living at Walter Crescent Daisy liked to lie on her mother's bed, as she found it comfortable. The next charges occurred at that location, at some time after Incident 1.
2. Daisy was at home, lying on her side on her mother's bed, with her eyes closed trying to fall asleep. The offender lay on his side behind her, and started touching her on her vagina, over her clothing. (Charge 3 Indecent Act with a child under 16). He then pulled off Daisy's pants and underwear.
3. He lifted her left leg and positioned it over the top of his own leg. He put a pillow over her face, holding it in place with one hand, and used his other hand to keep her still. She was unable to move.
4. The offender then rubbed his penis back and forth over her genitalia, for around 10 minutes. She said, of this occasion, that this did not cause pain as he was not trying to penetrate her, rather he continued to rub his penis back and forth over her vagina. (Charge 4 Indecent Act with a child under 16)
5. The offender eventually stopped. Daisy got up from the bed and went to sit on the couch. He remained in the bedroom for a time. After the incident the offender did not say anything about it to her.

1. In March 2016 the offender and Jessica separated, but they continued to be friends, particularly as they both continued to volunteer with the CFA. Daisy and her mother moved out of Walter Crescent by the end of April 2016.
2. By June 2016 the offender was living in a home in Davis Place,[4] Pakenham.
3. One afternoon the offender picked up Daisy from school, as it had been arranged that she would have dinner at his home that evening. When they got to Davis Place, Daisy went to look for his cats, which were in the offender's bedroom.
4. That evening the offender and Daisy had dinner together in the lounge room, having take-away whilst watching a movie. Once the movie was over Daisy returned to the offender's bedroom, to play with the cats, and then to play on her iPad. She sat on his bed, near the window, with that device.
5. The offender went into his bedroom and sat on the other side of the bed. He was looking at something on his mobile phone. He moved near to Daisy and started to touch her thigh, over her school skirt. She tried to push his hand away, and he smiled at her. He said "what, do you not wanna play?".
6. He put his hand under her skirt and touched the top area of her vagina, over her underpants (Charge 5 - Indecent act with child under 16), and then moved her underpants to the side, to touch her vagina and labia, rubbing in a back and forward motion (Charge 7 - Indecent act with child under 16). Daisy recalls that his hand was very shaky.
7. The offender ceased touching her vagina and moved closer to Daisy, starting to position himself on top of her. He removed her underwear, leaving her in school skirt, and moved her so that she was partially lying down. He put a pillow over her face preventing her from seeing and held her hands down.
8. The offender then attempted to penetrate Daisy's vagina with his penis, pushing his penis against the opening of her vaginal canal. This caused her pain. He persisted for some time, then stopped and used a tissue to wipe her vagina. (Charge 6 - sexual penetration of a child).
9. At the time Daisy was 10 or 11 years old.
10. Daisy put her underpants back on and went to sit on the couch. When her mother picked her up Daisy told her she did not want to see the offender anymore.

1. In mid-2019, Daisy told a school friend that she had been thinking about what the offender had done to her and realised that it was bad. Also, during 2019, Daisy was at her father's house when her step-mother initiated a conversation with her, having observed changes in Daisy's behaviour. This was after the family had become aware that the offender had been investigated for possession of child abuse material.
2. Daisy and her step-mother went to the police and Daisy made a preliminary disclosure in July 2019. She did not make a formal statement until May 2020, when a VARE was recorded with her.
3. In January 2021 Jessica, Daisy's mother, took part in a pre-text call with the offender, in which he denied any sexual touching of Daisy or any child. He was interviewed in September 2021 and again denied any offending.

1. The offending against Daisy has had a profound effect on her. Memories of the offender's actions replayed in her head, and she would feel as if the events were happening again. She writes that she viewed the offender as a second father, and had no understanding of how he could and did take advantage of her innocence and vulnerability. The emotional impact has been significant. She regularly self-harmed trying to use physical pain to cope with her emotional pain. She has felt worthless and broken. Her capacity to take part and learn at school was damaged, and she feels that she has failed, and her friends have succeeded at life.
2. She does not want the offender's actions to control the rest of her life, and she is working towards healing, with appropriate supports.
3. Daisy's mother, Jessica, has also been significantly impacted by the offending. She lives and lived with the pain of knowing that a person she - without having any idea of his future actions or perverse desires - involved in her life then abused her child. She lives with self-blame, and having to carry the burden of other's judgment of her. She did her best to care for Daisy through very difficult times, losing friends and work in the process.
4. Both victim impact statements highlight that offending like this fundamentally changes lives. Daisy's childhood, teenage years and her adult life carry the trauma and profound negative impact of your actions. Jessica's life and plans have all been derailed by dealing with the impact of the offending on her daughter, and on her own relationships and activities. These consequences do not cease when the offender is sentenced, and they will persist when he has finished his prison term and returned to the community.

1. Whilst it is necessary for a sentencing judge to engage in an analysis of the gravity of the offending before the court, that analysis does not detract from the fundamental nature of such offending as serious, and deplorable.
2. The maximum penalty that applies to the charge of incest is 25 years' imprisonment, as is the penalty which applies to a charge of sexual penetration of a child under 16, when the victim is under the age of 12 at the time of the offence.
3. The maximum penalty which applies to the charges of indecent act with a child under 16 is 10 years' imprisonment.
4. Sexual offending against children, whether penetrative or not, has a significant negative impact upon that child, often with life-long effect upon their mental health, relationships and quality of life. Defence counsel referred me to the decision of the Court of Appeal in DPP v Wilkerson (A pseudonym).[5] In that case the Court said:[6]

In assessing the gravity of incest, a judge must consider the nature and extent of the specific offending, its frequency and duration, and the circumstances in which it occurred. All incest offending is abhorrent. Without in any way diminishing this observation, the law requires that some assessment be made as to where the particular conduct sits along the spectrum of seriousness relative to other incest cases.

5. The age of the victim is a relevant consideration. In respect to Charge 6, the maximum penalty reflects the increased gravity of such an offence against a child under 12.
6. Submissions were made about Daisy's age at the time of Incidents 1 and 2. Daisy herself remembers that the offending started when she was 7. Defence counsel pointed to the evidence of Jessica, and argued that the offending could have started when Daisy was 8, or towards the end of the relationship between Jessica and the accused, in 2016, when Daisy was 10.
7. To make a finding about a material fact adverse to the offender I would need to be persuaded of that fact beyond reasonable doubt. As discussed at the plea hearing, whether Daisy was 7 or 10 at the time of Incidents 1 and 2 does not make a material difference to my assessment of the gravity of those charges. The factors I consider relevant to the assessment of gravity of Incidents 1 and 2 are:
   • Daisy was a child aged between the ages of 7 and 10 at the time of Incidents 1 and 2;
   • She was so young she did not appreciate the nature of the offending against her, although she did know she did not like it;
   • During Incidents 1 and 2 the offender was living with Daisy's mother, and in a position of trust and care of Daisy. Whilst that relationship is inherent to the offence of incest, it is an aggravating feature of Charges 1, 3 and 4;
   • In Incident 1 that trust meant that Daisy was left in his care whilst her mother was away;
   • In Incident 2 he placed a pillow over Daisy's face and physically restrained her;
   • Incident 2 lasted some minutes, estimated by Daisy as around 10 minutes, and involved the offender repeatedly rubbing his penis over her vagina and anal areas. The acts founding Charge 4 make that a serious instance of that offence.
8. Regarding Incident 3, Daisy was 10 or 11 years old. She was in the offender's home that evening due to the trust her mother had in him as a former partner. Daisy's description of Charge 6 was that the offender attempted to penetrate her vaginal canal with his penis for "a while" showing that this was a persistent effort by him. As with Incident 2 he restricted her movements, and placed a pillow over her face.
9. Each incident increased in gravity. The form of penetration in Charge 2 was a finger and in Charge 6 it was the offender's penis. In Charge 6 whilst his penis penetrated the outer parts of her vagina, he also tried to penetrate the victim's vaginal canal. The use of the pillow over Daisy's face is an aggravating factor, as was his restraint of her movements.
10. Defence counsel submitted that whilst the three incidents meant that none of the charges were an isolated event or a "one off", the offending did not take place in the context of other uncharged acts, and did not have other aggravating features which would have put them at a more serious level of what is an inherently serious offence. I accept that is so, but note that each incident involved factors making the charges above the lower end of the range of gravity for such offences.
11. As to the submission that the offending was 'opportunistic', I do not accept that reduces the gravity of the offending, or the offender's culpability. Whilst it cannot be said that he created the circumstances in which he was alone with Daisy in Incidents 1 and 2, he took advantage of that isolation to sexually abuse her, twice. He clearly had a sexual interest in her, a young girl, which he acted upon when given the chance.

1. At the time of the offending, you were aged between 41 and 44, and you are now 53.
2. Your parents separated not long after you were born, and you were raised by your mother. Your only contact with your biological father was in 2001, not long before he died. You were raised in the country in north-central Victoria, until your mother re-married when you were 12, after which the family moved to Traralgon. You have a younger sister.
3. You say that as a child you had low self-esteem and suffered from anxiety. You had health problems connected to significant weight gain from the age of 7.
4. You report that you were subjected to sexual contact or abuse by your Aunt as a child. Counsel told me that she would sleep naked beside you, when you were ages 6-10, and rub against you. The report from your treating psychologist says that you were sexually abused by your Aunt, although I note that in the sentencing remarks from 2020 this was described as "unsettling sexual experiences."
5. When you were 20 you married, with that relationship ending around 6 years later. You have a son from that relationship, who is now 30. I am told you do not have any contact now with your son. Between 2005 and 2009 you were in another significant relationship.
6. You met Jessica in 2010, and as I have noted you moved in with her and were a couple until 2016. After that relationship came to an end, you started another relationship in May 2017, which lasted until 2024. You say you brought that relationship to an end because of these charges against you. You continue to be friends with that lady and were living with her as friends until you were remanded in custody a week after your arraignment last week.

1. You have several health concerns, most notably diabetes, and a past kidney transplant in 2004. You require ongoing monitoring and medication for these issues. A letter from Monash Health sets out your medical history and multiple current medications. The Monash Health letter indicates that around 10 years ago you had gastric band surgery, as you were significantly overweight.

1. You left school at age 16. At the same age you were diagnosed with kidney disease and high blood pressure. On leaving school you started an apprenticeship with Telstra, and you stayed with that company for 20 years. In 2009 you were made redundant, and in 2010 you started working as a truck driver. Then in 2014 you started working for Metro Trains, as an authorised officer, which employment you remained in until you were arrested for the child pornography offences. From November 2020 you returned to work as a truck driver.
2. You started as a volunteer with the CFA when you were 17. You have contributed to the community by that work, and have assisted in battling a number of bushfires and with other disasters as a volunteer. You were awarded the Australian National Medal and National Emergency Medal for your service during the 2009 Black Saturday fires. Your participation with the CFA ended after you were arrested for possession of child abuse material.
3. You met Jessica through the CFA, as she was also a volunteer with that organisation.

1. Your counsel raised several matters in mitigation of your sentences.

1. You come before me as a man without prior convictions, but with relevant subsequent convictions. On 12 May 2020, you were sentenced to 6 months imprisonment, together with a 2-year Community Correction Order ('CCO') on 1 charge of possession of child pornography and 2 charges of possession of child abuse material. This offending related to 44 images and videos being uploaded to Tumblr between 25 September and 27 October 2018.

1. You have pleaded guilty to the charges before me. In doing so you have saved court time, and you have acknowledged before the victim and her family that you committed these offences against her. Whilst the resolution of the matter was late, at the door of the court, and whilst there was a contested committal, your pleas of guilty nevertheless give rise to a some mitigation of your sentences.

1. Although Daisy made a formal report to police in mid-2020, and you were interviewed in September 2021, you were not charged until January 2024. I was told this was due to resourcing issues within Victoria Police, in that period of time.
2. You were committed for trial after a contested committal in November 2024. The witnesses cross-examined at the committal included the complainant, her mother and her step-mother.
3. The matter resolved on the first day of trial, 17 February 2026, with a charge of incest relating to Incident 2 being amended to a charge of indecent act with a child under 16, and the charge of incest relating to Incident 3 being varied to a charge of sexual penetration of a child under 16.
4. No further offences have been alleged against you in that time. You have completed 47 sessions with a psychologist between September 2019 and April 2023 as part of the Sex Offenders Treatment Program. You have also completed the Better Lives Program as part of your CCO.
5. The report from the treating psychologist indicates you made "solid progress in several areas."[7] You have made progress identifying triggers for your offending, and improvement in life and relationship skills. He notes, however, that even as at the last treatment in 2023 you continued to deny any interest in child abuse material and denied the offending for which I must sentence you. He considered:[8]

whilst [you] made notable progress in sex offender threat, [your] treatment needs should be re-evaluated to ensure that any remaining criminogenic needs that represent risk of reoffending, are adequately addressed.

6. I accept that having this matter hanging over your head, since being interviewed in 2021, will have been stressful and worrisome, although the passage of time between you being charged and the resolution of the matter was largely due to your contesting of the charges.
7. As to your rehabilitation, I accept the characterisation of your prospects of rehabilitation as "guarded". Whilst you pleaded guilty to these charges, and thus formally accepted responsibility, you had maintained to your treater that you had not committed these offences, and had minimised your interest in the child abuse material which you possessed in 2018. Unless you are frank with treaters, you cannot fully address the causes of your offending.
8. With those caveats and assessments in mind, I indicate that I will moderate your sentences to a mild degree on the basis of the consequences of the delay in you being charged.

1. It was submitted your various physical health issues were such that you would be worried about them, whilst in custody. It was not submitted that you would not receive appropriate care, and indeed I was told at the plea hearing that review appointments had been flagged already.
2. You have recently, in February 2026, been reviewed by your previous treating psychologist, Mr Hanley. You completed the DASS-21 self-report tool, scoring in the extremely severe range for depression, anxiety and stress. The report indicates that the cause of those elevated scores was your anticipated incarceration. He noted also that when you were serving your previous sentence you were bullied and harassed.
3. I accept that in combination your time in custody will be more difficult by reason of your concern for your mental health, and past history of being victimised. On the material before me, this somewhat mitigates your sentences.

1. General deterrence, just punishment and denunciation all carry significant weight in sentencing you. Ten years ago, in DPP v Dalgliesh (a pseudonym)[9] the Court of Appeal referred to numerous cases where the Courts had spoken of the importance of sentences for incest to reflect the condemnation the community feels for such offending. The abhorrent nature of the offending, the damage that such behaviour causes to the child victim, mean that condign punishment, or severe sentences should generally be imposed.
2. The Court of Appeal concluded that current sentencing practice for the offence of incest could not "be reconciled with the maximum penalty of 25 years imprisonment"[10] and failed to reflect the gravity of such offending, community values, the need for deterrence, and the harm caused to victims.[11]

1. Current sentencing practice is not a determinative factor in the imposition of sentence. It is one of the many factors and principles that go into the sentencing discretion.
2. I was referred by defence counsel to the case of Wilkerson, which I have already mentioned, and by the prosecutor to two other cases, Nelson (a pseudonym) v The Queen[12] and DPP v Howard (a pseudonym)[13] as relevant comparators. I note that the former case involved pleas of guilty, but Howard did not.
3. The offending in Howard was attended by aggravating factors not present in this case. Nelson is a more useful comparator, although I note that a single case does not establish current sentencing practices. In Nelson the Court of Appeal concluded that sentences of 6 years and 9 months for offences of sexual penetration of a stepchild were within range. The complainant in that case was a little older than the victim in the present matter, and the accused had pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity, and was remorseful. The offending was described as falling in the mid-range, for such offences.
4. The case of Wilkerson also involved sentences imposed post-trial. I note that the Court said, in that case, that "for sentences imposed some years ago, allowance must be made for the fact that incest sentences have been on the rise since Dalgliesh."[14]

1. The offences on which you were sentenced in 2020 were possession of child abuse material and possession of child pornography. Both offences are in Schedule 1 Clause 1 of the Sentencing Act 1991.
2. You received an aggregate sentence in 2020 of 6 months' imprisonment, with a CCO. Thus you have been previously sentenced to a term of imprisonment on a sexual offence, for the purposes of the Serious Offender provisions of the Sentencing Act 1991. The parties agreed that as an aggregate sentence had been imposed, I should treat this as a single prior offence.
3. I will be imposing a sentence of imprisonment on Charge 1 and so by operation of s6B(2) of the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic), you fall to be sentenced as a serious sexual offender on the remaining charges on the indictment.
4. I must therefore regard protection of the community as the principle purpose for which the sentences are imposed.[15] It was not submitted that I should impose a disproportionate sentence, to achieve that aim.
5. Furthermore, s 6E provides that any sentence imposed on a serious offender for a relevant offence must, unless otherwise ordered, be served cumulatively upon any other sentence. This provision impacts the effect totality.

1. This results in a total effective sentence of 12 years' and six months' imprisonment. I set a non-parole period of 9 years.
2. You have been sentenced as a serious sexual offender on Charges 2 - 7, and I direct that that declaration be noted on the record of the court.
3. Pursuant to s6AAA, I state that if you had not pleaded guilty, I would have sentenced you to 15 years' imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 11 years.
4. I declare that you have already served 13 days of pre-sentence detention, not including today, and I direct that that declaration be entered into the records of the court.
5. Charges 2 and 6 are class 1 offences and Charges 1, 3, 4, 5 and 7 are class 2 offences pursuant to the Sex Offenders Registration Act 2004 (Vic). You are thus subject to the reporting conditions under that Act for the rest of your life.

[5] DPP v Wilkerson (a pseudonym) [2025] VSCA 318.

[6] DPP v Wilkerson (a pseudonym), [78] footnote omitted.

[7] Report of Mr Hanley dated 18 February 2026, [8].

[8] Report of Mr Hanley dated 18 February 2026, [9].

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

[10] DPP v Dalgliesh (a pseudonym), [86].

[11] DPP v Dalgliesh (a pseudonym), [123]-[126].

[12] Nelson (a pseudonym) v The Queen [2020] VSCA 36.

[13] DPP v Howard (a pseudonym) [2021] VSCA 298.

[14] DPP v Wilkerson (a pseudonym) [2025] VSCA 318, [84].

[15] Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) s 6D(a).