DPP v Hilton

The offending

4. The present case is not the usual form of offending that is encompassed by an offence of persistent sexual abuse of a child. It is necessary to recount the agreed facts in some detail to explain why this is so.

5. The offender and the victim first began communicating on 23 April 2024, when the offender responded to a post made by the victim of herself on the website “Reddit”. The offender and the victim exchanged phone numbers. On the website, the victim had held herself out to be 19 years old. In fact, she was 13 years old. The offender was 31 years old.

6. Over the following days, the victim and the offender exchanged frequent text messages. In those texts, they expressed affection towards each other, and made arrangements to meet in person. They also exchanged intimate images.

7. On 29 April 2024, the victim and the offender met in person for the first time and commenced a sexual relationship. The offender asked the victim to be his girlfriend. Between that time and 20 May 2024, the victim and the offender considered themselves to be in a relationship. They engaged in sexual intercourse on a number of occasions, without the use of a condom. The victim commenced using an oral contraceptive.

8. The prosecution accepts that during this period, the offender believed the victim to be over the age of 18 years. The prosecution did not submit that there was any criminal conduct during this time.

9. On 19 May 2025, the offender invited the victim to go to a sex shop with him. He told her that she would need to bring identification. The victim told the offender that she had lost her identification and that she may not be able to go with him. On 20 May 2025, the offender continued to ask the victim to verify her age, including with a birth certificate. The victim maintained that she was 19 years old.

10. Shortly after 5pm that evening, the victim and the offender had a text conversation in which the offender said: Um I am worried I have no way of knowing how old you are. Bad shit happens to people in prison if child sex is involved. I’m not say you’re lying As a much older man I feel I’m required to check and probably should have before.

11. In those text messages, the victim responded, “I get it dw [don’t worry]”, and “Yeah I get why u wanna see my ID”.

12. Later in the text exchange, the victim asked if she could stay at the offender’s house sometime that week. The offender agreed, but added “Kinda want to see some form of ID if you could work on that”. The victim said she would “find it asap but if I don’t find it by tomorrow, I can just wait till I find it I guess”. The offender responded, “I would be happy with a verbal communication from a family member haha”.

13. About half an hour later, the victim disclosed to the offender that she had lied about her age, and said that she was only 17 years old. The victim said that she was telling him this because she knew that the offender would not “drop the ID thing”. She also told the offender that she was still above the age of consent and that she would turn 18 in four months. The offender responded, “ok give me a moment to process and I’ll get back to you x”. The offender then added “wow I have a lot of cp” and asked the victim to take down her Reddit posts. The offender clarified that cp referred to “child porn” and that the content would “send [him] to prison”.

14. The next morning the victim messaged the offender and asked how he was. The offender told the victim that he could not date an underage person and that it would be inappropriate to continue with the relationship. The following exchange then occurred: Victim: Mhm ok well I’m well under the age of consent lied about being 17 to but haven’t told anyone Victim: Don’t kill urself but im 13 Offender: Please no Offender: Really Victim: Yeah Victim: Turning 14 Offender: Ouch Victim: TF u mean ouch? Victim: Well can’t do anything about it now Victim: Yeah one last thing Victim: I think I’m pregnant Offender: ? Victim: I took a test Offender: And? Offender: ? Victim: It was positive

15. The offender asked the victim to send him a photo of the positive test and one next to her face. She did so. The victim and the offender discussed options, including whether the victim would have an abortion. The offender reassured the victim that if she kept the baby, he would be present in her life to assist.

16. At around 6pm on 22 May 2025, the victim disclosed to the offender that she was suicidal. She said that she did not believe that she could cope with having an abortion. The offender offered emotional reassurance. The offender asked the victim whether she still loved him. The victim said that she did. The victim asked the offender whether he still loved her. He replied, “no comment”.

17. At around 10pm, the victim disclosed that she was “close to ending it”. The offender offered to pick the victim up. She eventually accepted, and the offender drove to the victim. Once he arrived, the victim and the offender talked in his car about the pregnancy. They began kissing. The offender was intoxicated. The victim and the offender went back to his house, where they engaged in unprotected penile-vaginal intercourse. The victim stayed the night with the offender.

18. The next day, the victim received a call from police because she had failed to attend school. The victim said that she did not want police to come to her house, but agreed to attend the police station. The offender drove the victim home. They told each other that they loved each other as they said goodbye.

19. The victim and the offender continued to talk to each other each day after this time. On 29 May 2024, the victim told the offender that she had been to the doctors because of pain and spotting. She said that she had been told that she was suffering from an ectopic pregnancy. She had woken up to extreme pain, and had urinated large amounts of blood, but did not see a doctor because she did not want to tell her mother about the pregnancy. She reported that after 2-3 days, the pain went away.

20. After the victim told the offender that she was no longer pregnant, the offender told the victim that he was happy to be friends, but could not continue a sexual relationship. On 29 May 2024, they had a text message exchange in which the offender said that he wished that the victim was 18. He told the victim that he was happy to meet up, but that there was to be no “bedroom stuff”.

21. On 3 and 5 June 2024, the offender and the victim had various conversations at the instigation of the victim. On 10 June 2024, the offender sent the victim a message in which he told the victim that he missed her. They had a further conversation the following morning, in which the offender acknowledged that he had been drunk when he sent the message. The victim told the offender that she still loved him and asked whether the offender wanted to “hangout sometime or something”. The offender told the victim that he missed her and that he wanted to see her, but that he was “not sure if I can be not naughty…”

22. The victim sent the offender a fully clothed photo of herself. The offender complimented the victim. They discussed the sexual acts that they had previously engaged in. The offender sent the victim a picture of himself masturbating. The victim sent a picture of herself exposing and fondling her naked breasts. The offender and the victim made arrangements to meet the next day. The victim sent seven sexualised images of herself. The victim and the offender continued to engage in discussion about sexual encounters, including those which would be pleasing for the offender.

23. Over the next two days, the offender and the victim engaged in regular text message conversations, which included the sending of sexually explicit images by each of them, and discussion about sexual acts.

24. On 12 June 2024, the offender and the victim made plans for the victim to attend his home. The offender had been drinking. The offender picked up the victim near her home. The offender engaged in sexual intercourse with the victim in the offender’s car, including digital penetration and penile-vaginal penetration.

25. On 13 June 2024, the victim sent the offender a naked picture of herself with her breasts and genitals exposed. The offender told the victim that he “felt guilty again”, and that while he loved it “at the time”, he felt bad afterwards. The offender said that he thought that it was best for them not to see each other. The victim agreed.

26. On 28 June 2024 and 4 July 2024, the offender messaged the victim twice. In the first message, he said “Sorry but you up?” In the second message, he said “Whhhyyyy… I still miss you… but crimes”. He also added that he still loved the victim. On 16 July 2024, the offender sent the victim a message saying that he hoped that she was okay, and asking whether she was still single.

27. During various conversations after 20 May 2024, the offender encouraged the victim to attend school and to address her mental health. They discussed the victim’s family situation, which the offender had been told by the victim was not stable. The offender disclosed that he had been the victim of sexual abuse at the hands of his mother.

28. The victim’s father confiscated her mobile phone in July 2024. The victim found the offender on Facebook. She told the offender that she missed him and that she wanted to see him.

29. The offender discovered the messages in late July. After this time, the offender and the victim spoke via Facebook. In those messages, the victim asked if she could sleep over. The offender agreed, but said that he would “have to sneak [her] around”. The offender said that he could not wait to “be with” the victim again. The victim replied, “Can u not just randomly change ur mind about me again tho? It kinda hurts to be ditched”.

30. The offender arranged to pick up the victim, which he did. The offender took the victim back to his house, where they engaged in sexual acts with each other. The following day, they discussed the anxiety that the victim’s mother had felt about her staying out so late. The victim disclosed that she needed regular mental health treatment, and the offender spoke to her about what to do if she was suicidal.

31. The offender and the victim discussed how they would continue the relationship given her mother’s concerns. The offender suggested that the victim tell her mother that she was starting bass guitar lessons, and that he was her teacher. The offender asked for confirmation from the victim that she would not see other people. The victim agreed.

32. Between 24 July 2024 and 31 July 2024, the victim sent the offender three images depicting herself in sexualised positions, one of which was focussed on her genitals. On 3 August 2024, the offender told the victim that he was “still down for pics when you want to send them”, but reiterated that it was only if she wanted to.

33. On 4 August 2024, the victim asked the offender if she could come over one day when his father was not home. The offender said that he didn’t want to wait four years, and that it was hard to see her constantly. The victim told the offender that she still loved him, but that she needed to regularly see the person she was dating. As a result of these issues, the victim and the offender agreed to break up. However, they remained in contact with each other.

34. On 5 August 2024, the victim asked the offender if she could send him “one more nude”. The offender responded, “you can send whatever you feel like sending”. The offender told the victim that he had been drinking, and said that he wanted engage in sexual intercourse with her. The victim agreed to be picked up by the offender. The following day, the victim and the offender sent messages about the sexual acts which had occurred the night before. Later that day, and subsequently on 10 August 2024, the victim sent the offender further sexualised images of herself. The offender also sent the victim a picture of his buttocks in underpants.

35. During the Facebook communications over this period, the offender became aware that the victim was still self-harming. He encouraged her to confide in him. The victim told the offender that she wished to resume the relationship when she was 18 years old, and that she wanted to remain single, and stay in contact with him until that time.

36. On 11 August 2024, the offender told the victim that he did not want her to put her life on hold for him, but that he was on the same page as her. He said that she would need to find someone more appropriate and that they both needed more attention and affection than what they could give each other. In reply, the victim told the offender that she needed to stop talking to him as they had both agreed it was not going to work in the future.

37. On 13 August 2024, the victim sent the offender a message asking to get together “one last time” before they cut ties. The offender responded that he was unwell. On 17 August 2024, the victim sent the offender two naked sexualised images of herself.

38. On 28 August 2024, the victim asked the offender if they could hang out one last time. The offender said they could as he would like a “little sex”, although it “was naughty”. The offender told the victim that he still wanted to have sexual intercourse with her. The offender asked the victim to sleep at his house and offered to pick her up.

39. The offender picked the victim up. The victim snuck out of her house through her back window. The victim and the offender began kissing in the car. They drove around whilst waiting for the offender’s father to go to sleep. At around 11:30pm, the victim went into the offender’s house, where they had unprotected penile-vaginal intercourse. The offender had consumed cannabis and alcohol earlier in the evening.

40. The offender drove the victim home the next morning. Meanwhile, the victim’s mother, who had become concerned when the victim did not return home, had discovered the victim’s iPad under the victim’s bed. The victim’s mother read the messages that had been exchanged between the victim and the offender the night before, and had contacted their caseworker at Child and Youth Protection Services (CYPS). When the victim returned home and found that her mother had her iPad, she became angry. CYPS arrived during this discussion. The victim’s mother then attended police with photographs of some of the communications between the victim and the offender.

41. Shortly after the victim’s mother reported the matter to police, the victim was required to be hospitalised due to concerns for her mental health.

42. When the victim was subsequently interviewed by police in hospital, she maintained that whilst she had been at a male’s house the night before, the male was her age.

43. Police obtained a search warrant for the offender’s home and seized the offender’s phone. The offender and his father assisted police in finding the things that were listed in the search warrant. Police found images of the victim on the phone which were considered child exploitation material.

44. The victim subsequently participated in an Evidence in Chief Interview, where she disclosed details of the sexual and intimate relationship that she had had with the offender.

Victim impact statement

45. The victim’s mother prepared a Victim Impact Statement. In that statement, she described how the offending had affected her own wellbeing, health, finances and her relationship with her daughter. She explained: The secrecy [the victim] was required to maintain to enable and prolong his offending came at a significant cost to my relationship with my daughter at that time. My confidence and resilience as a parent also suffered, just when my child needed me most.

46. I was informed that the victim herself had not read this statement. I was informed that the victim was aware of the sentencing proceedings, but had chosen not to take part. In addition to the evidence given by the victim’s mother regarding the effect of the offending on herself, the victim’s mother also gave evidence about the effect of the offending on the victim. As outlined in DPP v Hilton (No 2) [2025] ACTSC 525, I have taken into account the extensive harm that has been caused to the victim’s mother personally, and to her relationship with her daughter by the offending. As I have not received any victim impact statement directly from the victim, I have been more cautious in my approach to the description of the harm occasioned to her, appreciating that the causes of distress may be multifaceted, and not only attributable to offending.

47. Nonetheless, the offending was of a character which commonly gives rise to “profound and deleterious effects upon victims” (R v Page [2022] ACTCA 65 at [52]), which sometimes may not be immediately appreciated, even by the victim themselves. Further, it is clear from the agreed statement of facts that the offending has caused the victim considerable mental harm. She was hospitalised shortly after the offender’s arrest. I will sentence the offender on the basis that he caused harm not only to the victim’s mother, but also to the victim herself, and that the extent of that harm may be lifelong.

The offender’s subjective case

The offender’s background

48. The offender was born in Perth in Western Australia, and moved to Canberra when he was five or six years old. He has two brothers. His parents separated when he was 13 years old. He has been raised by his father, a single parent, since that time.

49. The offender was subject to emotional abuse, alcohol misuse and inappropriate sexual behaviour at the hands of his mother throughout his childhood. The offender’s mother was frequently intoxicated. She was prone to discussing her own sexual abuse with the offender. The offender reported that when he visited his mother as an adult, “she would make [him] touch her [sexually]”. The offender stated that on one occasion, his mother was “forcing herself at [him]” and “grabbing [his] hands to place on her sexual parts. [He] had to push her off and this was the last time [he] saw her before she died”.

50. The offender was employed in disability services prior to a workplace incident, which has subsequently hindered his capacity to work.

The offender’s mental health

51. The Court was provided with two reports and a letter from Ms Tabitha Frew, psychologist, who had interviewed the offender in February and October 2025. Ms Frew had authored a psychological assessment report, dated 14 April 2025; a letter in support of the offender’s bail application, dated 23 June 2025; and a supplementary report dated 17 October 2025. Ms Frew also gave oral evidence in the sentencing proceedings.

52. In her initial report, Ms Frew diagnosed the offender with Autism Spectrum Disorder, level two, without intellectual or language impairment and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). Ms Frew was also of the opinion that the offender suffers from the following mental health conditions: (a) Major Depressive Disorder (b) Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) (c) Alcohol Use Disorder, moderate, in full remission, in a controlled environment (d) Cannabis Use Disorder, severe, in full remission, in a controlled environment.

53. Ms Frew did not consider that the offender had any paedophilic or paraphilic tendencies. She gave evidence that the offender’s conduct during the period of offending was “significantly influenced by longstanding neurodevelopmental and trauma-related vulnerabilities, rather than by predatory or paraphilic (paedophilic) intent”.

54. Ms Frew was of the opinion that the offender’s Autism, ADHD and PTSD “likely contributed to [the offender’s] conduct and decision-making concerning [the victim], to a moderate causal degree”. She considered that the offender’s impairments, including due to the impacts of his mother’s sexual abuse, “reduced his capacity to adequately process the moral and interpersonal meaning of [the victim’s] age once it was disclosed, and to act with the restraint expected of an adult”.

55. Ms Frew explained that the offender’s experience of custody has been rendered more challenging as a result of his complex neurodevelopmental and mental health profile.

56. In her oral evidence, Ms Frew noted that being diagnosed with Autism and “having to stand up for himself in custody” had been “helpful” for the offender’s confidence and assertiveness. She also noted that the offender had received some treatment, and shown “good improvement” in understanding his condition. However, she considered that he was “not yet able to fully comprehend the causal contribution [of his condition] to the offending”.

57. Ms Frew confirmed that counselling could occur in a custodial environment or in the community, and would be on a fortnightly basis if the offender remains in the community.

58. At the time of the sentence hearing, the offender had undertaken one therapy session with Ms Frew, and was scheduled to have a further appointment with Ms Frew on 23 October 2025, which was the day after the sentencing hearing. I was subsequently informed that the offender has attended a further four sessions with Ms Frew since the proceedings on sentence. The offender’s physical health

59. The offender suffers from chronic pain in his shoulder, alongside chronic headaches, due to two serious shoulder injuries he has had in the past arising from the workplace accident referred to above and a serious car accident. The offender sustained permanent nerve damage to his shoulder, has required bone graft surgery, and has a permanent metal plate in his shoulder.

60. The offender uses the medication Lyrica to manage his pain. However, while he was in custody, he was not provided with Lyrica. The prosecution submitted that this was not because Lyrica was unavailable to those in custody, but rather because Corrective Services could not confirm that the offender had previously used the medication regularly in the community.

61. It appears that this was because the offender was self-medicating with cannabis to manage his pain before he was taken into custody. Since his release from custody, the offender has not been taking cannabis, and has been using Lyrica to manage his pain. I accept that the offender suffered significant pain whilst in custody prior to the grant of bail.

The offender’s drug and alcohol use

62. The offender had used cannabis recreationally from when he was 18 years old. He denied significant use of alcohol until after his first shoulder injury, which occurred when he was 23 years old. Following this injury, the offender engaged in “daily, problematic” use of cannabis and alcohol. Whilst in custody, the offender ceased his use of cannabis and alcohol. The offender has maintained his abstinence from these substances since the grant of bail and has returned negative results for weekly urinalysis tests.

Character references and criminal history

63. The offender has no prior convictions, other than for driving offences committed in 2018.

64. The offender’s father provided a character reference. The offender’s father confirmed, consistently with the evidence before the Court, that the offender has only had relationships with women close to his own age prior to the offending. The offender’s father also described the offender’s compassion for others, recounting an incident where the offender had responded to a young neighbour who was suffering from a hallucinogenic overdose. The offender picked the young neighbour off the roadway, and held the young man down, ignoring his own pain, until the police were able to arrive.

65. The offender was living with his father at the time of the offending. The offender’s father described the circumstances of the offending as follows: At the time of the offending I would describe [the offender] as ‘stuck’ and lonely. He was drinking heavily and had recently had surgery to repair a broken clavicle an injury he had endured for 2-3 years due to his fear of having an operation. I had taken him to hospital on one occasion regarding a mental health episode where he felt ‘unsafe’. He sought me out to help him out. We had several discussions about his life. He was keen to go to a residential program to get off alcohol and he felt he was dyslexic as he found it hard to learn. He was depressed and was still impacted by unresolved issues arising out of his mother’s premature death in 2019.

66. The offender’s father confirmed that the offender is committed to addressing the underlying causes of his offending. He said that the offender is now seeking assistance in the pursuit of a higher or vocational education.

Remorse

67. The author of the Pre-Sentence Report (PSR) and Intensive Correction Order Assessment Report (ICOAR) reported that the offender: … appeared to demonstrate some victim empathy and verbalised an understanding of the severity of his offences. Despite this, he appeared to minimise some of his responsibility, noting he had tried to convince the victim to “date someone her own age” during the time of the offence. [The offender] expressed some understanding of the contributing factors for his offending behaviour, noting during this time he lacked self-care and did not understand the potential consequences of his actions.

68. In her oral evidence, Ms Frew explained that, by reason of his Autism, the offender has a limited capacity to express remorse. However, she said that he has come to express remorse through the lens of his own experience of being sexually abused or groomed in childhood.

69. In his character reference, the offender’s father also described the offender’s remorse as follows: [The offender] has shown significant insights into his offending, particularly through the process of articulating the agreed facts. This gave him some perspective and distance to appreciate the severity of his actions. Initially he had justified his actions on the basis of the willingness of the victim, who sought him out after the relationship ended. He believed that her home life was poor and that he was having a positive influence on her mental health. Later conversations with [the offender] established that it was not his place or role to try to help the victim with mental health and clearly the sexual contact was criminal and he has accepted responsibility for this. He has indicated that he is sorry for his impact on his victim and her mother. He has no intention of ever seeing the victim again.

70. The offender also provided the Court with a letter in which he explained his remorse for the offending. He said: When I first started seeing [the victim], I genuinely believed her to be an adult. I was mortified when she told me she was 17 as I was concerned that the images and videos we had been sharing would be child porn. Then when she said she was actually 13 and pregnant, I was completely beside myself and sought to cease contact. However, we had by then developed an emotional connection and I was deeply concerned for her mental wellbeing. I believed I could help her, having experienced similar struggles with self-harm in my own life. I now recognise that continuing the relationship was a serious error of judgment by me. At the time, I did not fully comprehend the harm I was causing. My initial perception of her as an adult lingered in my mind, despite knowing her actual age. I don’t say this as an excuse, but to explain my understanding of why I continued.

71. I accept that the offender is now remorseful for his conduct.

Plea of guilty

72. The offender pleaded guilty in the Magistrates Court on 27 May 2025. The prosecution acknowledged that there was a “high utilitarian value to [the plea], in circumstances where the offending involved sexual acts committed against a vulnerable child and avoided the need for a contested trial and cross-examination”.

73. However, the prosecutor contended that any reduction under s 35(4) of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) should be decreased because the case against the offender was overwhelmingly strong.

74. I do not accept the prosecutor’s submission that the present was an overwhelming case. Particularly given the victim’s condition in the aftermath of the offending, the prospect of the victim giving evidence at trial was not guaranteed. The text messages, whilst compelling, may not have been admissible if the victim did not give evidence to authenticate them. Further, the elements of the offence under s 56 of the Crimes Act require proof of more than the fact that an accused committed more than one sexual act against a child. It is also necessary for the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused engaged in a “relationship” with the child. A jury may have had a doubt about this element if the victim did not give evidence against the accused.

75. Cases such as the present are resource intensive, for both the prosecution and the Court. Importantly, they also give rise to significant trauma. The stress of both the anticipation of giving evidence and the process of giving evidence is unfortunately an unavoidable consequence of trial, which has significant adverse effects on the mental health of victims and their families. The rationale of s 35 of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act, namely, to encourage pleas of guilty, recognises this.

76. For these reasons, it is only in a clear case that the Court should find that a case is overwhelming. The present case, while strong, was not overwhelming. I will afford the offender a 25% reduction of the sentence to be imposed by reason of his plea of guilty. Determination

77. The present case is not the usual form of offending that is encompassed by an offence of persistent sexual abuse of a child. At the time that the relationship commenced, the offender was not aware of the victim’s true age. The offender had developed a close emotional and sexual relationship before he was told the victim’s actual age. The offending did not have its inception in the kind of predatory behaviour which typically characterises offending under this provision.

78. However, the relatively innocuous commencement of the relationship should not obscure the seriousness of the offending that occurred after the offender became aware of the victim’s age. The unlawful relationship (from after the offender learned of the victim’s true age) subsisted for a period of a little over three months, between 20 May and 29 August 2024, and encompassed offences of sexual intercourse with a child under 16 years, acts of indecency on a young person under 16 years, using a child under 16 for the production of child exploitation material, grooming and possession of child exploitation material. The offending only came to an end as a result of the arrest of the offender.

79. The offender engaged in sexual acts with the victim on at least six occasions, and had penile-vaginal sexual intercourse with the victim on at least four occasions. On at least three of these occasions, the offender did not use a condom. By engaging in unprotected sexual intercourse, the offender risked the young victim becoming pregnant, or contracting a sexually transmitted disease. This aspect of the offending was particularly grave. The offender had personal experience of the devastating effect of the pregnancy on the victim’s mental and physical health. He knew that the victim had avoided necessary medical care because of her fear of telling her mother about the pregnancy. As the prosecutor submitted, the offender’s decision to engage in sexual intercourse for his own sexual and emotional gratification represented a complete disregard by the offender for the impacts of the offending on the victim.

80. The offending was not limited to the occasions of sexual intercourse. Other sexual acts occurred. Further, the offender sent the victim sexualised text messages, including sexually explicit images. He also encouraged the victim to send him sexually explicit images of herself, which she did. As the prosecutor submitted, the ostensible acquiescence of a child cannot operate as a mitigating factor on sentence: Page at [44].

81. The most significant aggravating feature of the offending is the vulnerability of the victim. The victim told the offender that she was feeling suicidal after she told the offender her true age and that she was pregnant. The offender was acutely aware of the victim’s ongoing fragile emotional state. The victim told the offender that the ‘on/off’ nature of the relationship caused her emotional distress.

82. The offender endeavoured to support the victim, by encouraging her to attend school, and by encouraging her to address her mental health. I accept that the offender believed that he was acting in the victim’s interest when he did so. The effect on the victim and her family however, was insidious. The offender’s conduct had the effect of isolating the victim from her parents and other potential supports at a time when she most needed it. The offender encouraged the victim to sneak out at night, and to lie to her parents, including constructing a ‘cover story’ to explain why she was spending time with the offender.

83. The offender recognised that his relationship with the victim was a criminal offence, as seen in the offender’s understandable distress when he first became aware that the victim was 13 years old. When he continued to engage in sexual acts with the victim, he knew that he was engaging in serious criminal conduct.

84. The offender has now accepted full responsibility for his offending. He has pleaded guilty, and in doing so, has avoided the need for the victim to give evidence at trial. I am satisfied that he is remorseful. He has the support of a loving father, who has, and will continue to reinforce the insight that the offender has gained. He is receiving ongoing treatment from a psychologist. I am satisfied that the offender’s prospects of rehabilitation are good, and that he poses little risk of re-offending. The need for specific deterrence is low.

85. As outlined above, the offender’s mother was emotionally volatile and frequently intoxicated. She disclosed her own sexual abuse to the offender when he was young. Ms Frew explained that this is a “form of emotional burden and exposure recognised in clinical literature as being psychologically harmful to children”.

86. The prosecutor accepted that Bugmy principles were enlivened, but submitted that there was no evidence before the Court that the offender’s childhood had a causative link to the offending. In written submissions, the prosecutor noted that the offender did not attribute the offending to his early childhood experiences when discussing the offending in the PSR or ICOAR.

87. It is now established in this Court that a causal connection is not required in order for an offender’s moral culpability to be reduced: The Queen v Ruwhiu [2023] ACTCA 18 at [126]. In any event, it should also be noted that the connection between childhood deprivation and offending may not always be appreciated by the offender themself. This is particularly so where, as here, the offender suffers from a condition such as Autism, which may affect the offender’s insight into their offending. I also note that the offender appears to be gaining this insight from his treatment with his psychologist.

88. I am satisfied that the combination of the offender’s background of disadvantage has interacted with his Autism in a way which provides some context for the offending. As Ms Frew explained: The combination of neglect, exposure to domestic dysfunction and sexual abuse by a primary caregiver has had enduring effects on [the offender’s] capacity for emotional regulation, boundary formation, and adaptive functioning in adulthood, and contributed to the offending pathway. These developmental disruptions also underpin the development of [the offender’s] dependency traits and boundary confusion that contributed to his offending behaviour against [the victim], particularly his difficulty distinguishing emotional caretaking from inappropriate intimacy once he learned of her age.

89. The need for general deterrence is moderated by reason of these matters.

90. However, it remains necessary to denounce the conduct and to recognise the profound harm caused to the victim and her family.

91. There can be no question that the s 10 threshold is crossed, and that only a sentence of full-time imprisonment can meet these purposes. Taking into account all of the matters that I have discussed above, the appropriate term of imprisonment is 4 years, reduced to 3 years by reason of the offender’s early plea of guilty.

92. The offender has already served over 12 months’ full-time imprisonment prior to the grant of bail. This period of custody, rendered more onerous by the offender’s physical and mental health, has achieved a measure of punishment, general deterrence and denunciation.

93. I have given careful consideration to whether the offender should be returned to custody to serve a further period of full-time imprisonment.

94. The determination of this issue has been finely balanced. Taking into account each of the competing considerations outlined above, I have concluded that the need for punishment, general deterrence and denunciation has been met by the term of full-time custody that has been served by the offender in this unusual case. I will order that the sentence of imprisonment that I have imposed be suspended from today, on stringent conditions designed to protect the victim and her family, including a curfew condition, a condition requiring that the offender attend ongoing counselling, and a condition prohibiting any contact with the victim or her family. In view of all of the circumstances of the offending, I am also satisfied that it is necessary and reasonable to impose a condition prohibiting the offender from residing in, or entering the suburbs of [Redacted]. I will make a place order to that effect pursuant to s 23(1)(b)(ii) and (iii) of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act.

Orders

95. The orders of the Court are: (1) For the offence of maintaining a sexual relationship with a young person (CAN 10609/2024), the offender is convicted and sentenced to 3 years’ imprisonment, commencing on 11 November 2024 and expiring on 10 November 2027. (2) The sentence is to be suspended after time served as and from today, 1 December 2025, upon the offender’s entry into a Good Behaviour Order for the remainder of the sentence with the following conditions: (a) The core conditions; (b) The offender reside at [Redacted], or such other place as permitted by the Director-General of Corrective Services or their delegate; (c) The offender is not to reside in, or to enter, the suburbs of [Redacted], without the written permission of the Director-General of Corrective Services or their delegate; (d) [Redacted]; (e) The offender remain at his place of residence between 8:00pm and 6:00am daily, unless there is a medical emergency, until such time as directed by the Director-General of Corrective Services or their delegate; (f) The offender is prohibited from associating with or communicating in any way (including electronically) with the victim or her immediate family; (g) The offender attend psychological treatment sessions on a fortnightly basis, or as otherwise directed by the Director-General of Corrective Services or their delegate; (h) The offender accept the supervision of the Director-General of Corrective Services or their delegate and comply with all reasonable directions, including appropriate referrals to other agencies, until such time as directed by the Director-General or their delegate. I certify that the preceding ninety-five [95] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Sentence of her Honour Justice Baker. Associate: Date: 1 December 2025