Sentence: Total Effective Sentence: 20 years and 1 month.
[2]
Serious Sexual Offender; Sex Offender Registration for Life.
[3]
For nearly 20 years between 2000 until 2019, four local families living in this region connected by kinship and friendship helped each other in the raising of their children. The families were the Myers, the Guests, the Howes, the Martinsons and the Bartons.[1]
The children in these families had regular sleepovers at each other's houses and family barbeques were common.
To the outside world it looked like an idyllic country Australian extended family life. As is usually the case among such families, arrangements were based on unquestioned trust. Children were left alone with adults while their parents socialised together.
The level of trust was so great that male adults were entrusted without question with the care of the young daughters of other families.
However, hidden beneath the surface was a dark secret. That secret was only revealed earlier this year because five of the girls, a number of whom are now young women, showed great courage and fortitude in coming forward to inform the police about what had happened to them during those two decades. A comprehensive and thorough police investigation led to a much delayed trial which was heard by a jury in August of this year.
During the trial, the five young women told a local jury what had happened to them. They were all believed and the jury returned verdicts of guilty on 15 of the 17 charges. No verdict was returned on charges 6 and 12 as these were alternatives. Today, 25 years after the first of the offending in 2000, is the day of reckoning for all those concerned.
Ryan Howes,[2] in August of 2025 in a trial before me, you faced the following charges:
[4]
(a) Two charges of sexual penetration of a child under 16;
(b) Nine charges of indecent act with or in the presence of a child under 16;
(c) One charge of attempted sexual penetration of a child under 16;
(d) Three charges of sexual assault of a child under 16; and
(e) Two alternative charges.
[5]
On 28 August 2025, after a 10 day trial, you were found guilty by a jury of 15 charges.
It is now my role to sentence you for your offending following the trial. The task of a sentencing judge following a jury verdict is clear: I am obliged to determine the factual basis upon which you are to be sentenced; the facts I find must not be inconsistent with the jury's verdict; and any adverse findings must be made to the criminal standard.[3]
The maximum sentence which the court can impose in respect of each charge is as follows:
[6]
(a) Sexual penetration of a child under 10: 25 years' imprisonment.
(b) Indecent act with or in the presence of a child under 16: 10 years' imprisonment.
(c) Attempted sexual penetration of a child under 16 (aggravating feature under 10): 20 years' imprisonment.
(d) Sexual assault of a child under 16: 10 years' imprisonment.
Without intending any disrespect I will refer to these young women by their first names. It is necessary to explain the relationships between them and you.
Hailey is your biological daughter, whom you share with Amy Biggs.[9] The other complainants are Ms Biggs' nieces (in the cases of Bianca, Jasmine and Grace) and the daughter of her friend (in the case of Caterina).
The offending occurred over a 19-year period between 2000 and 2019. During this period you were aged between 32 and 51.
At the time of the offending each of your victims was aged 12 or younger.
[9]
Caterina's mother Sarah[10] had been best friends with your wife Amy for over 5 decades.
Caterina was born in July 1994.
When Caterina was young, the two families would see each other around three or four times a year. The families would always spend special occasions together and the children were always present.
The sexual offending against Caterina occurred between the 11th July 2000 and the 11th July 2002 when she was between six and eight years of age.
On an occasion between 11th July 2000 and 11th July 2001, when Caterina was approximately six years of age, you picked her up from her parents' farm in Deniliquin and drove her to Ballarat. You had work to do there and Caterina's parents allowed you to take her after you asked.
Although Caterina does not remember the drive to Ballarat, she remembered being at Sovereign Hill. At the end of the day you drove her to a motel in Ballarat.
Caterina had a bath and when she got out of the bath, she wrapped a towel around herself and went to get her clothes. You were sitting on the main bed, and you asked her to come over to you. You asked her to get on 'all fours', she got on her hands and knees holding her body up off the bed.
Caterina said to you, 'I don't want to do this, I don't want to do this'. You said to her, 'this is normal'. You rubbed some gel onto her vagina. One of your fingers entered her vagina and then came straight back out.
At the time of this offending, Caterina was under the age of ten (Charge 1 - Sexual penetration of a child under 16 years).
You started to 'hump' Caterina from behind. She described you as rubbing your penis against her buttocks. Caterina can't remember if you had clothes on, but remembers that she only had a towel around her and that the towel had fallen to the floor. (Charge 2 - Indecent Act).
Caterina froze and continually said to you, "I don't want to do this." She does not remember when it ended but her next memory is of her crying on the pull-out sofa bed.
On a second occasion, between 11th July 2001 and 11th July 2002, when Caterina was aged around seven years old, she went to your house. Caterina's mother Sarah, and your then wife Amy went shopping and you remained at the house to look after the children including Caterina.
You and Caterina ended up alone in one of the bedrooms at the house. There was a double or twin mattress on the floor.
At your direction, Caterina was clothed and on 'all fours', her hands and knees were on the mattress, and she was supporting herself so that her body was up off the mattress. You were clothed and behind her, she could feel your genitals against her bottom and vagina area.
Caterina froze as you were 'humping' her. Caterina does not remember saying anything to you and does not know what made it stop (Charge 3 - Indecent Act).
On a third occasion, when Caterina was aged around seven years old between 11 July 2001 and 11 July 2002, she was at your house. Caterina remembers that she was in a different bedroom and the mattress was on a white metal bedframe. She was wearing tracksuit pants and a jumper, and she thinks that you were wearing clothes.
Again, Caterina was on 'all fours' on the bed, on her hands and knees supporting herself up off the bed. You were behind her, 'humping' her, and rubbing your genitals up against hers from behind (Charge 4 - Indecent Act).
[10]
Offending against Bianca Guest (Charges 5, 7-11)
[11]
Bianca's mother Fiona[11] is Amy's sister, and Bianca is therefore Amy's biological niece.
The two families used to see each other on most weekends and Bianca had her first sleepover at the Howes' house when she was approximately five or six years of age. Bianca would stay over to keep your daughter Hailey company as they were close in age.
Both you and Amy would ask if Bianca could have a sleepover, however as time went on it was often just you asking if Bianca could have a sleepover.
The first offending against Bianca occurred between the 13th August 2004 and the 13th August 2005 at your Wodonga home. At the time of this offending, Bianca was aged between 6 and 7 years of age. It was shortly after Hailey turned 4.
Bianca was having a sleepover with Hailey and Amy went out for the night with Diane,[12] her mother.
You were looking after Bianca and Hailey and Hailey had gone to bed. Bianca went to sleep on the pull-out sofa located in the loungeroom. Bianca was asleep, and you woke her up by shaking her on the shoulder.
You picked her up and put her onto her hands and knees with her face facing down towards the bed. Her body was elevated off the bed. You started to dry 'hump' her from behind. Bianca was clothed, your genital area was on her bottom and you were thrusting against her.
Bianca could feel that your penis was hard against her bottom. You pulled her underwear and pants down and pulled your own pants down. You put your penis in between what she described as the 'flaps' of her vagina and started to 'hump' her again. Your penis did not enter her vaginal canal; however, you rubbed your penis against her vagina area in between the labia majora which is penetration of the female genitalia in law (Charge 5 - Sexual Penetration of a Child under 16 years, with it being an aggravating feature that Tayla was under 10).
You kissed the back of Bianca's neck whilst you were 'humping' her. Bianca does not know what made it stop, he didn't say anything nor did she and suddenly it just stopped. You lay in bed with her and cuddled her, and she fell asleep.
On a second occasion between 13th August 2004 and 13th August 2006, when Bianca was aged around six or seven, she was sleeping on the pull-out sofa in the lounge room of your house. You woke her up, picked her up and put her on her hands and knees with her face facing down towards the bed.
On this occasion, you were both clothed. You started to 'hump' Bianca and she could feel your penis rub up against her bottom (Charge 7 - Indecent Act).
On this same occasion, when your penis became erect, you took Bianca to the pantry and asked her to suck it. You tried to bribe her, saying, "I'll take you to the shop and buy whatever toy you want if you do it." Bianca said, "no" and you rubbed what she believes to be honey onto your penis, again asking her to suck your penis. Tayla is unable to remember anything after that (Charge 8 - Indecent Act).
On a third occasion, between 13th August 2004 and 13th August 2006, when Bianca was aged around six or seven years of age, you picked her up from her mother and father's house and took her to your house for a sleepover.
Bianca was sitting in the passenger seat of your car and you told her to move her underwear over or pull her pants down so that you could see her vagina. You used one of your hands to touch the top of her vagina (Charge 9 - Indecent Act).
On a fourth occasion, between 13th August 2007 and 13th August 2008, when Bianca was around nine years of age, Amy was out and you were at your house with Bianca. You took her to your bedroom and lay her on the bed. You took her underpants off and started to lick her vagina. She told you that it hurt and you said, "Is it because of my beard?".
She said "yes" and you went and shaved your beard and moustache off. You then returned and began licking her vagina again. You did not say anything to her and she did not say anything to you. Bianca is not sure how long it went on for and cannot remember what happened afterwards (Charge 10 - Indecent Act).
On a fifth occasion between 13th August 2008 and 13th August 2010, when Bianca was around 10-11 years of age, you took her to the garage or a room similar to a garage at your home. You laid on the ground and asked Tayla "to sit over you". You then tried to put your penis into the her vagina. It hurt Bianca a lot and she told you that it hurt. You did not keep trying and told her that you would try again next time. At the time of this offending, Bianca was under your care, supervision and authority (Charge 11 - Attempted Sexual Penetration of a child under 16).
Your offending against Bianca ceased after she stood up to you when she was in grade 6 some time in 2011. On an occasion after you asked her if you could go inside your house with her and 'have a bit of fun', she said 'no' and that she knew what you had been doing was wrong as she had been learning about the birds and bees at school.
You said that you were so proud of her and that you could have stopped anytime she wanted.
[12]
As noted, Hailey is the daughter of you and Ms Biggs. Hailey was born in April 2001.
The offending against Hailey occurred between the 22nd August 2008 and the 6th April 2013 when she was aged between seven and 12 years of age. The offending occurred at her and your family home.
Hailey lived with you and Amy when she was aged around 8-9 years of age.
One night when Amy was not at home, you were looking after Hailey. Hailey was watching the movie 'Monster House' on television. You told her that you were itchy and asked her if she could help you with the itch.
I will describe this offending in the words of Hailey. She was asked by the prosecutor to describe what happened at your trial:
[13]
So this was a night that mum was out seeing her friends, having just a night out like you do, obviously it was me and dad at home hanging out. He was obviously there babysitting; he had that job. I remember that we were watching a movie in the main loungeroom. The movie I remember that was playing was called Monster House that has distilled in my mind.
>
> I used to kind of find that movie a little bit terrifying. But I remember him saying out of the blue that he was itchy. And that he would, he would just say that he itchy and he needed help itching it. And me not being, unsure and not really understanding everything about like that side of like sexual stuff because I was so younger, I wanted to like help and didn't know really any better. So I agreed and he asked to pull - like if I would pull down my pants to hump and, dry, skin on skin dry hump, and I left my underwear on because I just thought to just pull my pants down. But he asked if I could take down my underwear as well and I asked like, 'Why can't I just like leave them, leave them on'. And he said, 'oh, it's okay, don't worry then' in somewhat of a - like a, a disappointing tone that I recall and me being - wanting to feel like I was being helpful and not letting my dad down or anyone down. I said, 'Oh, no, it's okay' and I did it, pulled down my underwear as well (Charge 13 - Indecent Act).
[14]
On another occasion at your Wodonga home, Amy was not home, and Hailey was again alone with you.
You said to Hailey, "let's have a hump." She said no and told you that she didn't want to. You said, "oh yeh, come on it'll be fun, you'll like it."
You guided her into the loungeroom, but she walked away and went into her bedroom as she was not comfortable being left alone with you.
Hailey has not made a victim impact statement. However, in April 2022, she did write you a letter in which she told you some of the effect your behaviour had on her. The letter was tendered into evidence as part of the prosecution case. I will refer to the letter later in these reasons.
[15]
Offending against Jasmine Martinson (Charge 14)
[16]
Amy is the aunt by marriage to Jasmine and Grace Martinson. They are the daughters of Dunstan Martinson[13] who is the nephew of Amy's former husband.
Jasmine was born in December 2006.
The offending against Jasmine occurred between the 14th December 2013 and the 14th December 2015. The offending occurred in your family home when Jasmine was between seven and nine years' old.
On an occasion between 14th December 2013 and 14th December 2015, Jasmine was sleeping on a pull-out couch at yours and Amy's home. The pull-out couch was located between the loungeroom and the kitchen.
Jasmine had slept the night at the house and there was no one else at the house at the time other than you. You tried to wake Jasmine up by tapping on her shoulder, but she didn't want to get up, so she pretended to be sleeping.
You grabbed her feet to try and get her up and she held onto the bed. Jasmine eventually let go of the bed and you picked her up and carried her to the downstairs area of the house.
You took Jasmine's clothes off, piece by piece whilst she was standing there. Jasmine ended up lying on the bed and not knowing what was happening. You used your hand and touched the bottom of her leg, running your hand up her inner thigh until it reached the top of her thigh (Charge 14 - Indecent Act).
You placed your hands around her breasts and left your hands on her breast area. You sexually touched Jasmine for around 25-40 minutes.
[17]
Offending against Grace Martinson (Charges 15-17)
[18]
Grace, who was born in May 2009 was the last of your five victims.
The offending against Grace occurred between the 1st July 2017 and the 28th May 2019.
The offending occurred at your family home when Grace was aged between 8 and 10 years of age.
On an occasion when Grace was aged around eight years of age between 1st July 2017 and 28th May 2018, you asked her if she wanted to play a game. No-one else was home at the time.
Grace said no to playing the game and you told her that you would give her lollies if she played the game.
When asked to describe the game to the jury, Grace said that the game consisted of you taking her clothes off and then taking your own clothes off.
You touched her all over her body, touching between her thighs on her vaginal area, breast area, stomach and legs.
You and Grace were in the bedroom at the house and you laid on top of her on the bed whilst she was naked and she laid on top of you naked. You rubbed on her vagina with your hand and got her to touch your penis (Charge 15 - Sexual Assault).
Grace does not remember how she touched your penis, and says that she knew to touch your penis because you told her how to.
On a second occasion when Grace was aged around 8-9 years of age between 1st July 2017 and 28th May 2019, you again asked her to play the 'game.' You picked her up in your car, went to get some lunch and then when you arrived home you sat on the bench and ate.
Grace told you that she didn't want to play the game anymore and you said that she had to because her sister didn't want to anymore.
There was no one else home at the time. You and Grace went to your bedroom, there was a large walk-in robe with a bathroom in the bedroom as well. Grace took off her clothes and you took off your clothes.
You laid on top of Grace and then she had to lay on top of you. You were both naked and you touched her chest and breast area and in between her thighs and rubbed her vagina with your fingers (Charge 16 - Sexual Assault).
You also made Grace touch your penis during this occasion of offending (Charge 17 - Sexual Assault).
After this, you took Grace to Coles in Wodonga and bought her lollies.
[19]
On 6 December 2020, Bianca Guest told her mother Fiona that you had molested her. Fiona spoke to her sister Amy Biggs about this and Amy confronted you about it at a pre-arranged meeting at the Sumsion Gardens in Wodonga. When confronted, you made partial admissions to having sexually touched Bianca but denied other offending.
On 21 June 2021, Caterina Myers reported your offending to the police. Your other four victims subsequently made reports to the police.
After a comprehensive investigation by police, you were arrested on 15 July 2022 and when offered the opportunity to be interviewed made a 'no comment' interview as was your right. You were then charged and remanded into custody.
As noted earlier, you pleaded not guilty to all of the charges and, at a trial before this court, a jury found you guilty of 15 charges on 28 August 2025.
[20]
It is necessary to start with an assessment of the objective gravity of your offending and your moral culpability beginning with an overall assessment before examining the individual victims.
Your offending occurred over a period of 19 years and involved five young girls from four different families. In each case the girls trusted you implicitly. In many cases this was because they had known you for a number of years and their own parents placed their trust in you to look after their daughters. This is especially the case with your first victim, Caterina Myers, who was allowed by her parents to travel with you as part of your work and stay overnight with you in a motel in Ballarat. Caterina was aged between 6 and 8 at the time. Her mother, Sarah, had been best friends with your then wife, Amy, for over 50 years.
Turning to each individual offending. The most serious offending was that involving Bianca Guest. Bianca was Amy's niece. Your offending spanned a period of seven years when Bianca was aged between 6 and 13. There were occasions when you offered Bianca bribes. The offending itself involved sexual penetration as well as other indecent acts.
The court was informed that Bianca was informed of her right to make a victim impact statement but elected not to due to the additional stress preparing it would cause her.
The offending against Caterina was also egregious. It commenced when she was six years old. You were more than five times her age. She was alone with you in a motel room a long way from the safety and security of her home. In her victim impact statement, Caterina laments her lost childhood. She grieves for the parts of herself that she never got to keep. Caterina also spent years masking her fear.
Hailey was your own daughter. The anguish she felt when you offended against her is evident from the account she gave to the court which I have quoted earlier. The ongoing impact of your offending is evident from the heart-rending letter she wrote to you and gave you on the last occasion that she saw you in April 2022.
As Hailey did not make a victim impact statement it is appropriate to refer briefly to aspects of that letter to explain in her words the long-lasting impact of your offending. Hailey wrote:
[21]
It has taken me the longest time to be able to come to you about this as I haven't known how to. I have tried so many times to bring it up in person and when I have tried I cant seem to get the words out. This is why I have decided to write it down for you.
>
> The reason I haven't spoken up for myself is because I somewhat wanted to protect you. You know what mum would be like if she knew about me too.
>
> I love you dad and I hurt for you knowing what all this could possibly lead to, because you made a horrible choice all that time ago. I wish this could have been so different in terms of our futures, I have cried way too many tears thinking about the big and small things in life that I wont be sharing with you. I wish it could have been so different.
>
> It breaks me writing this, but I needed to tell you for my sake. I needed some closure, I needed you to know why I am growing more and more distance so I don't feel bad if I never voiced to you why. I need you to know that I love you, but I just can't pretend to you anymore that I'm okay and that everything will be okay.
>
> I don't expect you to respond to this, I just needed you to know. I love you.
[22]
You then went on to offend against the Martinson sisters. First you offended against Jasmine until she turned nine and then you offended against her younger sister Grace.
All sexual offending against children is abhorrent. This is especially so when the offender so egregiously breaches the trust of their victims as you did. The perpetrator of such abuse deprives young girls of the opportunity to become sexually active in an age appropriate manner at a time and in circumstances of their own choosing. This is a terrible thing to do to a young girl, let alone five.
In cases of offending over long periods of time such as yours, it is well recognised that the culpability of the offender increases on later occasions by virtue of the offender having had the opportunity to reflect on their conduct but continuing to offend nonetheless. You must have appreciated how wrong your offending was but despite that you continued to offend. In such a case, your conduct calls for 'stronger denunciation and heavier punishment on each successive occasion'.[14]
When Bianca Guest confronted you some time before August 2011 and told you that she knew what you had done to her was wrong, you had offended against two of your victims over a period of 11 years. This was an occasion when it may be expected that you would have reflected on what you had done and ceased offending. But you did not. You continued to offend against three further victims over the next 8 years. One of the victims was your own daughter.
You have exhibited no remorse for your offending. You maintain your innocence and told a psychologist to whom your lawyers referred you that you believe Ms Biggs may have influenced Hailey to make allegations against you in the context of acrimony about the disintegration of your marriage.[15]
Your offending only ceased when you were confronted by Amy Biggs.
In these circumstances, your moral culpability is very high indeed.
[23]
Bianca and Hailey gave evidence at the trial. They have elected not to provide victim impact statements to the court as is their right. The absence of any such statements does not preclude a sentencing Judge from inferring that the victims were adversely affected by the offending and I will draw that inference in each case.[16]
The Court received 11 Victim Impact Statements ('VIS'), all of which I have read and taken into account in these remarks.
(g) Dunstan Martinson (father of Jasmine and Grace);
(h) Jane Martinson[18] (aunt of Jasmine and Grace);
(i) Michael[19] and Rachel Barton[20] (grandparents of Jasmine and Grace); and Tina Barton[21] (aunt of Jasmine and Grace).
[25]
As I read the victim impact statements prepared by the three primary victims, a number of recurring themes emerged.
The victims in this matter were all very young when you offended against them and did not fully understand what was happening at the time. Their innocence was taken far too early. As they grew older and gained an understanding of the abuse, its impact became profound and ongoing. The offending has fundamentally affected how they see themselves, how they trust others, and whether they feel safe in the world.
Caterina eloquently outlines the emotional impact of the offending against her, which is echoed in the statements provided by the other victims.
[26]
(a) Anger at you for choosing to commit such a selfish act;
(b) Sadness for the experiences, connections and opportunities missed because of the trauma;
(c) Guilt for not speaking up earlier, even though they knew it wasn't their responsibility as a child;
(d) Shame for being used, manipulated and unable to stop what happened to them;
(e) Fear as a constant, exhausting hypervigilance in every setting;
(f) Frustration at not being able to fully understand who they might have been without this trauma; and
(g) Embarrassment when discussing or becoming involved in intimate relationships.
[27]
The harm did not end when the offending stopped. The trauma has shaped their identities and permanently altered the course of their lives, with consequences that continue to be felt every day. It has caused severe and lasting damage to their self-worth, confidence, and sense of safety, and has significantly affected their relationships.
They have experienced extreme anxiety, mood swings, depressive episodes, and hypervigilance. They have required counselling and ongoing support to cope with the effects of the trauma. At times, for some, the impact on their self-worth has led to harmful behaviours, including self-harm. There have been periods where the emotional pain as a result of your offending was so overwhelming that they questioned whether life was worth living, and they have experienced suicidal ideation.
One of the most significant losses for the victims has been the loss of their childhood. They continue to grieve for the years, experiences, and parts of themselves that were taken from them. The effects of the offending are enduring, and they will continue to live with its consequences for the rest of their life.
[28]
The offending has had a devastating and enduring impact on the parents and families of the victims. Many described overwhelming waves of shock, horror, and disbelief. A dominant and deeply painful theme across their statements is a profound sense of guilt and failure; the belief that they did not protect their children from harm, despite having devoted themselves to doing so.
Parents spoke of the anguish of feeling that they had broken the most fundamental promise they made to their children: to keep them safe. They described questioning themselves repeatedly, asking how this could have happened, how they did not see the warning signs, and how the abuse could have occurred within their own homes. These thoughts have led to ongoing emotional suffering, including anger, depression, heartbreak, frustration, and enduring guilt that they expect to carry for the rest of their lives.
As noted earlier, your offending constituted a devastating breach of trust by a person they had known for many years and believed would love, respect, and protect their children. That betrayal has shattered their faith in humanity and severely damaged their ability to trust others. The realisation has dawned on them that the kind of 'monsters' they once believed existed only in the news had become a reality within their own families.
It is clear to the court that the parents of these girls were vigilant and protective of their children and entrusted you with their care and supervision. Your offending was a gross and profound breach of that trust. The impact on the families has been lifelong, leaving them shattered, broken-hearted, and burdened by a sense of responsibility for harm they did not cause.
I want to be clear that the harm done to their children was not the result of their failure, but of your conscious, voluntary and deliberate actions. The only person that is responsible for the offending committed by Ryan Howes is Ryan Howes. The consequences of your actions have rippled through entire families and will continue to be felt long into the future.
I thank each and every person who took the time to prepare detailed and meaningful statements to the Court.
[29]
You were born in Cobram in 1968 and are currently 57 years of age.
In your own words, your childhood was 'perfect'. Your upbringing was characterised by emotional security, consistency and the absence of any abuse. Your father, who died in 2015, was a fair and strong role model. You remain close to your mother and sister.
You struggled somewhat at school leaving part way through year 11 to commence a traineeship with a co-operative business. You have maintained a good work record most recently operating a small business, where you held s reputable position at a credit union. The loss of this role represented a fall from grace and to some extent, serves as extra-curial punishment.
You married for the first time in the early 1990's but that marriage ended in about 1996. You have a son who is 34 years old from that marriage. Your second marriage to Amy Biggs lasted until 2018. Hailey is the only child of that union.
You have no history of drug or alcohol abuse. You have only one prior criminal conviction for indecent language in 1986 for which you were placed on a good behaviour bond. It is irrelevant for the purposes of this sentencing exercise.
You have experienced depressive symptoms since being charged in 2022. In 2023 while on bail you were diagnosed with Graves's disease, a thyroid disorder. You suffer from sleep apnoea and use a CPAP machine for this purpose.
Two character references concerning you were provided to the court. They are relevant to your prospects of rehabilitation as they are evidence that you continue to be supported by friends.
Angus Thomas[22] has been your good friend for 45 years and has employed you for five years. He describes you as a man of integrity with a good work ethic. He is aware of the jury verdicts and considers them to be at odds with the man he knows. Mr Thomas describes you as a man who is dedicated to your family and a great mate.
Marline Gern[23] has known you for 6 years and considers you to be part of her family. She describes your kindness, generosity and willingness to help others. Ms Gern describes the jury verdicts as very out of character. Finally, Ms Gern refers to the impact of the legal process on you and that you are suffering more than you care to admit.
It is not easy to reconcile what these referees say about you with the verdicts of the jury.
[30]
A sentencing judge is required to assess the prospect of an offender rehabilitating and becoming a positive contributor to the community in the future. This is often a very difficult task as it requires prophesising the future. One important consideration is the likelihood that the offender will re-offend after their release from custody. The opinions of expert witnesses can assist in this task.
Your lawyers referred you to a psychologist, Ms Daniella Kocic, for assessment. One of the matters about which Ms Kocic was asked to express an opinion was your future risk of offending.
In her detailed and helpful report, Ms Kocic has this to say about the question of your future risk of offending:
[31]
'By virtue of this offending, Mr Howes met the diagnostic criteria for paedophilic disorder non-exclusive type. Evidenced by his sexual offences against his daughter and four other victims over a 19 year period which indicates the fixed paraphilic interest and sexual deviancy that underpinned his actions. Although he denies any sexual attraction to other children the diagnosis's is applicable in cases where objective evidence of such behaviour exists. That is summaries of offending, victim impact statements et cetera, even the absence of self-disclosure. Mr Howe's sexual offending was likely precipitated by sexual deviance, intimacy deficits, undetected grooming behaviours, relational stressors and poorly controlled sexual urges. And his sexual offending was likely perpetuated by his perception that he would not be caught. The presence of attitudes that support or condone sexual violence can be inferred from his behaviour, such as sexual entitlement, the perception that children are sexual objects, or the belief in them having the capacity for consent. Although discussion of his remorse was not deemed relevant given he maintains his innocence, he displayed a severe lack of introspection due to his denial, poor insight and limited self-awareness of the precipitance that let to this offending. He also had impaired perspective taking regarding the harm his offending would have caused the victims and tried to make rationalisations and justifications for all other victims would have accused him of the offending'.[24]
[32]
Ms Kocic administered two well-known tests that are applied in such cases to assess your future risk of offending. And she concluded at paragraph 124 that:
[33]
'Overall, considering both static and dynamic risk factors along with relevant strengths, Mr Howe is assessed as falling into the low-risk category for sexual recidivism. This indicates that his risk is lower than that of the average sexual offender.'
[34]
Ms Kocic opines that, although you continue to display limitations regarding your insight and self-awareness of the underlying motivations for your offending, you do not present dynamic risk factors which would necessitate offence-specific treatment intervention. Such treatment would be 'clinically inappropriate and potentially counterproductive'. However, Ms Kocic considers that you may benefit from individual intervention facilitated by a psychologist with expertise in sexual offending to specifically address the cognitive distortions underlying your offending behaviour'.[25]
Ms Kocic identifies some protective factors that may mitigate future risk including your stable work history, responsible roles in business and the community and prosocial relationships particularly in the form of sustained emotional support from your current partner and your mother. I also note the ongoing support you receive from friends and work colleagues.
It is also relevant that you have no relevant prior convictions and no subsequent offending.
The principal concerns I have in relation to your rehabilitation prospects are the lengthy period of your offending, the egregious breaches of the trust reposed in you by family and friends and your refusal to accept any responsibility for your offending. Your sexual attraction to young females and your attitudes that support or condone sexual violence are also highly relevant.
I can assess your prospects as no higher than fair in the circumstances, and the Court must be quite guarded in its assessment. Much will depend on your attitude to any treatment offered to you in accordance with the recommendations of Ms Kocic. I will direct that a copy of her report be provided to correctional authorities along with these reasons to assist in your management.
[35]
Your counsel's submissions identify the following matters as mitigating the sentences the court must impose: Verdins limb 5 and delay.[26] Mr Bhattacharya also notes Ms Kocic's assessment of future risk as low.[27] He submits that the court should be careful not to impose a crushing sentence.
I accept Ms Kocic's opinion that your symptoms of psychological distress, weight loss and sleep disturbance are consistent with major depressive disorder brought on by the charges you have faced. I also accept that, as a result of this condition, a custodial sentence will weigh more heavily on you than it would on a person in normal mental health.[28] This enlivens the 5th limb of the so-called Verdins principles and I have moderated your sentence to a modest extent as a result. . I also accept that there is some albeit weak support for the application of Verdins limb 6 in the sense that there is some evidence of a likelihood that your condition will deteriorate whilst in custody
I also accept that there was a period of delay associated with the progress of your case through the system. You were charged in July 2022 and your trial was listed to commence in January 2024. However, in December 2023 the prosecution asked that the hearing be adjourned pending the High Court finalising an appeal that raised an issue relevant to your trial.
Because the result of the High Court case could have required witnesses to give their evidence again, the court had little choice but to adjourn the trial until the High Court decision was delivered in September 2024.[29] The trial commenced during the next available sittings in Wodonga.
I accept that the delay, which was no fault of yours, has added to the stress and anxiety you have felt along with the stress and anxiety of everyone else involved. The period of delay is also relevant to your prospects of rehabilitation as it provides the court with evidence of a period of nearly 6 years with no further offending by you.
[36]
Where an offender offends against a number of victims on a number of occasions over a lengthy period of time, the sentencing principle of totality assumes particular importance. That principle requires a court to impose a total effective sentence that is commensurate with the overall criminality of the offender's conduct.[30] This is to be achieved by imposing appropriate sentences in respect of each individual offence and then making orders for concurrency and cumulation as between the various sentences to achieve an aggregate sentence that is 'just and appropriate'. Put simply an order for cumulation identifies the part of a particular sentence that must be served in addition to, or on top of, another sentence.
The application of the totality principle requires a sentencing judge to 'stand back' and consider what [is] an appropriate total effective sentence.[31]
I accept the prosecution submission that it is important in making orders for cumulation in a case such as this to ensure that the amount of cumulation is meaningful to avoid the impression that the offending against one or more of the victims is being treated as a 'meaningless statistic'.[32]
The totality principle is one of general application where an offender is to be sentenced in respect of more than one charge. However, in some cases, of which yours is one, there are special statutory provisions that are also relevant. It is necessary to discuss those principles briefly.
[37]
Each of the offences with which you were charged is a designated 'serious sexual offence' within the meaning of Part 2A of the Sentencing Act1991(Vic). It follows that if the court imposes sentences of imprisonment in respect of charges 1 and 2, you are to be sentenced as a 'serious offender' in relation to the remaining charges.
In such cases, determining the length of the term of imprisonment to impose in respect of the remaining charges, the court must regard protection of the community as the principal purpose for which sentence is imposed.[33] The prosecution did not seek a disproportionate sentence and I will not impose one.
Further, each of the sentences that I impose in respect of charges 3-17 must be served cumulatively on the other sentences unless otherwise directed.[34] I note that this provision must be applied while also having regard to the principle of totality[35] and I have done so. To be clear, the totality principle has a more limited application in such a case than it ordinarily would have.[36]
[38]
Sentencing is a complex process. A sentencing judge must impose an appropriate sentence having regard to the offending before the court and the circumstances of the offender. While a judge has a broad discretion in this regard, it is a discretion that must be exercised according to law.
You pleaded not guilty after unsuccessfully challenging the prosecution's application to rely on tendency reasoning in 2023. In early 2024 you cross examined a number of witnesses in advance of the trial.
It is of course your right to challenge the prosecution case by running a trial and this is not an aggravating circumstance. However, it means that you do not receive the considerable sentencing discount that attaches to a plea of guilty saving as it does the anxiety and distress of witnesses and the considerable community resources that are used during a trial.
The principal purposes of the sentence I impose on you are denunciation, appropriate and just punishment and general deterrence. It is also necessary to achieve a measure of specific deterrence so that you never offend again. And, as noted, protection of the community is the principal sentencing purpose in relation to charges 3-17.
For the reasons discussed above, the offending against Bianca Guest was the most egregious among a number of serious criminal charges.
This is due to the duration of the offending and the number of individual offences. I have designated the most serious of your offending against Bianca as the base sentence. I have then imposed sentences on each of the other charges and made what I consider to be appropriate orders for cumulation to properly reflect the offending against each of your victims.
The table below records the individual sentences and the orders for cumulation the court makes.
[39]
Pursuant to s 6F of the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic), the offender was sentenced as a serious sexual offender in respect of Charges 3-5, 7-11 and 13-17.
As I have mentioned, the investigation in this case was, in my view, one of high quality. These are difficult cases to investigate and striking the balance between obtaining the appropriate evidence and dealing with young, often traumatised victims is difficult. It was apparent to me that the informant DLSC Cunningham and the other investigating officers achieved this balance skilfully and sensitively in this case.
[41]
[1] All names have been de-identified in these sentencing remarks.