DPP v Ingliss

(a) that the first time you told her to put her mouth on your penis she asked why, and you said that 'it feels nice'.[3]

(b) She had no choice but to swallow your ejaculate.[4]

(c) She would seek to bring an incident involving this offending to an end, by removing her mouth and asking for something, but you would say 'later' and require her to continue.[5]

1. Rachel also described that you 'whacked', using her word, your penis against her anus and vagina, which is the subject of Charge 4. She stated that the last time it happened was 'yesterday' (being 29 July 2023), whilst her mother was at work.
2. As to the frequency of the offending conduct, the victim's evidence was that it was a regular occurrence. Although she estimated it occurring more than 80 times, I am mindful, in assessing her estimate, that at the ground rules hearing the Intermediary noted Rachel might have difficulty with assessing quantities or how often something occurred. I do accept that the offending would have happened both during the week and on the weekend, and did so regularly and many times over a period from when she started in Grade 1, in 2022, until 29 July 2023. Her evidence about the weekends was that it made her sad when the licking of her vagina happened on the weekend, as it stung, and she was not able to play.[6]
3. Rachel said that the offending conduct made her sad, as she wondered why it happened to her and not anyone else. She also felt angry, because she would want to have a good day but could not, because of you.[7] Earlier she had described how your licking of her genitals hurt her, and made her feel bad.[8] She would pretend it was tickling her, as an excuse to move away, and told the police officer 'I [didn't] want to be rude and say that it - it hurts, because I could have told him a long time ago, because he's been doing it for so long. So I don't want to say.'[9]

1. On Sunday 30 July 2023 your then-partner Mary saw photographs of Rachel on an iPad which concerned her. Rachel told her that the photographs had been taken by Holly, and Holly later admitted this.
2. Mary remained concerned, and asked Rachel whether anyone else had ever asked her to take photographs of this kind. Rachel was initially evasive, saying that she did not remember, then that she was not supposed to say. She told her mother that you would be angry if she told her.
3. After Mary promised not to be angry, Rachel told her mother about some of the conduct you would later be charged with. Mary thanked Rachel for telling her, then took both girls to the Swan Hill police station, where Rachel eventually disclosed the offending.

1. On 31 July 2023 you were interview by police at the Swan Hill police station. You denied knowing anything about the allegations, stating that your relationship with Rachel was 'fine' and that you had a 'normal father-daughter relationship.'[10] You stated that you understood the seriousness of the allegations, and expressed concern that your life was already over.[11]
2. You pleaded not guilty, as was your right. You maintained that the offending had not happened, including giving evidence to that effect before the jury. Clearly the jury rejected your evidence.

1. All of the offending is inherently serious. The factors I take into account in assessing the gravity of each charge include:
   1. Rachel was six and then seven years of age during the time of the offending. She had an otherwise good relationship with you and enjoyed the trips to the park and swimming pool with you and her sister. The familial relationship, the betrayal of trust, and abuse of power by a father against a young daughter, is encompassed within the elements of Charges 1 and 3, and so in respect to those charges is not itself a factor in aggravation. In respect to Charge 4, however, it is a factor increasing the gravity of the offending.
   2. Charge 3 is a particularly serious instance of the offence. Rachel would do her best to try to avoid the sexual activity you required of her, but you persisted, for your own gratification. It is clear from her evidence that she was habituated to your offending. Furthermore, you ejaculated in her mouth.
   3. I accept that there is no evidence that your conduct in Charge 1 caused her rash, but certainly it cannot have helped it, and licking her vagina, when it was already sore, caused her some pain.
   4. Charge 4 involved you touching her vagina and buttocks with your penis. The type of touching founding this charge of sexual assault is of at least mid-level gravity. As I have already noted the breach of trust due to the family relationship is a significant aggravating factor in respect to this charge.
   5. Each of the charges upon which you have been found guilty is a course of conduct charge. As I set out above, I accept that the conduct went on for in the range of 18 months, and occurred regularly during that period. The sentence on each charge must give due reflection to the course of conduct proved. I accept also that the evidence does not establish that each type of conduct charged occurred on every occasion of abuse.
   6. Finally, you told Rachel not to tell anyone and encouraged her to believe that her mother would be angry with her.
2. This was persistent offending, taking advantage of the power you had over Rachel, by your position as her father. You had the chance, again and again and again, to realise what you were doing was wrong, and yet you continued to abuse her.
3. It is true that you did not use additional violence or threaten her with other forms of physical violence. It is possible to conceive of a range of aggravating factors which are not present. But you are to be sentenced for what you did, not what could have been done.
4. No matter has been put forward reducing your culpability, which is unsurprising given your stance that you are not guilty.

1. Your offending has had a profound impact on Rachel, and also on the victim's mother Mary, and the victim's sister, Holly. Each of them provided a Victim Impact Statement, outlining the sense of betrayal they feel as a result of your actions.
2. Rachel expressed deep anger and resentment towards you, both for her experience of the offending and for your denial that it took place. She stated that you made her life miserable, that she has 'bad thoughts' that need to be locked away, and that calling you her dad makes her feel sick to her stomach. She observed that she should not have to be in a position to write a victim impact statement. She explained that she is scared to be away from her mother, and avoids going to school because she is scared that you would go there, even though she knows that you cannot.
3. Mary's victim impact statement outlined the profound impact of your offending on all aspects of her and her daughters' lives. She explained how Rachel cannot trust men, and requires all her teachers, and doctors, et cetera to be women. She also articulated how Rachel has told her that she wants to die, and recounted multiple instances of having to prevent Rachel from running into oncoming traffic.
4. Holly and Rachel both have separation issues and become severely anxious when apart from their mother.
5. Mary noted that Rachel lashes out at the two of them, saying 'I can't do it to dad so I do it to you guys'.
6. Mary herself is now faced with playing the role of sole caregiver and provider. She expressed that while she too is plagued by nightmares and anxiety, she hides these struggles from her daughters, as she feels she has no choice but to always be the strong one to support them.
7. Mary also noted the effect that your offending has had on Holly. A girl who was formerly 'kind, cheerful, always happy and ready with a smile', has now fallen into a 'terrible depression'. Holly herself expressed anger and confusion at your offending, noting her heartbreak at losing her father, and her hatred for what you did.

1. You were born in 1974, and are currently 50 years old. You were raised in the Geelong area. Both your parents are still alive. You lived with them, whilst awaiting trial, and they continue to love and support you. You have two older siblings, a brother and a sister. None of your family have had any contact with the criminal justice system.
2. You were educated to Year 11, at high school and then TAFE. You started working whilst a teenager, and once you had finished your education you held a variety of jobs, including at a butcher's shop, at a warehouse and at the docks.
3. When you were 23 and Mary 18 you commenced a relationship, moving in together in late 1998. You and she married in 2007, when you were in your early 30s.
4. In early 2017 you, your wife, and your daughters moved to Swan Hill, thinking that the town would be a safer place to live and raise your daughters. You found work there, in an abattoir, then for an agricultural machinery company, and then for a business making water tanks, for around two years. You lost that job, once the pandemic hit, as you were not willing to be vaccinated against COVID-19. You later found work, in 2021, working as a powder coater. After you had been charged you found work in two different manufacturing businesses.
5. You have no prior convictions. Once your daughter Holly was born, any alcohol consumption was social and controlled, and you ceased smoking Cannabis, which you had done since you were 14.[12]
6. In 2015 you became a Christian. You had some issues in your relationship with your wife, which resolved in around 2019. You told Mr Cummins you believed she was too controlling and too concerned with money. You felt she did not appreciate you and your contribution to looking after the children. You had discussed separating from her, but financial issues regarding the family home were a bar to separation. [13]
7. After the reporting of the offending by Rachel, you have had no further contact with your daughters or their mother. You told Mr Cummins that you missed having contact with your children, although you understood why it was not possible to see them. In mid-2024 you formed a new relationship with an age-appropriate woman, who remains supportive of you.
8. Whilst in custody you have maintained phone contact with your mother, sister and girlfriend, and they all regularly visit you. You speak with your father, but he has not been well enough to visit you whilst you have been on remand. You have not felt mentally equipped to get employment whilst on remand, but you have engaged with some vocational and educational courses.

1. You reported to Mr Cummins, who assessed you for the plea hearing, that you were shocked, distressed and overwhelmed by the jury verdicts, and were still coming to terms both with the verdicts and being in custody. You were depressed and stressed, but not acutely suicidal.[14]
2. Whilst you are grappling with the verdicts, and your situation, you were not diagnosed with any mental health condition.[15] Mr Cummins did diagnose you, based on the jury verdicts, with a Paedophilic Disorder.[16]
3. After your arrest and charge you had contemplated suicide, but you say that your religious beliefs prevented you from taking your own life.[17] Prior to these allegations and the findings of guilt the worst thing that had happened to you was the loss of sexual intimacy during the period of separation in your marriage.[18]

1. You have no prior convictions, and you were in your mid to late 40s at the time of this offending. Where a person has been of good character for many years, this is a strong factor in mitigation. Your mother, sister, and partner all provided letters in support of you, attesting to your good character.

1. You retain the support of your parents, sister and present partner. You have a good work history, and appropriate supports and accommodation upon your release available. You do not have any drug or alcohol problems that may undermine your capacity to live a pro-social life.
2. Mr Cummins noted the difficulty of assessing risk of reoffending in the face of continued denials of offending, but by reference to two well-known tools, he assessed your risk of further sexual offending as low-moderate, the second lowest rating.[19] You told him you would engage in offence specific programs if directed to do so. Mr Cummins opined that it was imperative that you take part in such a program.[20]
3. I consider you have good prospects of rehabilitation. Whilst you have many protective factors in your life, these were effectively all in existence at the time you were offending. It is to be hoped that the findings of guilt, and the time serving your sentences, will act as a sufficient deterrent upon you.

1. I accept that there is an overlap in time across each of the offences, and that conduct relating to the different charges would have likely sometimes have occurred in the same incidents, during that period. I will make orders for cumulation which are intended to achieve an overall sentence which encompasses the totality of the offending.
2. I note that the principal of totality is impacted by the serious offender provisions, in respect to Charges 3 and 4.

1. The prosecution and defence helpfully referred me to a number of Court of Appeal judgements and two sentences from this court. Even where not closely similar in facts, these cases have provided me with assistance in appreciating current sentencing practice for these charges.

Sentencing Act Provisions

1. You will be sentenced to a term of imprisonment on Charge 1. As that charge is a course of conduct charge, you fall to be sentenced as a serious sexual offender on Charges 3 and 4.[21] This leads to several consequences:
   1. I must treat protection of the community as the principal sentencing factor when sentencing on Charges 3 and 4.
   2. Whilst the Act gives me the power to impose a disproportionate sentence on Charges 3 and 4, to achieve that purpose, I do not consider it necessary to do so, in light of the sentences which will be imposed, according to normal sentencing principles;[22]
   3. The presumption of concurrency is displaced;[23] and
   4. Your status as a serious sexual offender will be noted in the records of the Court, on Charges 3 and 4.

1. The maximum penalty which applies to Charges 1 and 3 is 25 years' imprisonment, and the standard sentence is 10 years. The maximum penalty for Charge 4 is 10 years and the standard sentence is four years.
2. I have regard to both the maximum penalty and the standard sentence when arriving at the sentences. Both are legislative guideposts and are among the many matters to which I must have regard. I note, at the same time, that sentencing is not a mathematical process involving incremental increases or reductions from a fixed point, depending on the facts of the case.
3. The Sentencing Act 1991 also requires that the non-parole period must be at least 60 per cent of head sentence, if the head sentence is 20 years or less.[24] It was not submitted that I should otherwise order.

1. Sexual offending against children is always to be deplored. When that offending is committed by a parent, against a young child, the erosion of trust, the abuse of power, and the fundamental threat to the child's wellbeing is regrettably well understood by the courts. In this case both your young daughters have had to deal with issues and concepts which should have been outside their experience.
2. Incest has rightly been described by other judges as abhorrent and repugnant. I note the following passage from DPP v Walsh (a pseudonym):[25]

Incest involving a child is an appalling crime. It involves a breach of trust of the most fundamental kind, and an inexplicable abdication of parental responsibility. Just as seriously, it involves a cynical exploitation by the parent of the opportunity for sexual contact which being in that position of trust presents.

1. As I have noted earlier, you are a man of previously good character. You were, aside from this offending, a good father. There are otherwise limited matters in mitigation. Each course of conduct for which you are to be sentenced was lengthy, with multiple instances of the offending which falls within the charge. For the reasons I set out earlier, I consider each charge to be above the mid-range of gravity for such offences, with Charge 3 being the most serious.
2. Charge 1 - 11 years' imprisonment.
3. Charge 3 - 13 years' imprisonment.
4. Charge 4 - five years' imprisonment.
5. Charge 3, the sentence of 13 years, will be the base sentence. I direct that three years' of the sentence on Charge 1, and one year of the sentence on Charge 4 be served cumulatively upon each other and on the sentence on Charge 3. That leads to a total effective sentence of 17 years' imprisonment. I set a non-parole period of 13 years.

1. As you have now been convicted on two class 1 offences, and one class 2 offence, you are obliged to be on the Sex Offenders Register for the rest of your life.
2. I declare that you have already served 104 days, not including today, of

pre-sentence detention and, as I have previously noted, you are sentenced as a serious sexual offender on Charges 3 and 4.

[2] All names have been replaced with pseudonyms.

[21] Sentencing Act 1991 s6B(2)(ac)

[22] Sentencing Act 1991 s6D

[23] Sentencing Act 1991 s6E

[24] Sentencing Act s11A(4)

[25] DPP v Walsh (a pseudonym) [2018] VSCA 172, [1]