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

The offending

4. The offending occurred against three different victims, who will be referred by the pseudonyms Olivia Ingram, Georgina McMillan and Amelie Simons.

Offending against Olivia Ingram (Count 1)

5. Between 2004 and 2005 Ms Ingram lived with her mother and siblings. She was between 8 and 10 years old during this period. Ms Ingram would often attend a nearby playground, and the offender would also attend this playground with his daughter. The offender’s daughter did not live with him but would stay with him on the weekends.

6. Ms Ingram played with the offender’s daughter and became friends with her in early to mid-2004. Through this, the offender met Ms Ingram’s mother. Sometime after this, it was agreed for Ms Ingram to have a sleepover on the weekend at the offender’s house. The sleepovers became almost weekly occurrences, and Ms Ingram would sleep with the offender’s daughter in bunk beds in the offender’s daughter’s room.

7. From an early stage, the offender normalised nudity and sexualised behaviours around the girls. He would walk around the house semi-naked and shower in front of the children. Ms Ingram saw the offender masturbating on a few occasions.

8. It was common for Ms Ingram to bathe with the offender’s daughter while she was at the offender’s house. The offender would wait for them to get out and give them a warm towel. He would then move the towel all over Ms Ingram’s body, and would rub her buttocks, nipples and vagina.

9. It was also common for Ms Ingram to feel the offender’s penis rub against her whenever he gave her a hug. The offender would also offer the children “back tickles” in the evening. He would first do this for his daughter, which would often cause her to fall asleep. He would then begin to touch Ms Ingram.

10. During the first few sleepovers, there was no sexual touching. However, the offender’s behaviour slowly escalated, and he began to touch Ms Ingram’s nipples, buttocks and eventually her vagina. This escalated to the offender penetrating Ms Ingram’s vagina with his fingers. He would usually rub her nipples and suck on her ear while he was penetrating her. The offender also began to kiss and lick Ms Ingram’s vagina.

11. Ms Ingram would often tell the offender to stop, and would try and move her body away or put her legs together, but the offender persisted in his assaults of her. This happened on most nights during the entire period that the sleepovers occurred.

12. Ms Ingram recalled that the offender would tell her, “you’ll really like this” and “when you go home you can touch yourself too”. The offender would also tell her, “don’t tell your mum or you won’t be allowed to come over anymore”, and that Ms Ingram wouldn’t be allowed to see the offender’s daughter, and that the offender would get in trouble.

13. At times, the offender would also pick up Ms Ingram from her house and drive her to his house for the sleepovers. Ms Ingram would often be alone with the offender in the car. During these occasions, the offender would put his hands down Ms Ingram’s pants and rub her vagina and insert his fingers into her vagina.

14. Around Christmas of 2005, Ms Ingram went on a trip with the offender and the offender’s daughter to Queensland. The offender attempted to continue the abuse, but Ms Ingram became more assertive and pushed him away. This caused him to become angry, and he was in a “mad mood” for the remainder of the trip.

15. Following this trip, Ms Ingram made an excuse and told her mother she did not wish to see the offender’s daughter anymore. Ms Ingram did not tell her mother what had occurred at this time. Offending against Georgina McMillan (Count 6)

16. Ms McMillan was a friend of the offender’s daughter. She was the same age as the offender’s daughter, and they had attended the same school. Between 2010 and 2011, Ms McMillan lived with her family, in close proximity to the offender. Ms McMillan was between 14 and 15 years old.

17. The offender’s daughter had started living with the offender more often. Ms McMillan became very close with the offender and his daughter, and they would spend a lot of time together. For example, every Thursday Ms McMillan would have dinner at their house, and the offender would take them to Queanbeyan for late night shopping. The offender would always purchase gifts for both of the girls.

18. The offender would usually pick up and drop off both girls during these occasions. He would drop his daughter off first, so Ms McMillan would be alone with the offender in the car until they arrived at her house.

19. During this time, the offender would often make inappropriate comments, and would slip his hand into Ms McMillan’s shirt to fondle her breasts. He would say, “you can tell me to stop if you’re uncomfortable”. This occurred on several occasions. Ms McMillan saw the offender once a week, and this conduct was ongoing for the entire period.

20. Ms McMillan recalled a specific incident where the offender had purchased her a $300 jacket while shopping. He told her not to tell her parents. When he dropped her at her house, he parked in the driveway and began to put his hands on her, then reached into her bra and touched her nipple, breathing heavily. This went on for a couple of minutes.

21. Ms McMillan also recalled an incident at Amelie Simons’ house, where the offender was tickling Ms Simons on the ground, and Ms Simons looked extremely uncomfortable.

Offending against Amelie Simons (Count 8)

22. Ms Simons’ mother was in an intimate relationship with the offender between 1994 and 1999. After the relationship ended, the offender continued to see Ms Simons’ mother and her children.

23. Between 2011 and 2012 Ms Simons lived with her mother and siblings. Ms Simons was between 10 and 12 years old at the time. During this period Ms Simons’ mother began doing shift work, so the offender would come to the house to look after the children.

24. The offender started a “tickle game” with Ms Simons, where he would start to tickle her and then use his hands to touch her breasts and upper thighs. This happened so regularly that Ms Simons was unable to recall any specific occasions. It occurred countless times when the offender had access to her, which was every second weekend and every second Thursday. It would occur at Ms Simons’ house, at the offender’s girlfriend’s house, and in the offender’s car.

25. Ms Simons recalled a specific incident which occurred in the summer holidays of 2011. Ms Simons was lying on the couch in the living room and her mother was in a different room. The offender came into the living room, got on his knees next to her and lifted her purple training bra. He put his hands in her shirt and began to grope her breasts. This went on for around two minutes, and the offender made casual conversation while he was doing this.

26. Ms Simons waited for him to stop and didn’t say anything. She felt very uncomfortable. Ms Simons believed that her sister may have partially seen what had happened, as her sister said, “you shouldn’t allow someone to touch you like that”.

27. On another occasion in the winter of 2011, Ms Simons was alone in the living room with the offender. Ms Simons’ mother was putting her other daughter to bed. When Ms Simons’ mother came into the living room, she saw the offender bouncing Ms Simons up and down on his knees, with his hands underneath Ms Simons’ pyjamas and fondling her breasts. Ms Simons’ mother immediately asked him what he was doing and he replied that his hand slipped.

28. Ms Simons has no recollection of this incident, however her mother told her about it some years later.

29. Ms Simons moved out of the house when she was 16. In around 2019, she had a conversation with her mother where her mother asked if the offender had ever touched her. Ms Simons replied that he had.

The Victim Impact Statements

30. Victim impact statements were provided by Ms Ingram, Ms McMillan and Ms Simons’ mother.

31. In her victim impact statement, Ms Ingram explained that the abuse “shaped [her] entire childhood”. She now lives with “constant fear, confusion, and feelings of helplessness”. Her trauma has continued into her adult life. She experiences anxiety, intrusive memories, and ongoing flashbacks. She told the Court about how this “lifelong harm” has been caused to “a child who had no control, no understanding and no voice”.

32. In her victim impact statement, Ms McMillan emphasised that the impacts of the offender’s abuse “did not end when the abuse ended; it shaped patterns I did not consciously choose”. She described how the trauma affected her experience of motherhood. She described her “constant and, at times, crippling” anxiety and how she struggles to allow her daughter independence. Ms McMillan explained that the harm caused by the offender has been “developmental, relational, ongoing… and now, intergenerational”.

33. Ms Simons’ mother said in her victim impact statement that the offender’s actions had caused “profound and lasting harm to my children, my family, and to me as their mother”. She described Ms Simons’ experience of “significant emotional distress and fear”, and said that the emotional impact of the offending on herself as the mother of a victim has been “devastating”. She explained that the offender “did not just abuse a child – he destroyed a family, caused lifelong psychological harm, and took away our sense of safety, trust and connection.”

The offender

Health

34. The offender is 84 years old. He is not in good health. A presentence report dated 31 March 2026 records that the offender has a complex chronic medical history involving cardiovascular, neurological, musculoskeletal and gastrointestinal conditions, for which he is receiving ongoing medical treatment. He is currently on medication for heart failure, and is subject to frequent blood tests, as he is bleeding internally. The offender has longstanding back and spinal conditions, including nerve impairment, which affects his sensation and mobility in his lower limbs. He has intermittent pain and weakness, which makes walking difficult at times. The offender is socially isolated, with limited support networks outside of the support provided by his youngest daughter.

Attitude to the offending

35. The Pre-Sentence Report (PSR) records that when discussing his attitudes about the offences, the offender responded to the author in an “indirect and vague manner”. When asked squarely about the offending, the offender replied “I’m not saying that I didn’t do it”. Although he said that he felt “sorry” for the victims, the offender entirely failed to recognise and acknowledge the seriousness of the harm which he has inflicted upon the victims, describing the offending as “basic stupidity and brain fart”. He later claimed that he had forgotten about the offending, adding that he often forgets matters unless they “mean a lot” to him.

36. I am not satisfied that the offender has demonstrated any remorse for the offending. Prior criminal history

37. The offender has no criminal history as an adult either in New South Wales, or in the ACT. The PSR author assessed the offender as being of very low risk of sexual reoffending.

Delay

38. There was significant delay between the commission of the offences and the institution of charges. In R v Duffy [2014] ACTCA 53; 297 FLR 359 at [51], the Court of Appeal explained that such delay may be relevant in three ways: First, delay may enable an offender to demonstrate rehabilitation … Second, the sentencing court may recognise the psychological pressure, or “state of uncertain suspense” that the offender has endured because of the delay. Third, fairness may dictate that the offender’s present situation should dominate the sentencing exercise …

39. Whilst the offender has not demonstrated rehabilitation, he has been assessed as posing little risk of re-offending. He is also now of poor health, which is a relevant consideration in determining the sentences to be imposed.

40. There is no evidence that the offender has been subject to any psychological pressure in the time before the charges were laid. Importantly, the delay in the institution of the charges resulted from the delay in complaint. As Whealy J observed in R v Moon [2000] NSWCCA 534; 117 A Crim R 497 at [35]: It is not uncommon where a very young or vulnerable person is abused by an older person that the complaint does not emerge until many years later. It is the very nature of the relationship that, in many cases, leads to this repression and inhibition.

41. In these circumstances, I do not consider that fairness requires that the offender’s present situation should dominate the sentencing exercise. As the victim impact statements eloquently describe, the offending has caused lifelong psychological harm. The sentences to be imposed must recognise this lifelong harm.

Pleas of guilty

42. The offender pleaded guilty to all offences in the Supreme Court, before the proceedings were listed for criminal case conference. As the law recognises, it is necessary to recognise the value of these pleas, so that other offenders will be similarly encouraged to not go to trial, thereby minimising trauma for other victims. I will afford the offender a 25% reduction in the sentences to be imposed by reason of his pleas of guilty. There will also be a corresponding reduction of the non-parole period to be imposed. Current sentencing practice

43. Section 33(1)(za) of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) requires this Court to take account of “current sentencing practice” when determining the appropriate sentence to impose.

44. Neither party was able to identify any sentences which are comparable to the present. Senior counsel for the offender drew the Court’s attention to sentencing statistics concerning the offence of persistent sexual abuse of a child. However, given the wide range of offending that is encompassed by the offence of persistent sexual abuse of a child, I do not consider that the sentencing statistics provide any real guidance to the Court in determining the sentences to be imposed for this offence.

45. In his written submissions, the prosecutor submitted that “current sentencing practices for offences of this type do not reflect the objective gravity for offending of this type”. This submission was not elaborated upon, either in writing or orally. In these circumstances, and where no comparative cases were relied upon by either party, it is unnecessary to address this submission further.

Determination

46. Ms Ingram was subjected to offending over an extended period of time, when she was only 8 to 10 years old. The offender was a mature adult, aged between 61 and 63 years. The victim was friends with the offender’s daughter. Some of the offending occurred in the offender’s home, when the victim was sleeping over at her friend’s house. The offending also occurred in the offender’s car. In both locations, the victim was vulnerable. There was a significant power imbalance which resulted both from the age differential and the trusted position that the offender was in. The offending encompassed a range of different sexual acts, including digital vaginal penetration, cunnilingus, rubbing/touching Ms Ingram’s nipples and vagina, and touching her buttocks. The offending was entirely motivated by the offender’s sexual gratification.

47. Count 6 (concerning Ms McMillan) is a course of conduct offence involved the offender touching or fondling the breasts and nipples of Ms McMillan. The offending the subject of count 6 encompasses numerous separate occasions on which offending occurred. Ms McMillan was aged between 14 and 15 at the time of the offending.

48. The offending the subject of count 8 (concerning Ms Simons) involved the offender touching her breasts and upper thighs. Count 8 is a “rolled up” count encompassing the “tickle game” on numerous unspecified occasions and two specific instances of the offender groping or fondling Ms Simons’ breasts. Ms Simons was aged between 10 and 12 at the time of the offending.

49. In both cases, the offender was considerably older than his victims, and was aged in his 60s. The offending against Ms McMillan occurred in the offender’s vehicle, where he had a degree of care and responsibility for the victim. The offending against Ms Simons occurred in her home, a place where she was entitled to feel safe. The offending against both Ms McMillan and Ms Simons occurred in breach of trust.

50. Senior counsel for the offender submitted that counts 6 and 8 were at the “mid-point” of objective seriousness. Such a label must be treated with caution, particularly where the offence is a “course of conduct” (count 6) or “rolled up” (count 8) charge relating to multiple occasions of offending. Whilst the nature of the offending may be described as of mid-range seriousness, the fact that the offending occurred on numerous occasions for both victims must be taken into account.

51. The offences have caused each of the victims immeasurable psychological harm. As senior counsel for the offender properly accepted, the sentences to be imposed must recognise this harm. The sentences to be imposed must also fulfil the purposes of denunciation, accountability and general deterrence. No sentence other than of full-time imprisonment can meet these requirements.

52. The offender is elderly and frail. His experience of custody will be difficult. It is likely that he will spend the remainder of his life in custody. I will take these matters into account in determining the length of the individual sentences, the head sentence and the non-parole period: R v RLP [2009] VSCA 271; 213 A Crim R 461 at [39]; Gulyas v Western Australia [2007] WASCA 263; 178 A Crim R 539 at [54].

53. Nonetheless, the sentence to be imposed must “appropriately reflect a variety of sentencing purposes, including those that relate to the objective culpability of the offender’s conduct”: CX v R [2017] ACTCA 37 at [39]. As the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal held in GS v R [2016] NSWCCA 266 at [100]: The necessity for the courts to impose penalties which reflect the community’s abhorrence of these crimes and which otherwise fulfil the purposes prescribed in [sentencing legislation] restricts the degree to which sentences can be mitigated on account of the age and/or frailty of the offender.

54. The sentence to be imposed for count 1 (persistent sexual abuse of a child) will be imprisonment for 12 years, reduced by reason of the offender’s plea of guilty to imprisonment for 9 years. The sentence to be imposed for count 6 (act of indecency, with respect to Ms McMillan) will be imprisonment for 12 months, reduced by reason of the offender’s plea of guilty to imprisonment for 9 months. The sentence to be imposed for count 8 (act of indecency, with respect to Ms Simons) will be imprisonment for 15 months, reduced by reason of the offender’s plea of guilty to imprisonment for 11 months and 7 days. The sentence will be backdated to 14 April 2026 to take account of the offender’s presentence custody.

55. So as to recognise the criminality involved in separate offending against separate victims, whilst also taking into account principles of totality, there will be partial accumulation of the sentences to be imposed. The overall sentence will be imprisonment for 10 years and 6 months.

56. Senior counsel for the offender invited me to impose a non-parole period of 30% to 40% of the head sentence, in recognition of the offender’s advanced age, health conditions and low risk of reoffending. I accept that these matters must be taken into account. I also accept that there are no “hard rules” as to the ratio of the head sentence to the non-parole period in this jurisdiction. Nonetheless, the minimum period of custody must take into account each of the purposes of sentencing and the offender’s moral culpability: R v Ruwhiu [2023] ACTCA 18 at [115]; Taylor v R [2014] ACTCA 9 at [19]; see also Power v R [1974] HCA 26; (1974) 131 CLR 623 at 628-9. Taking into account each of these matters, and each of the matters to which I have already referred, I will impose a non-parole period of imprisonment for 6 years. I consider that this the minimum period that is required to recognise the seriousness of the offending and the harm caused

Orders

57. The orders of the Court are: (1) For count 1, persistent sexual abuse of a child (CC2025/9163) the offender is convicted and sentenced to 9 years imprisonment, commencing on 14 April 2026 and expiring on 13 April 2035. (2) For count 6, act of indecency on a person under 16 years (course of conduct) (CC2025/9162) the offender is convicted and sentenced to 9 months imprisonment, commencing on 14 March 2035 and expiring on 13 December 2035 (3) For count 8, act of indecency on a person under 16 years (CC2025/48) the offender is convicted and sentenced to 11 months and 7 days imprisonment, commencing on 7 November 2035 and expiring on 13 October 2036. (4) The overall sentence will be a term of imprisonment for 10 years and 6 months, commencing on 14 April 2026 and expiring on 13 October 2036. (5) A non-parole period of 6 years will be imposed, commencing on 14 April 2026 and expiring on 13 April 2032.

I certify that the preceding fifty-seven [57] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Sentence of her Honour Justice Baker. Associate: Date: 22 May 2026