• 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

1. The offender, Steven Murray, has entered pleas of guilty to two counts of an act of indecency without consent contrary to s 60(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) and one count of an act of indecency in the third degree contrary to s 59(1) of the Crimes Act.

2. The maximum penalty for an act of indecency without consent is 7 years’ imprisonment. The maximum penalty for an act of indecency in the third degree is 10 years’ imprisonment.

3. The offender is now to be sentenced for each of these offences.

The offending

4. The victim and offender matched on the dating application Tinder around February 2024. After a few days, they began communicating on the Snapchat platform. Some of these conversations were sexual in nature, including discussions of sexual preferences and the sending of explicit photos. In those conversations, the victim told the offender that she did not do “sexual things” on a first date.

5. On 14 February 2024, the offender suggested that he and the victim should meet up. He offered to come to the victim’s house to watch a movie and cuddle. The victim told the offender she did not allow men she did not know to come to her house. The victim instead suggested they meet for coffee after she dropped her children off at school. The offender suggested they could go to his house to watch a movie and cuddle after. The offender sent a message to the effect of “I won’t even touch your butt”, assuring the victim that they would “just cuddle”.

6. The offender and the victim met at a coffee shop. They spoke briefly. The offender then kissed the victim on the lips, which surprised her. They spoke for about 15 minutes before leaving to go to the offender’s house.

7. After they arrived at the offender’s house, the offender and the victim sat down on the offender’s couch to watch a movie. The victim initially sat away from the offender, but moved closer to the offender after he asked her to do so. The offender pulled the victim against him, so her back was against his chest. He then put his right arm over her shoulders, resting it between the victim’s breasts. The offender said words to the effect of, “[t]hat’s nice and warm”. The victim pushed the offender’s hand off her breast and told him he was “pushing his luck”.

8. The offender laughed and again placed his hand in the same position, underneath the victim’s dress. The offender used his other hand to hold the victim’s chin and turn her face towards his. The offender began kissing the victim on the mouth. They continued kissing for 10-20 seconds, which the victim consented to. Count 1: Act of indecency without consent

9. The offender then pulled down the front of the victim’s dress and began kissing the tops of her breasts, while using his hands to cup her breasts and push them upwards. This occurred for around 5-10 seconds before the victim said words to the effect of, “Okay, stop now. That’s enough”. The offender continued kissing the victim’s breasts and said, “Wait, just let me.” The victim pushed the offender back and pulled her dress back up, again telling the offender he was “pushing his luck”.

10. The offender pushed the victim back, so she was lying on her back. He positioned himself between her legs, tried to pull the victim’s dress up and touched her vagina over the top of her dress, asking “Can I see?”. The victim said “no” and moved her dress back down. The offender asked what the victim was wearing “under there”. The victim told him.

11. The victim moved away from the offender on the couch. The offender said words to the effect of, “Come and cuddle. I won’t do it again. I’ll behave”. The victim returned to sit next to the offender, leaning against his shoulder and holding his hand. Shortly after, the offender began kissing the victim on the mouth, which she consented to. They kissed for 20-30 seconds before the victim pulled back to watch the movie.

12. The offender then got off the couch and knelt on the ground between the victim’s legs. He pulled down the front of the victim’s dress and bra. He placed his hands on the victim’s breasts, trying to pull them further out of her bra, and began kissing the top of her left nipple before placing his mouth around her left nipple. The victim was frozen as this was happening. The offender then placed his hand on the victim’s right nipple and went to squeeze it. The victim told the offender not to touch that breast, as it was pierced and she did not like it to be touched. The victim said “That’s enough” and tried to pull her dress back up. The offender kept his face and hands on her breasts, saying words to the effect of “Let me. Just wait, let me.” The victim pushed the offender back before pulling her clothes up to cover her breasts. Count 2: Act of indecency without consent

13. The offender stood up and pulled his erect penis out from his pants. The victim momentarily froze. The offender moved his penis near the victim’s face and gestured for her to perform fellatio. The victim pulled back and said, “Stop, that’s enough”. She pulled the offenders pants up to cover his penis. The offender giggled and said “okay”.

14. The offender then sat down in the same place on the couch. The victim moved away to the other side of the couch. The offender complained about the victim moving away. The victim explained, “Well, you can’t help yourself, so I’m sitting over here”.

15. The victim then told the offender she had forgotten she needed to go help her mother with domestic chores, as an excuse to leave. She gathered her belongings and walked towards the front door. Count 3: Act of indecency in the third degree

16. The offender followed the victim to the front door, and started kissing her. The victim said, “Come on, stop, I’ve got to go”. The offender then placed his hand on the victim’s throat and pushed her backwards with his body so she was pressed between his body and the wall. The offender began kissing the victim. She said, “That’s enough”.

17. The offender took the victim’s arms and placed them above her head. He held them in place forcefully as he pulled down the front of her dress and began kissing the top of her breasts, saying “Just let me.” The victim was attempting to pull her arms away as this was occurring. She pushed the offender away and left through the front door of the home. Aftermath of the offending

18. The victim went to a friend’s house immediately after the incident. When she arrived, she noticed the offender had sent her a Snapchat message that said, “Sorry if I scared you off”. In reply, the victim told the offender that he had forced himself on her, and that he had touched her multiple times after she had made it clear she was uncomfortable and said ‘no’.

19. The victim told her friend about the offender’s assault. While the victim was at her friend’s house, she noticed that her breasts had red markings on them and that they were tender. These markings faded about 15-20 minutes after the incident.

20. The victim blocked the offender on Snapchat and Tinder, and reported the assault to Tinder. On 15 February 2024, the victim reported the assault to police, and the offender was later arrested.

The Victim Impact Statement

21. In her victim impact statement, the victim described how the offending turned her into a “shadow of the person [she] used to be”. She explained how the offender stole her sense of safety, her confidence, her excitement for life and her joy. She noted that the offending did not just impact her, but that it affected her children as well. She told the Court that, as a consequence of the offending, she began to suffer anxiety attacks and became distant and reserved towards her family and friends.

22. In her victim impact statement, the victim spoke directly to the offender, explaining the effects that his offending had had upon her. When you heard the words “no” and “stop” and “that’s enough” and chose to ignore them, telling me to “just wait” while you continued to violate me, while you continued to take something that was never yours to take, you broke me.

23. The victim told the Court about how she had blamed herself for the offending, and how it had taken over a year for her to realise that “it wasn’t me who had caused this”. The victim concluded with a message of strength: “This is me saying no. This is me making sure that it is heard. This is me reclaiming my power”.

The offender

Background

24. As required by law, I now turn to consider the offender’s subjective case.

25. The offender is now 36 years old. He was born in South Africa and has one older sister. His family frequently relocated due to his father’s employment, eventually relocating to Sydney, New South Wales when he was around 12 years old.

26. The offender completed year 12 and immediately entered the workforce. The Pre- Sentence Report (PSR) author recorded that the offender had an “extensive and consistent” employment history. He has no criminal history.

27. The offender described his childhood to the PSR author as “generally positive” but noted that his father struggled with alcoholism and had physically assaulted him on several occasions. A more fulsome account of the offender’s childhood has been provided by the offender’s mother, who explained that the offender’s father would become “extremely abusive”, both physically and verbally when he drank alcohol. As required by law, I will take into account the offender’s background when determining the sentence to be imposed: see Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; 249 CLR 571 at [42] – [44].

28. Despite his childhood experiences, the offender now shares a more positive relationship with his father. The offender has supportive relationships with his mother and sister, who each reside in Canberra. The offender has two young daughters, whom he co-parents with his former partner, with whom he remains close. The offender is actively involved in his daughter’s lives, and they regularly reside with him on various nights. He also provides for them financially. Mental health

29. The offender reported that he has been diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). He told the PSR author he was not currently prescribed medication for this condition. The offender reported that he had attempted suicide approximately four years ago, which resulted in hospitalisation. The offender did not engage with ongoing mental health treatment following this incident.

30. The offender’s mother reported that the offender’s mental health had been “poor” over the past three years. In her character reference, she noted that the offender’s mental health “suffered badly” following his separation from his former partner in 2023.

31. I am not satisfied that there is any connection between the offender’s mental health and the commission of the offending. None was articulated in the evidence or in the submissions. I am not satisfied that the offender’s mental health explains the offending. However, as required by law, I will take the offender’s mental health into account generally when determining the sentences to be imposed: see R v Verdins [2007] VSCA 102; 16 VR 269 at [32].

Remorse

32. The offender told the PSR author that he had overstepped boundaries, and was “not happy about his actions”. The offender acknowledged that he was “oblivious” to how the victim felt at the time. He also expressed willingness to engage with interventions to address his criminogenic risk factors.

33. Although finding that the offender had demonstrated “some insight” into the offending, the PSR author was concerned that the offender’s reflections were “predominantly self-focused”, noting that the offender’s empathy was framed through personal reference points, such as how he would feel if similar behaviour affected his own daughters.

34. However, it must be borne in mind that true remorse often begins in such a way. Here, those initial reflections have led to the offender to a deeper understanding of the harm which his offending has caused. In particular, a number of the offender’s character references report that the offender has developed insight into the impact of his offending on the victim.

35. I accept that the offender is remorseful for his offending.

Risk of reoffending/ prospects of rehabilitation

36. The offender was assessed as having a low risk of general reoffending, and an average risk of sexual reoffending. The PSR author held concerns regarding the offender’s mental health, particularly noting the offender had no long-term treatment plan. In addition, the PSR author noted the offender’s attitude towards the offending reflected a difficulty in respecting boundaries and recognising social cues. The PSR author considered that the offender may benefit from engagement with mental health treatment, as well as engagement in programs or counselling to address his sexual offending.

37. I find that the offender has reasonable prospects of rehabilitation, provided he engages with programs and counselling.

Comparative cases

38. In their submissions, the parties referred to a number of comparative cases. A summary of those cases is annexed to this judgment. I have carefully considered the sentences imposed in these decisions, as required by s 33(1)(za) of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT). In doing so, I have borne in mind the limitations of such cases: R v Pham [2015] HCA 39; 256 CLR 550 at [29]; DPP v Dalgliesh (a pseudonym) [2017] HCA 41; 262 CLR 428 at [51]–[53]; and Hili v R [2010] HCA 45; 242 CLR 520 at [48]–[49].

39. As can be seen from that annexure, almost all of the comparative cases have imposed periods of imprisonment for the offending. However, where the offending has not included more serious offences of sexual intercourse without consent, no offender has been sentenced to a period of full-time imprisonment.

Determination

40. Senior counsel for the offender urged the Court to assess the objective seriousness of the offences by labelling where the offences lie on the “spectrum” of objective seriousness. I do not consider that this is necessary, particularly for offences such as the present, which, in the case of an act of indecency comprehend a broad range of offending, “from sexualised words to genital on genital contact”: DPP v Waters (a pseudonym) [2025] ACTSC 84 at [41]. What is necessary is that the features which inform the objective seriousness of the offences be identified, not where the offending lies as a point on a hypothetical range: DPP v Moala (No 3) [2023] ACTSC 306 at [22]; see also R v Toumo’ua [2017] ACTCA 9; 12 ACTLR 103 at [24].

41. The offender’s state of mind is one of the features which must considered in assessing the objective seriousness. Senior counsel for the offender submitted that the question of the offender’s state of mind in the present case “is a vexed one”. In particular, he pointed to the earlier sexualised conversations which had been had on social media, and the fact that the non-consensual acts were “interspersed by consensual sexualised conduct”, including kissing and cuddling. Adopting the language of McCallum CJ in DPP v Earle [2023] ACTSC 93, he invited me to find that the encounter between the victim and the offender as “complex, awkward and messy”, and contended that a finding should be made that this was “not a case involving actual subjective knowledge as to a lack of consent”. Specifically, he contended that the offender: … began with a subjective misapprehension of the level of intimacy that was to be involved [and] proceeded on the basis of what he subjectively expected/wanted to hear, not what was objectively being said to him. However, as the encounter progressed, it ought to have become more clear to him that his conduct was not being consented to (it being conceded that it was objectively made clear to him from an early point).

42. I do not accept this submission. This was not a case such as Earle. The victim made her boundaries clear from the outset and at all times during the encounter. She told the offender, in writing on Snapchat, that she did not do “sexual things” on the first date. After the offender started touching her breasts, she directed the offender “Okay, stop now. That’s enough” and pushed the offender away. The victim’s words and her actions conveyed, unequivocally to the offender, that she did not consent to the offender touching her breasts. It is clear that he heard the victim; he said “Wait, just let me”. Concerned only with his own sexual gratification, the offender then persisted in his assault of the victim, kissing the victim’s nipple and squeezing it (count 1). When the victim again told the offender that she did not like that breast being touched, and again repeated “That’s enough”, the offender did not apologise or respect the victim’s clear expression that she did not consent. Rather, he again repeated “Let me. Just wait. Let me”. He then escalated the offending against the victim, pulling out his erect penis in front of her face (count 2). Finally, when the victim went to leave and approached the front door, telling the offender “Come on, stop, I’ve got to go”, the offender placed his hand on the victim’s throat and pushed her backwards with his body, pushing her against the wall, and began kissing her again (count 3).

43. The fact that the victim consented to kissing and cuddling at times throughout the encounter did not “complicate” the encounter. The victim had at all times made clear that whilst she consented to kissing and cuddling, she did not consent to more sexualised contact than that, and in particular, did not consent to the touching of her breasts. Each of the offences was immediately preceded by the victim conveying a clear reaffirmation of this boundary, both through verbal statements and through physical acts.

44. In these circumstances, I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the offender knew that the victim did not consent to any of the offences. Further, if I am wrong in this finding, and the offender did not know that the victim did not consent, this can only be because he was so focussed on meeting his own sexual desires that he did not care at all about whether the victim was consenting. In the present case, this state of mind would be no less culpable than actual knowledge.

45. I accept that the offending was not planned or premeditated. However, it was not fleeting in duration, but rather consisted of an ongoing series of acts. The offending involved direct contact of the victim’s skin, and direct touching of her breasts. The offending occurred in the offender’s home. The offender was alone with the victim, who was in a position of vulnerability, having met the offender less than an hour before.

46. The offence of act of indecency in the third degree involved the offender placing his hand on the victim’s throat, pushing her backwards, so that her body was pressed against the wall, and then holding the victim’s arms forcefully above her head. I have borne in mind that the application of force is an element of this offence, which carries a higher maximum penalty for this reason.

47. The victim has eloquently explained in her victim impact statement her own experience of the offending and the harm which the offences have wrought upon her and her family. The sentences to be imposed must recognise this harm. As is unfortunately common in offending of this nature, the victim initially blamed herself for what occurred. Fortunately, she has now come to understand, correctly, that she is not to blame. It is the offender, not the victim, who must be held responsible for the harm his actions have caused.

48. As outlined above, I accept that the offender is now remorseful for this conduct. The offender’s understanding of the seriousness of the offending, and, of the harm which this form of offending causes, will no doubt be deepened by his having heard the victim’s account of the harm that he caused in her victim impact statement. I am satisfied that the offender has good prospects of rehabilitation.

49. No sentence other than imprisonment is appropriate to meet the need for denunciation, deterrence, accountability and the need to recognise the harm occasioned to the victim. However, in view of the offender’s strong subjective case, in particular, the offender’s demonstrated remorse and positive prospects of rehabilitation, the prosecution did not submit that a sentence of full-time imprisonment is required. I agree with this concession.

50. As French CJ observed in Hogan v Hinch [2011] HCA 4; 275 ALR 408 at [32], “[r]ehabilitation, if it can be achieved, is likely to be the most durable guarantor of community protection and is clearly in the public interest”. It is in the community’s interest that the offender’s rehabilitation be secured.

51. A short period of custody may make it more likely that an offender engages in further criminal conduct upon release. Research has shown that even short periods of detention erode the socioeconomic connections which support rehabilitation (such as employment, and prosocial relationships), without offering an offender sufficient time to engage in the programs necessary to change their mindset or behaviour: see Jenna Mizzi et al, Beyond Bars: Exploring Challenges and Solutions to the Problem of Short Custodial Stays in Regional South Australia, (Report, July 2024) 14; see also Azzopardi v The Queen [2011] VSCA 372; 35 VR 43 at [36].

52. The legislature has made provision for Intensive Correction Orders (ICOs) to balance the need for the competing sentencing purposes of punishment, accountability, denunciation and deterrence with the need to promote the rehabilitation of offenders. As McCallum CJ observed in Earle: The provenance of the notion that a term of imprisonment can, consistently with the purposes of sentencing, be served by intensive correction in the community was considered by the Standing Committee on Justice and Community Safety, Inquiry Into Sentencing (Report No 4, March 2015). In its report, the Standing Committee recorded submissions from several stakeholders, who argued that ICOs would expand the range of orders available to courts, filling the gap between community and custodial orders. The flexibility of ICOs was contended to increase judicial discretion and more aptly consider an individual’s circumstances. Their introduction of tailored supervision would, in turn, reduce recidivism and public resource costs in the long term, though it was noted that such orders require adequate resources to be effective. The Standing Committee recommended the introduction of ICOs in the Australian Capital Territory, particularly due to their benefits in reducing recidivism.

53. As her Honour continued, the decision of the Court of Appeal in Wyper v The Queen [2017] ACTCA 59 supports that analysis. In that case the Court of Appeal held at [128] – [129]: …an ICO is “a sentence of ‘last resort’ for offenders before full-time imprisonment.” Further, an ICO was “designed to be punitive while still allowing the courts to incorporate elements of rehabilitation… It is flexible … but still sufficiently structured to ensure every order places appropriate demands on an offender.”

54. Accordingly, I will order that each of the terms of imprisonment that I impose be served by way of ICOs. It will be a condition of each order that the offender engage in sex offence specific interventions and with mental health services.

55. The law requires that the offender’s plea of guilty be taken into account when setting the term of the sentence: s 35 of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act. The offender pleaded guilty on the first day of a trial by jury, after the jury’s empanelment, but before any evidence was adduced. Generally speaking where, as here, the plea of guilty is entered on the first day of the trial, the reduction is to be minimal, in recognition of the limited utilitarian value of the plea. However, in the present case, the pleas that were entered by the offender was consistent with a high-level offer that was made on behalf of the offender at the criminal case conference, which had been rejected by the prosecution at that time. In those circumstances, I consider that it is appropriate to afford a 20% reduction of the penalties to be imposed.

56. The sentence to be imposed for counts 1 and 2 will each be imprisonment for one year, reduced and rounded down to imprisonment for 9 and a half months on account of the offender’s pleas of guilty. The sentence to be imposed for count 3 will be imprisonment for 15 months, reduced to 12 months on account of the offender’s plea of guilty. Taking into account principles of totality, the overall sentence will be imprisonment for eighteen months. For the reasons I have already outlined, that sentence will be ordered to be served by way of ICOs.

Orders

57. The orders of the Court are: (1) For the offence of act of indecency without consent (SCCAN 190/2024), the offender is convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for 9 months and 15 days, commencing on 12 November 2026 and expiring on 26 August 2027. (2) For the offence of act of indecency without consent (CAN 5233/2024), the offender is convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for 9 months and 15 days, commencing on 12 February 2027 and expiring on 26 November 2027. (3) For the offence of act of indecency in the third degree (CAN 8010/2024), the offender is convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for 1 year, commencing on 27 May 2026 and expiring on 26 May 2027. (4) The above sentences are to be served by way of Intensive Corrections Order with the following conditions: (a) The offender is to engage with sex offence specific interventions. (b) The offender is to engage with a mental health service for an assessment and any recommended treatment.

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: MP Date: 28 May 2025 ANNEXURE A – COMPARATIVE CASES

Case Objective circumstances Subjective Sentence circumstances DPP v Hudson Sexual offending, common • 32 years old 3x act of indecency: 9 [2023] ACTSC 333 assault, choke/suffocate/strangle months, 9 months and 12 Offender found and property damage months’ imprisonment. Berman AJ guilty after trial. Offences were a course of Maintained his conduct committed against a sex innocence. Sexual assault in the third worker. The booking commenced • Difficult degree: 18 months’ with consensual sex services, and upbringing and imprisonment the offender then engaged in non-consensual actions including PTSD Total sentence 4 years and licking the victim’s buttocks, • Well above 9 months’ imprisonment. forcing the victim to engage in average risk of fellatio without a condom, spitting NPP 2 years 6 months. sexual in the victim’s face and reoffending penetrating the victim’s vagina with his fingers. • Criminal history but no prior sexual offending

R v Versteeg (No 2) Sexual intercourse without • Offender used Act of indecency without [2020] ACTSC 273 consent, act of indecency without physical force consent: 10 months’ consent imprisonment, reduced Burns J • No condom from 11 months. Offender and victim initially used engaged in consensual sexual Total sentence 2 years, 7 activity; victim then withdrew • High moral months’ imprisonment consent. Offender rolled victim culpability Suspended after 8 months onto her stomach, pulled her • 27 years old upon entry into a GBO for 2 leggings down and inserted his years. penis into her vagina. Later, • Prospects of offender grabbed the victim’s rehabilitation hand and placed it on his penis. • Late guilty plea – 5% discount afforded. DPP v McKay 4x act of indecency without • Psychological 3x act of indecency: 1 [2025] ACTSC 42 consent, 1x sexual intercourse condition month 15 days’ without consent affecting imprisonment, reduced understanding from 2 months Offender entered victim’s bed of sexual while she was asleep, and groped 1x act of indecency: 3 boundaries the victim’s breast three times. months’ imprisonment, The offender grabbed the victim’s • Part-time reduced from 4 months. buttocks and rubbed her clitoris custody of Total sentence 1 year 6 over her underwear, and then children months’ imprisonment. digitally penetrated her. • Strong pro- Sentences suspended after social factors 2 months’ imprisonment upon entry into GBO for 18 • Guilty plea and months assistance to police – 25% discount. Calatzis v Jones Act of indecency without consent • Sentenced as 4 months’ imprisonment, [2024] ACTSC 42 reckless to lack reduced from 5 months. Offender and victim were friends of consent and went to victim’s house after a Fully suspended upon entry night out on the understanding • Suffered into a GBO for 2 years and there would be no sex. Victim depression 6 months. awoke to find offender rubbing her clitoris. • Pro-social factors and good prospects of rehabilitation • 20% discount applied. DPP v Earle [2023] 1x sexual intercourse without • Offender failed Act of indecency: 12 ACTSC 93 consent, 1x act of indecency to consider at all months’ imprisonment without consent the question of Total sentence 3 years and consent Offender rubbed victim’s clitoris 2 months’ imprisonment. while she was asleep. Victim • Strong Sentence to be served by awoke, and offender then prospects of way of ICO with 300 hours removed her underwear and rehabilitation community service. inserted his penis into her vagina. and pro-social factors • Found guilty following trial. R v Teer [2019] 1x act of indecency without • Positive Act of indecency: GBO for ACTSC 334 consent, 1x assault occasioning subjective case 19 months, reduced from ABH 20 months. • Guilty plea Offender and victim were in an following a trial Assault occasioning ABH: intimate relationship. Offender which was GBO for 30 months, tried to initiate sexual activity by unable to be reduced from 32 months. fondling victim’s breast. Victim completed – 5% Total sentence was a GBO told the offender to stop and get discount for 30 months. off her. Offender tried to put his afforded. hand in victim’s underwear, rolled Orders included a condition victim over and pushed her head to undertake domestic into the mattress, and applied violence counselling pressure to victim’s throat. R v MC [2018] 2x act of indecency without • Found guilty at Acts of indecency: 3 ACTSC 350 consent, 1x act of indecency in trial, maintained months and 9 months’ the third degree innocence imprisonment Offender sucked the victim’s • Stale criminal Act of indecency in the third abdomen, pulled down the history over 20 degree: 12 months’ victim’s pants with the intention of years old imprisonment. committing an act of indecency, Total sentence 12 months’ and leaned against victim to imprisonment. prevent her from getting up while trying to lower his own pants. Wholly suspended upon entry into GBO for 18 months on condition that offender attend adult sex offender’s program. R v NQ [2015] 1x act of indecency without • Pleaded guilty – Act of indecency: 7 months’ ACTSC 308 consent, 1x assault with intent to 25% discount imprisonment, reduced engage in sexual intercourse from 9 months. • Low risk of Offender assaulted victim, who reoffending but Assault with intent to was his partner for 17 years, for incident was not engage in sexual almost 1 hour attempting to force isolated intercourse: 1 year and 9 her to engage in oral sexual months’ imprisonment, intercourse. • Willingness to reduced from 2 years 4 engage with months. support services demonstrated Total sentence 1 year and 9 months’ imprisonment. Wholly suspended upon entry into GBO for 3 years. R v Kindl [2015] 1x act of indecency without • Troubled 12 months’ imprisonment, ACTSC 128 consent childhood reduced from 15 months. The offender touched the • Intellectual Wholly suspended upon complainant’s breasts and disability entry into GBO for 2 years. stomach, engaged in partial digital penetration (not giving rise to a • Mental health more serious charge) and pushed issues his semi-erect penis between the • Discount of 15% complainant’s buttocks. afforded for guilty plea, noting strong prosecution case R v Ridley [2014] 1x act of indecency without • 53 years old 10 months’ imprisonment, ACTSC 382 consent reduced from 12 months. • Significant Offender exposed himself and criminal record Wholly suspended upon masturbated his penis in front of entry into a GBO for 2 the victim in a supermarket, who • Childhood years, with a condition of was with her granddaughter. alcohol and drug 70 hours community use service, and attending adult sex offender program. • Offending breached GBO • Guilty plea taken into account but level of discount not mentioned. R v Jones [2014] 1x act of indecency without • Found guilty 8 months’ imprisonment, ACTSC 119 consent after trial wholly suspended upon entry into GBO for 2 years. Offender was sitting on a park • Significant bench and victim was working as criminal history a cleaner in the area. Offender exposed his penis, began • Alcohol abuse masturbating and gestured for the victim to perform fellatio.