DPP v Niatin [2025] ACTSC 473

(3) The overall sentence will be a term of imprisonment of 2 years, commencing on 28 November 2024 and expiring on 27 November 2026.

(4) A non-parole period of 15 months will be imposed, commencing on 28 November 2024 and expiring on 27 February 2026.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – sexual intercourse without consent – attempt sexual intercourse without consent – where victim was a sex worker – where sex workers are particularly vulnerable to offences of this kind – where offender faced hardship in custody due to language difficulties – where offender faced deportation upon release from custody – sentenced to 2 years’ imprisonment – non-parole period of 15 months

Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) s 44 Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 33, 65 Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) s 44

Cases Cited: DPP v Dalgliesh (a pseudonym) [2017] HCA 41; 262 CLR 428 DPP v Aghahosseini [2024] ACTSC 237 DPP v Ayoub (No 5) [2023] ACTSC 140 DPP v Earle [2023] ACTSC 93 DPP v Hudson [2023] ACTSC 333 DPP v Hudson [2023] ACTSC 333 DPP v Ivanovski [2025] ACTSC 237 Hili v R [2010] HCA 45; 242 CLR 520 R v Al-Harazi (No 7) [2017] ACTSC 350 R v El-Debel; R v Kahlon (No 7) [2022] ACTSC 313 R v Emberton [2022] ACTSC 286 R v Palmer [2017] ACTSC 357 R v Pham [2015] HCA 39; 256 CLR 550 R v Saran [2019] ACTSC 37 Shrestha v R (1991) 173 CLR 48 The Queen v Miller [2019] ACTCA 25 The Queen v Miller [2019] ACTCA 25 The Queen v Mitchell [2002] NSWCCA 380

Parties: Director of Public Prosecutions

Rony Niatin (Offender)

Representation: Counsel

N Deakes (DPP)

E Chen (Offender)

Solicitors

ACT Director of Public Prosecutions

ACT Legal Aid (Offender)

File Number: SCC 127 of 2025 BAKER J:

Introduction

1. Rony Niatin (the offender) has entered pleas of guilty to one count of sexual intercourse

without consent (CC2024/11897), contrary to s 54(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) (the

first offence), and one count of attempted sexual intercourse without consent

(CC2025/4970) also contrary to s 54(1) of the Crimes Act, by virtue of section 44 of the

Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) (the second offence). Both offences were committed against

the same victim and arose from within the same course of conduct. The maximum

penalty for each offence is 12 years’ imprisonment.

2. The offending occurred in a licensed sex work establishment, a regulated but entirely

lawful industry and occupation in the Australian Capital Territory. The offending began

as initial consensual activity but strayed to nonconsensual acts for the sexual gratification

of the offender.

The offending

3. On the evening of Friday, 22 November 2024, the victim commenced a shift at Harlots

Canberra in Fyshwick in the Australian Capital Territory. Harlots Canberra is a brothel

and the victim worked there as an escort.

4. Shortly before 11:59pm, the offender and his friend entered Harlots Canberra. At around

12:10am on Saturday, 23 November 2024, the victim entered the introduction room

inside Harlots Canberra where she met the offender and his friend. The victim introduced

herself to both. A short time later the offender informed Harlots staff that he would like to

make a booking with the victim. The offender’s friend made a booking with another

escort.

5. After passing a health test and showering, the offender entered a room with the victim

and paid the victim some cash.

6. The victim noticed the offender was overtly touching his penis, and asked him to put on

a condom before engaging in any further acts. The offender wished to perform

cunnilingus on the victim. She reached for a dental dam beside the bed. (A dental dam

is a form of protection worn over the vagina and anus to protect the wearer from sexually

transmitted diseases). The victim tried to give the offender a dental dam. The offender

said to the victim “no, we don’t need that – we don’t need that”.

7. The offender proceeded to use his mouth and tongue to perform cunnilingus on the

victim’s vagina unprotected for about five seconds, before placing his fingers into the victim’s vagina. The victim told the offender “okay, darling, if you put a condom on, we

can get straight into it”.

8. The offender put a condom on and the victim performed fellatio on the offender. The

victim noticed that the condom appeared to be tight. She told the offender he should take

it off, and put another one in its place. The offender replaced the condom on his penis.

The offender and the victim then engaged in consensual penile-vaginal sexual

intercourse, with the offender behind the victim while she was in a kneeling position on

the bed facing away from him.

9. Whilst in this position, the victim felt the offender stop briefly before continuing. She noted

it felt like skin-to-skin contact, rather than the feeling of latex. The victim told the offender

“no”, and to put a condom on. She then watched the offender pick up and place the same

condom back onto his penis before continuing intercourse in the same position.

10. A short time later, the victim felt the condom was no longer on the offender’s penis whilst

he was inside her. She could no longer feel the latex. She began to say “no” and “stop”

again repeatedly.

11. The offender used his hands to push the victim’s upper body into the bed and her head

was pushed into the blankets. The offender continued to have unprotected penile-vaginal

sexual intercourse with the victim.

12. The victim told the offender repeatedly throughout the interaction that he needed to wear

a condom. The victim formed the view that the offender either did not understand what

she was saying, or that he was refusing to listen.

13. As the offender was engaging in penile-vaginal intercourse with victim, the victim felt the

tip of the offender’s penis near her anus. She felt immediate pain in her anus and told

the offender to stop. The victim was unsure if the offender’s penis penetrated her anus.

The victim did not consent to anal intercourse.

14. The victim immediately stopped the appointment by pretending the duration of the

services had lapsed. They put their clothes on and returned to the reception area of the

establishment. The offender’s friend was in the reception waiting for the offender.

15. Once the offender was in the reception area, the victim informed other staff that she had

been sexually assaulted. The offender and his friend left. Police were subsequently

notified. Later that morning, police arrived at the brothel and gathered evidence before

taking the victim to the Canberra Hospital to undergo a medical examination.

16. At around 11:00am on 28 November 2024, police located the offender at his work at a

construction site in Campbell. The offender was arrested and cautioned. He was then

conveyed to the ACT Watch House. He has remained in custody since that time.

The Victim Impact Statement

17. The victim provided a Victim Impact Statement in which she described the effects of the

offending upon her. She said that since the offending, she has felt “very isolated”. She

said that she did not feel comfortable telling her family or her friends about what had

happened. She did not want to go out or leave her home. She said that she no longer

felt safe in the world.

18. When the victim did return to work, she found she was dissociating, which affected her

ability to be present in a booking. The offending also affected her relationships with her

colleagues. She has reduced her work hours to limit the negative impact upon her

colleagues and clients. As a result, she has sustained a lot of financial loss.

19. The offending has also had a negative impact upon the victim’s intimate relationships

and her ability to trust other people, particularly in intimate moments.

20. The victim concluded:

In order to continue living my life I have had to push down my feelings about this incident, and I am carrying all my emotions about this around with me. I bottle up all my emotions, and sometimes I just can’t anymore, and it all comes out, and it makes life really difficult.

I want this man to know how he treated me was not ok!

The offender’s subjective case

21. The offender is a citizen of Vanuatu. He arrived in Australia approximately three years

ago. He overstayed his visa in order to work. Australian Border Force have confirmed

that the offender is an unlawful non-citizen. He will be deported upon the expiry of any

custodial sentence imposed.

22. In his interview with the author of the Pre-Sentence Report (which was conducted in

English), the offender described a supportive upbringing in Vanuatu with his parents, two

older brothers and two sisters. The offender’s father and eldest brother are both now

deceased. The offender was 14 years old when his father passed away. He assumed

financial responsibility for his mother and siblings after this time. As an adult, he has

continued to provide financial support to his mother and younger sister, whilst also

supporting his wife and three children.

23. The offender denied any past or current issues with drugs or alcohol. He told the

presentence report author that he was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the

commission of the offences. He described this as a “rare night out”. The offender

identified alcohol as a contributing factor in the commission of the offences. He has not

consumed alcohol since that time.

24. The offender has no criminal history. He was of good character prior to the commission

of the present offences. Whilst in custody, he has been employed as a sweeper,

reflecting his commitment to work and prosocial activities.

25. The offender gave evidence via a Bislama interpreter in the sentencing proceedings. He

said that his life in prison has been “very hard”. He explained that he has “no friends, I

cannot communicate, I can’t speak English very well, I am isolated and alone in the

prison.” Since his incarceration, the offender has been unable to provide financial support

to his family in Vanuatu, and “can no longer pay for the electricity, the water bills, the

school fees or hospital bills..” The offender also expressed remorse, saying “if I was able

to apologise to [the victim], I would apologise and … ask her forgiveness”.

Determination

26. The following features of the offending are relevant to the assessment of the nature and

circumstances of both offences:

(i) The victim, as a sex worker, was in a position of vulnerability;

(ii) The offending was opportunistic and not planned;

(iii) The duration of the service was 20 to 30 minutes. The offending was of a

considerably shorter duration. It is not possible to state the length of either

offence, other than to say that neither were momentary, nor prolonged,

and that the first offence was of a longer duration than the second;

(iv) The removal of the condom exposed the victim to the risk of sexually

transmitted disease and, in respect of the first offence, pregnancy;

(v) The first offence was a rolled-up count consisting of more than one act of

penetration, although occurring in very short succession. As the offender’s

counsel submitted, it is properly characterised as a course of conduct;

(vi) There was some force used, in particular pushing and forcing the victim’s

head into the blankets in relation to the first offence; (vii) Whilst the victim did not suffer severe injuries, she sustained soreness in

and around her anus (relevant to the count of the second offence) and

some tenderness to the back of her head;

(viii) The second offence (attempted anal intercourse) came close to

completion. It was only the victim’s resistance that hindered the

penetration.

27. The Agreed Facts records that the victim “formed the view that the offender either didn’t

understand what she was saying or was refusing to listen” (emphasis added). It is difficult

to understand why the victim considered that there was a possibility that the offender did

not understand what she was saying. She had repeatedly said “no” and “stop” to the

offender. It is clear from the Agreed Facts that the offender’s level of understanding of

English was sufficient for him to communicate with the victim earlier in the encounter.

The Pre-Sentence Report author was able to conduct an interview with the offender in

English. In his evidence in the sentence proceedings, the offender acknowledged that

the words “yes” and “no” are the same in Bislama as in English.

28. Nonetheless, the victim was the subject of the offending, and it is clear from the Agreed

Facts that she had a doubt about whether or not the offender understood what she was

saying. In these circumstances, I am not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the

offender knew that the victim was not consenting to sexual intercourse without a condom.

29. This is not, however, a matter which greatly reduces the objective seriousness of the

offences. In circumstances where the victim repeatedly said “no” and “stop”, the

offender’s recklessness is of a high order. As the offender acknowledged that he

understands the meaning of “yes” and “no”, any lack of understanding of the victim’s lack

of consent is likely to have been attributable to the offender’s consumption of alcohol at

the time of the offending. As the offender’s counsel properly acknowledged, this is not a

matter that operates in mitigation of the sentence to be imposed.

30. Taking into account all of the above considerations, the need for denunciation and for

deterrence, both general and specific, is high. As Berman AJ observed in DPP v Hudson

[2023] ACTSC 333 at [61] – [62]:

[S]ex workers are particularly vulnerable to offences of this kind. The very nature of their employment requires that they have sex with strangers when they are alone. … Such people should know that if they go beyond what has been agreed and commit offences of sexual violence upon a sex worker who has made it clear that he or she does not consent, then the criminal law will mark the wrongfulness of such conduct with significant sentences. Offenders are sentenced in order to protect the community of which sex workers are a part. They deserve the protection of the criminal law just as much as accountants, factory workers, doctors and bus drivers.

See also The Queen v Mitchell [2002] NSWCCA 380 at [19]; The Queen v Miller [2019]

ACTCA 25 at [34].

31. The victim powerfully explained the harm which the offending had caused in her victim

impact statement, to which I have already referred. The sentence to be imposed must

also adequately recognise this harm.

32. I accept the offender’s evidence that he is remorseful for the harm that he has caused to

the victim. He has good prospects of rehabilitation.

33. The offender has spent 329 days in custody, since 28 November 2024, following his

arrest. By reason of the language barrier, the offender is “isolated and alone” in custody.

The prosecution accepted that the offender’s custody has been more onerous as a result

of his language difficulties: see R v Al-Harazi (No 7) [2017] ACTSC 350 at [193].

34. During the offender’s time in custody, he has not been able to financially provide for his

family in Vanuatu, as he was prior to this incarceration. The prosecution accepted that

this constitutes family hardship which should be taken into account on sentence: see R

v El-Debel; R v Kahlon (No 7) [2022] ACTSC 313 at [51].

35. The offender pleaded guilty in the Magistrates Court. I will reduce the sentences by 25%

to take account of his early guilty pleas.

36. The prosecution provided a table of comparative cases. This table includes interstate

sentences imposed for offending relating to sex workers. As the offender’s counsel

submitted, these interstate decisions are of little guidance, as they concern offences

which carry different maximum penalties, and were determined in different statutory

sentencing regimes: see DPP v Earle [2023] ACTSC 93 at [19].

37. The sentences imposed for similar offending in this jurisdiction included DPP v Ivanovski

[2025] ACTSC 237; DPP v Aghahosseini [2024] ACTSC 237; DPP v Hudson [2023]

ACTSC 333; DPP v Ayoub (No 5) [2023] ACTSC 140; R v Emberton [2022] ACTSC 286;

The Queen v Miller [2019] ACTCA 25; R v Saran [2019] ACTSC 37; and R v Palmer

[2017] ACTSC 357. The prosecution’s table of those sentences is annexed to this

judgment.

38. Of course, I have carefully considered the sentences imposed in these decisions, as

required by s 33(1)(za) of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), whilst bearing in

mind the limitations of such comparative 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. There is no dispute that the only appropriate sentence to be imposed is one of full-time

imprisonment. Taking into account all of the matters I have described above, I will

sentence the offender for the offence of sexual intercourse without consent to

imprisonment for 1 year and 9 months (discounted from 2 years and 4 months). For the

offence of attempted sexual intercourse without consent, I will sentence the offender to

imprisonment for 1 year, 1 month and 15 days (discounted from 18 months).

40. The prosecution acknowledged that, as the two offences occurred within short

succession, there should be a measure of concurrency in the sentences imposed. The

sentence for the offence of attempted sexual intercourse without consent will be

accumulated by three months upon the sentence for sexual intercourse without consent.

41. The offender will be deported upon his release from custody. The offender’s counsel

conceded that this matter does not operate, of itself, to mitigate the sentence to be

imposed. This concession was properly made. The offender’s liability to deportation

arises from his failure to abide by the conditions of his visa, rather than as a result of the

offending.

42. However, the offender’s counsel submitted that the offender’s deportation is of potential

relevance to the structuring of the sentence to be imposed. Specifically, the offender’s

counsel submitted that as the offender will be deported upon his release, I should impose

a partially suspended sentence, rather than setting a non-parole period. The offender’s

counsel submitted that this would avoid the offender having to apply for parole, which

may be difficult in light of his language difficulties.

43. The offender’s counsel acknowledged that this course would not be appropriate if I

formed the view that the offender should receive a minimum term of 12 months

imprisonment or more: see s 65(2) of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act.

44. I am not satisfied that it is appropriate for the offender to receive a minimum term of less

than 12 months’ imprisonment. Taking into account all of the matters that I have set out

above, I consider that the appropriate minimum term is 15 months’ imprisonment. It

remains appropriate for the Court to set a non-parole period, notwithstanding that the

offender will be deported upon his release: see Shrestha v R (1991) 173 CLR 48 at 71 -

73. It will be incumbent on Corrective Services to ensure that he has assistance in

preparing his application for parole. Orders

45. The orders of the Court are:

(1) For the offence of sexual intercourse without consent (CC2024/11897), the

offender is convicted and sentenced to 1 year and 9 months’ imprisonment,

commencing on 28 November 2024 and expiring on 27 August 2026.

(2) For the offence of attempted sexual intercourse without consent

(CC2025/4970), the offender is convicted and sentenced to 1 year, 1 month

and 15 days’ imprisonment, commencing on 13 October 2025 and expiring on

27 November 2026.

(3) The overall sentence will be a term of imprisonment of 2 years, commencing

on 28 November 2024 and expiring on 27 November 2026.

(4) A non-parole period of 15 months will be imposed, commencing on 28

November 2024 and expiring on 27 February 2026.

I certify that the preceding forty-five [45] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Sentence of her Honour Justice Baker.

Associate:

Date: ANNEXURE A – Table of Comparative Cases

Case Name Objective Features Subjective Features Sentence

DPP v Ivanovski Charges: Assessed as suitable 2 years and 6 [2025] ACTSC 237 for an ICO. months’ 1x sexual intercourse without imprisonment. Burns AJ consent No criminal history.

Offender used cocaine and Suspended after The offender made a booking with methylamphetamine. 12 months upon the victim, who was a sex worker. entering a GBO The offender told the victim he Good work history. for 1 year and 6 wanted to have unprotected sex. Breakdown of months. The victim made it clear she did not marriage prior to offer “natural services”. offence, but in a new The offender initially wore a condom. relationship at the However, during the booking, the time of sentencing. offender removed the condom. Denial of offending. The offending was opportunistic and not prolonged, there was no threat of violence, the victim was put at risk of disease and pregnancy, the offender was clearly aware of the victim’s non-consent and there was a profound negative impact on the victim.

DPP v Aghahosseini Charges Born in Iran and 2 years and 6 [2024] ACTSC 237 immigrated to months’ 4x rolled up counts of sexual Australia in 2013. imprisonment for McCallum CJ intercourse without consent each count of Illicit substance user. 2x act of indecency without consent sexual taken into account Positive relationship intercourse with mother. without consent, 3 other criminal incidents (burglary, fully cumulative. escape from custody) were also Psychiatric diagnosis sentenced for. most consistent with schizophrenia, Total sentence: 6 however culpability years and 1 The offender, who was 37, contacted not reduced for sexual month’s the 19-year-old victim on Grindr. The offending. imprisonment. offender offered payment for the Previous employment. victim to meet him and undress while the offender masturbated. The victim Likely to be deported. NPP of 4 years. agreed but stated he would not engage in sex.

The offender engaged in several acts of sexual intercourse without consent, including penetrating the victim’s anus with his finger and his penis, and inserting his penis into the victim’s mouth. The victim was Case Name Objective Features Subjective Features Sentence

protesting and in pain during the offending.

The offender knew the victim did not consent to any of the acts, the victim suffered pain and discomfort, force was used during the offending, and the offending involved several skin-on-skin acts.

DPP v Hudson [2023] Charges 32 years at time of Sexual ACTSC 333 sentencing. intercourse 3x sexual intercourse without without consent: Berman AJ consent No prior sexual 18 months’ offending but above 1x attempt sexual intercourse imprisonment for average risk for without consent each count sexual reoffending. 1x sexual assault in the third degree Family hardship. 3x act of indecency without consent Attempted Exposed to domestic sexual violence and intercourse alcoholism as a child The offender’s friend paid for the without consent: – Bugmy services of the victim, who was a sex 15 months’ considerations worker. The offender committed imprisonment enlivened. several acts of indecency without consent on the victim. The offender Found guilty after trial. then used force on the victim by Continued to deny Sexual assault straddling her chest, telling the victim guilt, and lacked in the third he wanted to “face fuck” her, and remorse. degree: 18 putting his penis in her mouth. The months’ victim found a condom and put it in imprisonment her mouth to protect herself.

The offender attempted to then Total sentence: 4 penetrate the victim’s vagina with his years and 9 penis but could not as his penis was months’ not erect. The offender roughly imprisonment. penetrated the victim’s vagina with his fingers while holding her down, causing injuries to her genitalia. The NPP of 2 years offender then attempted to punch the and 6 months. victim but swung and missed.

This was a degrading series of assaults which occurred despite the victim’s protests, force was used which caused injury, the use of a condom was only due to the victim’s actions to protect herself, and the offender acted with entitlement.

DPP v Ayoub (No 5) Charges Regular criminal Inflict actual history over a long bodily harm – 20 1x inflict actual bodily harm with period, but no prior months’ intent to engage in sexual Mossop J sex offending. imprisonment intercourse Case Name Objective Features Subjective Features Sentence

1x sexual intercourse without History of drug use consent from childhood. Sexual 1x common assault Mental health intercourse condition complicated without consent The offender attended a brothel by drug use. – 14 months’ while under the influence of imprisonment methamphetamine and paid for a standard service. While in the room with the victim, the offender put his Total sentence: hand around her neck and choked 30 months’ her without her consent. The imprisonment. offender aggressively and repetitively penetrated the victim’s vagina with his fingers, and held Suspended after open the victim’s mouth to spit in it. 18 months and 22 The choking was serious enough to days. cause bruising to the victim’s neck. The victim was in a vulnerable position as a sex worker, and struggled to get away from the offender. The offending was assessed as in the mid-range of objective seriousness.

R v Emberton [2022] Charges Primary motivation Sexual ACTSC 286 was financial strain intercourse 1x aggravated robbery without consent: Strong prospects of 1x destroying or concealing 31 months’ rehabilitation Kennett J evidence imprisonment. No criminal history 1x sexual intercourse without consent 25% discount for Total sentence: 4 guilty plea years and 5 months’ The offender contacted the victim, imprisonment. an independent sex worker, requesting her services. When the offender arrived at the victim’s NPP of 2 years apartment, he pulled a knife from his and 4 months. pocket and demanded money. After the victim gave him some money, the offender directed the victim to take off her clothes and have sex with him. After ejaculating, the offender took the victim’s phone and deleted her call log and message history.

It would have been clear to the offender that sexual acts were only agreed to on a commercial basis, and that he was proceeding without consent. The offending was assessed as towards the upper end Case Name Objective Features Subjective Features Sentence

of the mid-range of objective seriousness.

The Queen v Miller Charges Close relationships 2 years’ [2019] ACTCA 25 with family imprisonment, 1x sexual intercourse without fully suspended consent Full time employment upon entry into a Burns, Offending fuelled by GBO. Loukas-Karlsson and alcoholism The victim was a sex worker who Bromwich JJ informed the offender that sexual Antiquated but On appeal, the activity involving her anus was not to significant criminal sentence was occur. The offender agreed and paid history found to be for a two-hour period involving extra High risk of general manifestly services. While performing oral sex reoffending. inadequate, upon the victim, the offender however the inserted his finger into her anus. Court exercised The offending was not premeditated, its residual was impulsive and occurred over a discretion to very short period of time. The dismiss the vulnerability of sex workers was appeal. recognised.

R v Saran [2019] Charges Low risk of 17 months, 18 ACTSC 37 reoffending months and 18 4x act of indecency without consent months’ No criminal history 3x sexual intercourse without imprisonment for Loukas-Karlsson J consent Hardship to family each count of sexual Deportation and extra-intercourse curial punishment The offender and the victim worked without consent. together as cleaners for a hotel. Refusal or Over the course of two separate cancellation of visa on days the offender groped the victim, character grounds Total sentence: 4 masturbated in front of the victim years’ and undressed the victim. On one of imprisonment. the days, the offender engaged in penile-vaginal intercourse with the victim on three occasions without the NPP of 2 years. victim’s consent.

Offending was opportunistic, but formed part of a continuing course of conduct. The victim was entitled to a safe workplace.

R v Palmer [2017] Charges 18 years old at the 24 months’ ACTSC 357 time of offending. imprisonment, 1x sexual intercourse without suspended after 5 consent No prior criminal months. history. Mossop J Remorse The offender had consumed a large demonstrated. amount of alcohol and was very intoxicated. The offender attended Case Name Objective Features Subjective Features Sentence

an escort agency and paid the victim Conviction would for oral sex only. During the service, significantly hinder the offender instructed the victim to employment have sex with him. She declined as it prospects. was not a part of the service. The 20% discount for offender then struck the victim with guilty plea. an open hand to the face, pulled her hair and rolled on top of her. The offender penetrated the victim’s vagina with his penis despite her pleas to stop. The victim managed to escape, and alerted her managed.

The offending was relatively brief in duration, but occurred when the victim was alone and vulnerable. Violence was involved, but only transient injury was caused. The offending was not premeditated, the offender’s goal was self-gratification, and the offender ignored repeated protests. The offending was assessed as in the mid-range of objective seriousness.