DPP v Ollis [2026] VCC 20

1. Exhibit 3 was a VIS from Shayla's parents, Robert[2] and Tanya.[3] They speak in compelling terms of the impact of your offending upon their family; upon their relationship with their daughter, the shame and humiliation they felt as knowledge of your offending leaked out into the school community, and the consequent depression that both had suffered.
2. Exhibit 4 was a VIS from Angela[4], Shayla's younger sister who speaks powerfully of her sense of loss - of the secure family, of her relationship with her sister and the comfort of acceptance at school.
3. Whilst VIS's must not be permitted to overwhelm the sentencing process, there can be no doubt as to the traumatic and enduring impact your offending has had.
4. I should note that Shayla has not provided a VIS and is concerned, I understand, to make clear that she does not feel herself a victim but rather had agency and autonomy throughout.

1. I now turn to your personal circumstances.
2. You were born in March 1991 in Portland, Victoria. You have no prior or subsequent criminal matters. You grew up in Geelong and its surrounds. You were the second child in a sibship of 3, with an older brother and a younger sister. Both your siblings were born with serious disabilities. Your sister with whom you had a close relationship, passed away from muscular dystrophy when she was four and you were 7 years old. You describe having a complicated relationship with your brother but that you remain close. You were a healthy child and thus received less attention from your parents than your siblings. You report a childhood perception of being unseen and lonely due to the ill-health of your siblings. You said that while you never felt consciously neglected, you experienced a lack of attention. You appear to have some guilt that you were not born with a disability (Ex 6TO).
3. After your sister passed away, your father turned to alcohol as a coping mechanism, resulting in frequent outbursts of temper and frequent parental arguments. You wished that your parents would separate so that there could be some peace in the home. Your parents thereafter converted to Christianity, and adopted strict religious values and expectations, with discipline consisting of long handwritten letters filled with Bible verses expressing their disappointment in you. While your parents remain devout Christians, you report that their faith is not as "all encompassing" as it previously was, and you continue to have a good relationship with both your parents. You state that you have again found faith in response to the criminal process.
4. At primary school you were socially isolated, with only one friend. At secondary school you struggled to fit in, experiencing verbal and physical bullying, and on one occasion suffered a fractured cheekbone. Your sense of familial isolation was thus reinforced. You completed VCE but described yourself as a lazy student who did not perform well. After year 12, you took a gap year, travelling to India and the United States for various missionary related trips and internships.
5. You enrolled in a bachelor's degree in creative writing and journalism which you did not enjoy or complete. You then completed a double degree in Arts and Education and became a qualified secondary school teacher. Your sense of being overlooked was the driving force behind your desire to become a teacher. During your studies, you worked as an online tutor, which you described as one of your favourite jobs. After graduation you began working as a teacher at a secondary school for two years and were then employed for three years at the school where the offending occurred. Your employment has since been terminated once your offending became known. Since that termination, you have been working as an uber eats driver and other delivery-based jobs.
6. You reported prolonged sexual abuse at the hands of an older male relative: this has not been discussed further during post-offence treatment and, on the material in front of me, does not appear to be a significant factor in your offending. You have expressed a desire to address your own experience of childhood trauma in future sessions
7. Your first sexual partner, and only significant relationship, was with your now wife, whom you met in 2013, and married in 2017, and with whom have a son, now 4 years of age. Your wife's history of trauma and abuse has had a serious impact upon your marital relationship, with intimacy being occasional at best. She does however remain steadfast in her support of you, as do your parents and surviving brother and other friends (see exhibit 8TO - 16TO).
8. You began viewing pornography as a child and by your 20s you accept that you were addicted to pornography, often viewing such material for approximately two hours per day.
9. In terms of your substance use, you reported drinking alcohol socially, approximately every second weekend and have never been a daily drinker. You also used Cannabis at the age of approximately 22 but have never been a daily user and ceased using the substance around four years ago. You have never used any other illicit substance.

1. Exhibit 6TO was a psychological report from Dr Michael Davis, forensic clinical psychologist dated 7 November 25. Exhibit 7TO was a treating psychologist report from Dr Rachel MacKenzie dated 5 November 2025.
2. Dr Davis, in his extensive report, noted that you have had a "seemingly high sexual drive" since your teenage years and your self-identified addiction to pornography. During the course of your marriage, sexual intimacy between you and your wife had effectively ceased. You had however engaged in multiple casual sexual encounters with both males and females (paragraph 66 and 67).
3. Dr Davis was of the opinion that you met formal criteria for several interacting diagnoses, including a depressed mood falling short of a major depressive episode and avoidant personality disorder, with some dependent and schizoid personality features which:

"...while not meeting formal criteria for any further personality disorder diagnoses, nonetheless contribute to the often maladaptive way that he views himself and interacts with the wider world. It is my opinion that his personality function is currently at a moderate level of impairment." Further: "he also meets formal criteria for compulsive sexual behaviour disorder. Indeed, hypersexuality, compulsive pornography use and excessive masturbation appears to have been present from a rather young age"

4. He noted, concerningly, that whilst you are currently trying to limit this behaviour, you continued to masturbate and watch pornography on a regular basis.
5. Whilst you did not meet the criteria for a paraphilia disorder (i.e. a settled sexual preference for prepubescent or pubescent children), "it is perhaps clear that he has a sexual attraction to adolescents" (ephebophilia). While acting on ephebophilic sexual interests is clearly illegal at the lower age range of adolescents, ephebophilia is not considered sexually deviant in a diagnostic sense.
6. After referring to the scholarly conceptualisation of child molestation offenders as being on a continuum from the situational and impulsive to the preferential and compulsive he states:

"It is my opinion that his sexual offending behaviour places him more towards the situational end of this continuum and is best explained by reference to an inadequate pattern of behaviour. ...(He) was an inadequate man with avoidant personality disorder, compulsive sexual behaviour disorder and chronic difficulties with depressed mood, was in a marriage that had little in the way of sexual intimacy." > > "Mr Ollis wanted someone to admire him and really desire him sexually. The sexual interest and emotional congruence with the victim resulted in continual gross violations of professional boundaries and ultimately a sexual relationship that appears to have involved a variety of fantasy role-plays and text-based fantasies of taboo topics. Indeed, he admitted that the victim made him feel more wanted than anyone ever had. As such the attention, praise and sexual interactions served to salve his insecurity and inadequacy." > > "The small collection of CAM that did not include the victim of his contact offending is likely to reflect the indiscriminate viewing and downloading of pornographic material during lengthy hypersexual masturbation sessions."

7. However, the fact that they were not deleted is of some concern.
8. Dr Davis assessed you currently as a low to moderate risk for contact sexual offending and as a moderate risk of further CAM offending.

"While he remains a rather hypersexual individual with a complicated and sexually unsatisfying marriage, it is difficult to identify a further scenario in which he may commit further contact offending. He is a socially inadequate man who was able to develop a sexual relationship with the victim in the context of being a teacher. He will never be in such a situation again."

9. Dr Davis did not recommend further offence specific treatment, and certainly not in any custodial group setting. He recommended clinical treatment to address your long-standing depressed mood, childhood trauma, hypersexuality and avoidant personality disorder. He had some concerns as to your ability to cope with prison life.

"His mental state is likely to deteriorate to some extent, as he has a lengthy history of dysthymic and depressed mood. Moreover, I am of the view that his somewhat unusual interpersonal style for making a potential target for victimisation and he is unlikely to speak up should that occur. Accordingly, he will need regular contact with mental health services."

10. Dr Mackenzie's report (Exhibit 7TO) did not address your risk of future offending. At the time of writing you had attended Dr MacKenzie for 14 treatment sessions (remotely via Telehealth). You presented as articulate, softly spoken and reserved, and appeared of average intelligence although not formally tested. Your initial elevated scores for depression and anxiety have slowly reduced over the course of treatment
11. Dr Mackenzie recounted your personal history. She noted that you have expressed a desire to address your own experience of childhood trauma in future sessions
12. You had no significant medical or substance use history, and no past mental health diagnoses. Your self-reported symptoms of chronic stress going back to childhood would likely have met the criteria for a depressive or anxiety disorder. Whilst at the start of treatment you met the criteria for a major depressive disorder, due to the impact of this offending upon you and your family, Dr Mackenzie was not of the opinion that you currently meet the criteria for any psychiatric condition. Your initial elevated scores for depression and anxiety have slowly reduced over the course of treatment offending
13. Dr Mackenzie, as with Dr Davis, did not diagnose a paraphilic disorder: rather:

"...it appears that his offending has been opportunistic and has arisen out of a dysfunctional attempt to bolster his self-esteem by gaining the attention, validation and sexual gratification that was lacking in his marriage. The small number of CAM images found in his possession do not indicate a pattern of specific sexual arousal or interest in underaged children per se."

14. Treatment goals included identifying the needs that were being met by, and challenging the cognitive distortions that enabled your offending, establishing victim empathy, and developing relapse prevention strategies. Dr MacKenzie describes you as a well-engaged and active participant in the treatment sessions. You have accepted the harm you may have caused and appear to be genuinely remorseful (although assessment of remorse was outside of her professional opinion). You have demonstrated clear progress in treatment. Dr Mackenzie did not believe that a term of imprisonment would have a significant detrimental impact on the specific therapeutic progress that you have clearly made.

1. Ms Caruso on behalf of the Director submitted that your offending was objectively very serious constituting, inherently a grave breach of trust. From charge three onwards by virtue of the serious offender provisions, community protection will be the primary sentencing principle, with general deterrence otherwise the most significant sentencing principle. Denunciation and just punishment were also importance sentencing considerations. Specific deterrence also had work to do. The statutory presumption of cumulation must be balanced with the need to ensure a sentence that is just and proportionate. The only appropriate sentence was a head sentence and a non-parole period.
2. Ms Bencic on your behalf conceded that this was objectively very serious offending, your moral culpability for which was high. General deterrence, denunciation, just punishment were all primary sentencing purposes. In addition specific deterrence and community protection had work to do. A head sentence and non-parole period was warranted. However, in mitigation of such sentence she submitted: The offending was situational. You did not set out to deliberately groom your victim. This was, initially, an intense but appropriate teacher-student relationship: a gifted teacher intent on nurturing writing talent interacting with a gifted student. The crossing of boundaries and the offending was driven by the way that your victim made you feel. Your victim gave you something that your casual sexual hookups did not.
3. She submitted that there was an absence of aggravating features so often found in offending of this kind: there was no violence over and above the role-play, which she conceded represented a form of degradation and humiliation. There were no inducements. There was no coercion, over and above the power imbalance inherent in teacher/pupil relationship. Indeed, over and above the vulnerability inherent in a child there was no particular vulnerability of your victim, (although she conceded you may have known that Shayla had some issues with her family home life).
4. The offending did not take place in school hours, on-campus or at school premises.
5. The offending lasted for a period of no more than 3 and a half months.
6. She recognised that the failure to use a condom was an aggravating feature of charge two: however no such finding was open on any of the other charges.
7. As to Charge 8, (the production of CAM), it fell in the upper end of mid-range of seriousness: the use of sex toys, strangulation and domination role-play was, she accepted, an aggravating feature of the offending. It was open she conceded to view your sharing of the intimate image of Shalya as an aggravating feature of that charge.
8. As to Charge 9 she reminded me that there was only a small number of files that were not of Shayla and there was, accordingly, a need to avoid double punishment. She submitted that you may not have known that the category 1 CAM was present on your device, and asked me to consider that it may have been downloaded in the course of Telegram chats in a cache of files.
9. She submitted, correctly, that notwithstanding the statutory presumption of cumulation for charges 3 - 9, totality and proportionality remain significant considerations.
10. She submitted that your plea of guilty was entered at the earliest opportunity after the matter resolved. This demonstrated not only a willingness to facilitate the course of justice, but also an acceptance of responsibility and was a demonstration of your remorse.
11. She submitted you are remorseful and further that it is difficult to conceive what more you could have done since your arrest to foster your rehabilitation, pointing to your engagement in treatment and on working through the relationship issues in your marriage.
12. She submitted that your prospects for rehabilitation were excellent having regard to your absence of prior or subsequent matters (although accepting that less weight might be given to prior good character in offending of this kind), to your solid and consistent work history, your early plea of guilty and acceptance of responsibility, the progress made in treatment, your low risk of reoffending as assessed by Dr Davis and your continued family support (exhibit 8TO - 16TO).
13. She also urged me to give weight to the extra-curial punishment that you have endured, namely: the loss of your career, the loss of access to your child, and the public condemnation to which you have been exposed as a result of the widespread reporting of this matter.
14. She submitted that your time in prison will be more burdensome for you than for someone without your mental health challenges and there is a significant risk of deterioration in your mental health. You will keenly feel the loss and separation from your family during your time in custody.
15. She urged a parole period that would provide you with an opportunity for being released into the community.

1. This is serious offending as is made plain by the maximum penalties that Parliament has seen fit to impose. Charges 1 - 8 are serious examples of such offending. The prohibition of sexual intimacy with young people under care, supervision, or authority is designed to protect young people from sexual exploitation by those who have particular authority over them. I note that Shayla does not, at this point, see herself as victim and claims agency: it may be that as she matures she will view matters differently. There is a presumption of harm arising regardless of the fact that the young person may consent to the sexual activity.
2. There is both a particular authority and a particular trust that attaches to the teacher pupil relationship. The role of a teacher is a highly valued and influential one: a teacher may have immense and lasting impact upon the young minds in their care. With that authority comes responsibility. A teacher should always act in the best interests of their students, and aways behave in a professional manner towards them. The young are inherently vulnerable: access to them and to their developing minds is a privilege that must not be abused. Personal interests and desires must never be permitted to enter into or pervert, corrupt or corrode the teacher pupil relationship.
3. I accept that the extra-curricular engagement with Shayla may initially have derived from a wish to nurture her talent. However, boundaries were crossed, and you betrayed the trust placed in you, in the service of your own desires. A breach of trust is inherent in this offending.
4. The pathway for this offending is not, in my view, adequately identified in the reports of Dr Davis and Dr MacKenzie. Your offending is framed in terms of a need for validation. Whilst there was a lack of intimacy in your marriage, you were not a sexual naif, but rather sexually experienced and able to navigate the world of casual sexual hook ups to find and explore all aspects of your sexuality with sexual partners of either gender (see exhibit 6TO paragraphs 66 - 67). Thus, you could gain validation in your on-line hook-ups.
5. You offended over 3.5 months because you simply gained sexual satisfaction from it, as your membership of various chat groups makes clear. You were resolved upon your own desires and sexual needs and were heedless of the potential detrimental and adverse impact that fulfilling those needs may have upon your victim. Your moral culpability for the offending is high. The rolled up Charge 2 includes an instance of penile/vaginal penetration without a condom, which is an aggravating feature of that offence.
6. The sexual interactions were recorded (charge 8) apparently with Shayla's consent. The CAM thus created captured sexual interactions that were, on any view, very graphic in nature, dealing as they do in domination, other role play and breath play. Instead of holding the images of your intimacy in a private place, as I am sure Shayla would have wished you to do, you shared an image. The accompanying words make clear that you not only abused the trust of a child who was under your authority, but reduced her supposed maturity, love and sexual preparedness to a trophy, a conquest of which you boasted. This is the validation that you obtained. The sharing of that image is an aggravating feature of this offence.
7. Those who possess CAM to any degree are bad actors in the industry of the abuse of children. They are customers and without customers there would be no market, a market that is based upon a fundamental betrayal of our common humanity by the degrading and traumatising exploitation of children for the sexual gratification of others. A term of imprisonment will almost inevitably be imposed for those who come before the courts. I accept that the number of files not of Shayla (71) were certainly not as extensive or numerous as is often encountered in the court. I also accept that there appears to be some uncertainty as to whether you had viewed all of the CAM material which came to you as part of an open download. Some of the Category 1 images were of the most depraved nature.

1. Mr Ollis in sentencing you I must have regard to a range of different factors. I must give effect to the principal of general deterrence that is, to deter others from behaving as you did, and to specific deterrence, that is to deter you from ever repeating such offending. I must consider the need to protect the community. I must express the community's denunciation of your conduct. I must take into account the effect of your crimes upon your victim. I must have regard to current sentencing practices and the statutory maximum penalties for the offences to which you have pleaded guilty. I must ensure as far as possible that you are rehabilitated and reintegrated into society. In short, I must try to balance your personal circumstances with the circumstances of your offending. I must also pass no greater sentence than is necessary in all the circumstances of the case as I find them to be. I must impose a sentence that is just, in relation to the totality of your offending as described by the particulars in the indictment and as set out in the opening in relation to the detail of the incidents of offending.
2. It is not in dispute that because you are to receive a custodial term on charges 1 and 2 on the indictment, you fall to be sentenced as a serious sexual offender in respect of charges 3 - 9. The law requires that I regard protection of the community as the principle purpose for which the sentence is imposed in respect of those charges. Section 6E of that Act also prescribes that there is a presumption that sentences imposes on those charges should be served cumulatively 'unless otherwise directed by the court'. The prosecution has indicated that they do not seek a disproportionate sentence in respect of those charges. Such provisions must also be considered in conjunction with 'totality' principle of sentencing.[5]
3. In addition to community protection, there is a primary need for general deterrence and denunciation in dealing with offending of this kind. Schools must be safe places for students. Pupils must not be reduced to the sexual playthings of their teachers. The offending (in charges 1 - 8) flew in the face of those simple propositions with lasting and traumatic consequences (for your victim's family). Whilst you may not have access to young people in the future, there is still a need for specific deterrence.
4. I have had regard to all matters urged upon me by your counsel. In particular I have had regard to:

(i) Your plea of guilty entered at the earliest opportunity, bringing with it the practical benefit of saving the community the time and expense of a trial and saving witnesses from the trauma of giving evidence, and an indication of your willingness to facilitate the course of justice.

(ii) I accept that you are remorseful and have worked hard in treatment to understand your offending and that you are developing insight.

(iii) I accept that you will keenly feel the separation from your family whilst in custody.

(iv) I give such weight as I can to the extra-curial punishment to which you have been exposed.

(v) I accept that propositions 5 and 6 of Verdins[6] are enlivened in your case.

(vi) I accept that there are considerable grounds for optimism as to your prospects for rehabilitation

(vii) I accept that I must be astute to avoid double punishment and must have regard to the principle of totality.

1. Nonetheless as your counsel has conceded, and as you must be well aware, the objective gravity of this offending is such that it can only be met by substantial term of imprisonment. I have moderated sentences and orders for cumulation in the interests of proportionality.

• Charge 1: sentenced to 2 years and 6 months imprisonment.
• Charge 2: sentenced to 3 years and 10 months imprisonment.
• Charge 3: sentenced to 2 years and 8 months imprisonment.
• Charge 4: sentenced to 3 years imprisonment.
• Charge 5: sentenced to 2 years and 10 months imprisonment.
• Charge 6: sentenced to 3 years and 4 months imprisonment.
• Charge 7: sentenced to 3 years and 4 months imprisonment.
• Charge 8: sentenced to 3 years and 6 months imprisonment.
• Charge 9: sentenced to 5 months imprisonment.

1. I order that: 2 months of the sentence on charge 1, 3 months of the sentence on charge 3, 4 months of the sentence on charge 4, 4 months of the sentence on charge 5; 5 months of the sentence on charge 6, 6 months of the sentence on charge 7, 12 months of the sentence on charge 8 and 1 month of the sentence on charge 9, run cumulative to each other and cumulative to the sentence on charge 2. This makes a Total Effective Sentence of 6 years and 11 months imprisonment.
2. I fix a Non Parole Period of 4 years and 2 months
3. I declare that you have served 67 days of the sentence I have passed upon you and direct that this be entered into the records of the court.
4. Pursuant to section 6AAA of the sentencing act, had you not pleaded guilty you would have been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 11 years with a Non Parole Period of 7 years and 8 months.
5. Pursuant to the provisions of the Sexual Offender's Registration Act you are now a registrable offender. The period of registration is the rest of your life.

[5] See DPP v Dillon (a pseudonym) [2025] VSCA 266 [59- 68]

[6] R v Verdins [2007] VSCA 102