DPP v Pierce

1. The offender, known by the pseudonym “Murphy Pierce”, was found guilty by a jury of the following sixteen offences: (a) One count of engaging in a sexual relationship with a child or young person under his special care, contrary to s 56 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) as in force on 1 January 2021, the last date of the offending the subject of this charge: count 1 (CAN 617/2024). The maximum penalty under that section is 25 years’ imprisonment. (b) One count of persistent sexual abuse of a child or young person under his special care, contrary to s 56 of the Crimes Act as in force on 28 February 2023, the last date of the offending the subject of this charge: count 16 (SC CAN 89/2024). The maximum penalty under that section is 25 years’ imprisonment. (c) Four counts of incest on a young person, contrary to s 62(2) of the Crimes Act: count 5 (CAN 10660/2023), count 12 (CAN 10668/2023), count 13 (CAN 10669/2023) and count 14 (CAN 10665/2023). The maximum penalty across the periods of offending was 15 years’ imprisonment. (d) Nine counts of an act of indecency on a young person, contrary to s 61(2) of the Crimes Act: count 2 (SC CAN 80/2024), count 3 (SC CAN 81/2024), count 4 (SC CAN 82/2024), count 6 (SC CAN 83/2024), count 7 (SC CAN 84/2024), count 9 (SC CAN 85/2024), count 10 (SC CAN 86/2024), count 11 (SC CAN 87/2024), and count 15 (SC CAN 88/2024). The maximum penalty across the periods of offending was 10 years’ imprisonment. (e) One count of an aggravated act of indecency, contrary to s 60(1) of the Crimes Act: count 17 (CAN 10671/2023). The maximum penalty for an aggravated offence is nine years’ imprisonment. th

2. There was a 17 charge of incest (count 8 on the indictment) based upon an allegation of cunnilingus. However, I directed the jury to return a verdict of not guilty on that count after having determined that, for reasons I gave at the time, as a matter of law, licking through underwear as distinct from skin-on-skin contact, could not constitute this offence.

3. The reason the offender is identified by a pseudonym is because use of his name would tend to identify the victim of his offending. Facts

4. The offender is the stepfather of the victim. The offender committed sexual offences against the victim commencing when she was 11 or 12 years old and in Year 7 at school. This continued up until the end of Year 10, when the victim was 15 years old. She told her mother about the offending, which resulted in the offender moving out of the family home temporarily. After about a month, the offender returned to the home and th subsequently recommenced offending. This continued up until after the victim’s 18 birthday. The final offence against the victim occurred in October 2023, when she was 18 years and eight months old.

5. The prosecution case relied principally upon the evidence of the victim which was given in an evidence-in-chief interview conducted on 27 October 2023 and then at a pre-trial hearing on 17, 18 and 19 March 2025. There were a number of witnesses who gave complaint evidence. They were: (a) the victim’s best friend at school, to whom she had made disclosures on at least two occasions that she was being touched by her stepfather prior to making a complaint to police; (b) KM, the mother of one of the victim’s sister’s friends, to whom the victim made a complaint and disclosed the history of the offending when the victim went to KM’s house in 2023; and (c) a police officer whose body-worn camera footage showed the victim, with the support of KM, explaining what had happened to police so as to allow them to decide whether to make a referral to the sexual assault and child abuse team.

6. The prosecution case also involved a medical practitioner and a psychologist. Dr Catherine Sansum, a medical practitioner, gave evidence about the dynamics of sexual abuse, delay in complaint, the reasons for delay, and patterns of disclosure. Similarly, Jessica Pratley, a psychologist, gave evidence about reactions of children to sexual abuse, patterns of disclosure, reasons for delay in complaint and, significantly, the impact of not being believed and the reasons for retractions of complaints. This evidence was significant for the prosecution case because it allowed the jury to assess the significance of the retraction of the victim’s initial complaint in late 2020.

7. The most significant evidence favouring the offender that was led as part of the prosecution case was from the victim’s mother, the offender’s long-term partner. She gave evidence, in particular, about the initial complaint made to her and that she came not to believe the veracity of that complaint. Having regard to the verdict of the jury, they must have rejected her evidence as a result of their assessment of the witness, including her close and ongoing relationship with the offender.

8. There was also evidence in the case from the other children in the family. Counsel for the offender solicited evidence from each of them that, when they were living at the house where the offending occurred, they did not observe the offender going into the victim’s bedroom late at night, nor did they see anything unusual occurring between the offender and the victim. They also gave evidence about the behaviour of the aptly named dog, “Diablo”, and its barking habits, which counsel for the offender submitted cast doubt upon the victim’s version of events. Having regard to the jury’s verdicts, neither of these matters caused them to have a doubt about the accuracy of the victim’s evidence about the offender’s conduct. th

9. The offender was found guilty by a jury on the 10 day of his trial.

Count 1: Engaging in a sexual relationship with child or young person under special care (CAN 617/2024)

10. This count covered all of the conduct from when the victim was around 11 or 12 years old until she was 15 years old, when she told her mother about the offending and the offender moved out of the residence in late 2020. In addition to the specific offences charged, the conduct involved the offender coming into her room and touching her on the leg, inner thigh and bottom and cupping her vagina area. Sometimes the offender would also grab the victim’s breasts before moving back to her vagina, bottom and thighs. The evidence of the victim was that the offender went into her room and performed sexual acts on her at least twice a week. Except in relation to the separately charged offences, the timing of these occurrences was not more precisely identified. It can be found that the offending included acts that occurred frequently and persistently throughout the period.

11. The offending occurred over a period of between three and four years. It involved exploitation of the parental relationship. It involved frequent sexual acts, though they were not of the most serious kind. Because of the parental relationship and the duration, the offending is above the mid range of objective seriousness for this offence.

Count 2: Act of indecency on a young person (SC CAN 80/2024)

12. This involved an act of indecency and was the first time sexual offending occurred. The victim (then 11 or 12 years old and in Year 7 at school) was asleep in her bed when she woke up to see the offender watching her. The offender then put his hand underneath her bed covers and started rubbing her leg and inner thigh, before cupping her genital area with his hands above her clothing, then going back to rubbing her inner thigh.

13. As with all the acts of indecency, the objective seriousness of the offending is increased by the fact that it occurred in the context of the parental relationship between the offender and the victim and all that the exploitation of such a relationship entails.

14. This count is at the low end of the mid range of objective seriousness for this offence.

Count 3: Act of indecency on a young person (SC CAN 81/2024)

15. This occurred a few days after count 2. The victim was asleep in her bed when she woke up to the offender touching her leg and inner thigh. He moved his hand up to her bottom and started grabbing it, before moving and rubbing her inner thigh again.

16. It is offending at the lower end of the mid range of objective seriousness for this offence.

Count 4: Act of indecency on a young person (SC CAN 82/2024)

17. Once again, this occurred in the days following the previous event. The victim was asleep in her bed when she woke up to the offender touching her thigh, before moving his hand up and touching her bottom and then going back to touching her thigh. The offender did this multiple times. This offending is at the low end of the mid range of objective seriousness for this offence.

Count 5: Incest (CAN 10660/2023)

18. On an unknown date when the victim was 12 or 13 years old and in Year 8 at school, she was asleep in her bed when she woke to the offender moving his hand up her leg and cupping her genital area. He rubbed her genital area with his fingers. At some point, he moved her underwear to the side and inserted a finger into her genitalia for between a few seconds and a minute. He repeated this a couple of times before he grabbed her on the bottom. This was the first time the offender digitally penetrated her genitalia.

19. This offending is at the low end of the range of objective seriousness for incest.

Count 6: Act of indecency on a young person (SC CAN 83/2024)

20. On another occasion when the victim was in Year 8 at school, she was lying in her bed when the offender went into her bedroom, pulled her blanket down, pulled up her shirt and grabbed, kissed and licked her breasts. After about a minute, the offender stopped, pulled her shirt back down, pulled her blanket up and walked out of her bedroom. This was the first time the offender licked or kissed her body. This is a mid range offence. Count 7: Act of indecency on a young person (SC CAN 84/2024)

21. This offence occurred when the victim was between 13 and 15 years old and in Year 9 or 10 at school. She was lying on her bed at night when the offender went into her bedroom, moved her sheets so they were bunched around her stomach, and put his hand between her thighs. He then kissed and licked her underpants over her genital area before putting her sheet back over her and leaving her room. Afterwards, the victim got up and changed her underpants. This was the first time the offender licked her underpants. This is a mid range offence.

Count 9: Act of indecency on a young person (SC CAN 85/2024)

22. This offence occurred when the victim was between 13 and 15 years old. It occurred after the first time the offender engaged in the acts the subject of count 8, the charge alleging cunnilingus that was the subject of a verdict by direction. The victim woke up in her bed and the offender again moved his hand up her thigh and rubbed her genitalia over her shorts for a little while. This offending is at the lower end of the mid range for this offence.

Count 10: Act of indecency on a young person (SC CAN 86/2024)

23. On another date, at about 2am or 3am, the victim, who was then 13 or 14 years old and in Year 9 at school, was in her bed when she heard the offender walking towards her bedroom. The offender went into her room wearing only a white towel around his waist. The offender put the victim’s hands on his penis and moved them up and down on his penis to masturbate it. He continued doing this until the victim twitched her body, then he left the room. This was the first time the offender made the victim touch his penis. This is a mid range offence.

Count 11: Act of indecency on a young person (SC CAN 87/2024)

24. This was the second time that the offender put his penis into the victim’s hand. The victim was asleep in her bed when she woke to the offender putting his penis in her hand and moving it up and down on his penis. After a period, the offender stopped and left. The victim then got up and washed her hands. This is a mid range offence.

Count 12: Incest (CAN 10668/2023)

25. The victim (then 13 to 15 years old) was asleep in her bed when she woke to the offender putting the tip of his penis on her lips. The offender then pushed his penis inside her mouth in and out about three times, before leaving the room. The victim waited until she heard the offender go back into his room before running into the bathroom to wash her mouth out and cry. This was the first time the offender put his penis in her mouth. This offence is at the low end of the range of objective seriousness for a count of incest.

Count 13: Incest (CAN 10669/2023)

26. This was the second time that the offender put his penis in the victim’s mouth. The victim was asleep in her bed when she woke to the offender pushing his penis between her lips in and out of her mouth an unknown number of times. After a short period of time, the offender left the room and the victim got up and went to the bathroom to wash her mouth out. This is at the low end of objective seriousness for a count of incest.

Count 14: Incest (CAN 10665/2023)

27. The victim (then 14 to 15 years old and in Year 10 at school) was in her bed asleep when she woke to the offender touching her leg and thigh. He then grabbed her bottom with his hand, moved the crotch area of her boxer shorts aside and moved his fingers in circles at the entrance to her genitalia. After a bit of time, the offender put his finger inside her genitalia and moved his finger in and out a couple of times, before leaving the room. This is at the low end of the range for this offence.

Count 15: Act of indecency on a young person (SC CAN 88/2024)

28. The victim was asleep in her bed (lying on her stomach) when she woke to the offender lying on top of her as he pressed his hips and penis into her bottom. The offender whispered something to the effect of “I know you’re awake and that you aren’t saying no, so you like it”. After a short period of time, the offender got up and left the room. This was the first time the offender got on top of her and the first time he told her that he knew she was awake. This is at the low end of the mid range of objective seriousness for this offence.

Count 16: Persistent sexual abuse of a child or young person in special care (SC CAN 89/2024)

29. This was the course of offending after the offender returned to the family home following the victim’s first complaint. Starting a month after the offender returned to the family home, at least once a week over a period of about two years, the victim (then between 15 and 17 years old and in Year 11 or 12 at school) would wake to find the offender in her room. After having been asleep in her bed, the victim would wake to the offender being present in her room and staring at her. Sometimes he grabbed her bottom and other times he grabbed her breasts. She would tell him to get out of the room. Although the victim’s evidence was that he came into her room at least once a week, the frequency of the acts of indecency was not precisely established. For that reason, this offending is, despite its duration, at the low end of the mid range of objective seriousness for this offence.

Count 17: Aggravated act of indecency (CAN 10671/2023)

30. This offence occurred in October 2023. There was a gathering at the offender’s mother’s house for her birthday. The victim attended the gathering. After a period of time, she returned home and continued drinking with other family members outside near the fire. At about 2am or 3am the following morning, the victim had gone inside the house and was talking to her boyfriend on her phone over Facetime when the offender walked past her and squeezed her bottom from behind. This is at the low end of objective seriousness for an aggravated act of indecency. It was this incident and the offender’s conduct afterwards that led the victim to make a complaint to her sister which ultimately led to her making a complaint to police.

Victim impact

31. The victim is now 20 years old. She has known the offender since she was around three years old and the offender performed the role of a father for her. A victim impact statement which she prepared was admitted into evidence. That describes her feelings at the time of the offending and the different types of impacts that the betrayal involved in the offending has had upon her.

32. She describes the difference between the person that she was and the person that she is now, in particular describing the loss of trust in people. She describes her confusion that the person who had been a father figure for her and taught her various things had taken “that sweet and happy girl” and turned her into the shell of a person that she is now. She describes how she still thinks about the offending when things are quiet and she is alone with her thoughts. She can still feel his hands and smell him and his breath. Although she is no longer scared like she used to be, she still thinks that she will never know true peace.

33. Like many victims, she is angry because of the knowledge that she has missed the opportunity to be the girl that she could have been if there had been no offending and because she is not going to have the life that she wanted to have when she was a child. She describes recalling “being that scared little girl who couldn’t get herself to scream or move just there lifeless soulless laying still enough that you’d think i wa s still asleep because i was scared of what would happen if you knew i was awake”.

34. She describes the trauma that she experienced as part of the court process, and that getting updates about the case would ruin any progress that she was making. She said that “nothing will ever hurt me like actual court sitting there getting called a liar over and over for three days straight reliving everything i was trying so hard to forget”.

35. Each of these impacts are, unfortunately, of a kind commonly suffered by child victims of sexual abuse. So far as courts are concerned, it is a valuable reminder of the importance of complainants being able to give their evidence at an early stage of proceedings so that their role in the case is concluded and they may get on with the rest of their lives free from the anxiety of an impending court case.

Subjective circumstances

36. The subjective circumstances of the offender are disclosed in a pre-sentence report and in a report of a psychologist, Vanessa Edwige.

37. The offender is 40 years old. His father was described as Scottish and his mother was Aboriginal. His parents separated when he was four years old. He has two older brothers. He also has an older sister who has Down syndrome.

38. His mother was a member of what is referred to as the “stolen generation” of Aboriginal children and was removed from her parents at the age of six or seven and kept in girls homes, where she suffered abuse.

39. His father was removed from home at the age of eight years. During some part of his life, he was a heroin addict. He died recently.

40. The offender was born in Katoomba, but his parents moved to Queanbeyan after he was born. Both his parents misused substances. His mother drank alcohol and smoked marijuana and his father used heroin. There was domestic violence in his parents’ relationship.

41. The offender had a disrupted upbringing, living at times with his father, his mother, or one of his maternal aunts. He described mental and physical abuse at the hands of one of his aunts and her partner. When he lived with his father, his father was using drugs. His parents’ new partners had their own problems. Overall, the picture of his childhood is one of disruption caused by regular changes of residence, dysfunctional parents or parental figures, and poor role models.

42. He has been in a relationship with his current partner for 17 years. His current partner is the mother of the victim of the offending. She has four children from another relationship.

43. The family has lived in Queanbeyan, then in Queensland, then with relatives in Canberra, then in Dickson, and now in Tuggeranong. Their accommodation is in a form of public housing.

44. The offender had a disrupted education as a result of his changes of residence. He attended school up until halfway through Year 11. He was then employed building fences and sheds. He worked in structural steel fabrication and welding for about four years from when he was 19 years old. He worked in office relocation and then worked for a cleaning company. He returned to structural steel fabrication. In 2011, he injured his back at work and has not returned to the workforce since then because of back pain arising from a disc pinching on his sciatic nerve. He was on a disability payment but subsequently, following a change in assessment criteria, he was receiving unemployment benefits. He suffers from ongoing back pain.

45. He started using marijuana when he was 11 years old and, at the point when he was arrested, had been smoking marijuana every day.

46. He suffers from constant back pain and, since his back injury, has suffered from depression. He is diagnosed as experiencing persistent depressive disorder with anxious distress. Ms Edwige says that his exposure to multiple adverse childhood experiences contributed to the development of complex developmental trauma and substance use disorder. That has had an impact on his self-esteem and self-worth.

47. At the sentencing hearing, counsel for the offender said: “My solicitor and I went to see the offender this morning and I think I am duty-bound to tell your Honour that the instructions we have got from him are that, if he loses his appeal, he will take his own life. So, whatever you do, you would then mark him as a prisoner at risk”.

Criminal history

48. The offender has a negligible criminal history involving two minor drug driving charges in 2015 and 2016.

Time in custody

49. The offender has been in custody since 27 June 2025, when bail was revoked following the verdicts of the jury. There were two additional days in custody between the time of his arrest and being granted bail by the Magistrates Court. These times in custody will be taken into account by the backdating of the first sentence imposed to 25 June 2025. Comparable cases

50. The prosecution provided a table of cases involving offences against s 56 of the Crimes Act, now called persistent sexual abuse of a child.

51. DPP v Adams [2025] ACTSC 167 involved offending over a five-month period by a 33 or 34-year-old against a 14 or 15-year-old. The offender had a criminal history which denied him leniency. The offending involved regular penile-vaginal intercourse, and the victim became pregnant on two occasions, leading to a miscarriage and an abortion. The starting point on the s 56 charge was seven years’ imprisonment.

52. Porter v The Queen [2024] ACTCA 9; 21 ACTLR 122 involved offending by a sports coach against a boy when the boy was between 12 and 15 years old. It involved sexual offending including “repeated anal penetration, both with objects and penile-anal penetration”. The starting point on the s 56 charge was 14 years’ imprisonment.

53. DPP v Myers (a pseudonym) [2023] ACTSC 142 involved offending by a man against his children. One child was almost four years old and the other was under the age of two. The offending occurred over five and a half months. There were sexual acts but a limited degree of penetration. The offending was assessed as being above the middle of the range. The offender was of good character, with remorse and a low to medium risk of general reoffending. The starting point was 13 and half years’ imprisonment on the s 56 charge.

54. R v Ashton (a pseudonym) [2022] ACTCA 45 involved offending by a man against his daughter, commencing when she was six years old and extending over eight years. It included approximately 76 instances of penile penetration of the victim. The starting point after a successful Crown appeal was 20 years’ imprisonment.

55. DPP v Fitzgerald (a pseudonym) [2023] ACTSC 194 involved a man offending against his daughter over a two-year period when she was between 13 and 15 years old. It did not involve digital or penile penetration but did involve cunnilingus, sexual touching, fellatio and masturbation in the presence of the victim. The starting point was a sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment.

Consideration

56. The nature of the offending and the maximum penalty specified by the legislature for each of the offence types make it clear that no sentence other than a sentence of imprisonment is appropriate. Further, there was no submission that the sentences should be served in a manner other than by full-time detention and I consider that to be appropriate.

57. Clearly, deterrence, denunciation, holding the offender accountable and recognising the harm done to the victim are all important sentencing considerations. Rehabilitation must be a goal. There must be some prospect of that notwithstanding that the offender continues to deny the offending.

58. The offender’s disrupted background needs to be taken into account generally. I accept that his depression and ongoing back pain will make his time in prison significantly more burdensome than it would be for somebody without those conditions.

59. The appropriate sentence is nine years’ imprisonment on the first persistent abuse count and four years on the second count, cumulative as to one year but otherwise concurrent. Each of the other sentences for offences occurring during that period will be concurrent with one or other or both of the persistent abuse counts. That gives a total aggregate sentence of 10 years. The minimum period which justice requires to be served is a period of five years.

60. Having regard to the evidence and the information provided by counsel for the offender, it is appropriate that he be marked as a prisoner at risk.

Orders

61. The orders of the Court are: (1) On count 1 (CAN 617/2024, engaging in a sexual relationship with a child or young person under special care), the offender is convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for nine years, commencing on 25 June 2025 and ending on 24 June 2034. (2) On count 16 (SC CAN 89/2024, persistent sexual abuse of a child or young person under special care), the offender is convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for four years, commencing on 25 June 2031 and ending on 24 June 2035. (3) On count 2 (SC CAN 80/2024, act of indecency on a young person), the offender is convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for one year, commencing on 25 June 2025 and ending on 24 June 2026. (4) On count 3 (SC CAN 81/2024, act of indecency on a young person), the offender is convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for one year, commencing on 25 December 2025 and ending on 24 December 2026. (5) On count 4 (SC CAN 82/2024, act of indecency on a young person), the offender is convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for one year, commencing on 25 June 2026 and ending on 24 June 2027. (6) On count 5 (CAN 10660/2023, incest), the offender is convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for one year and six months, commencing on 25 August 2026 and ending on 24 February 2028. (7) On count 6 (SC CAN 83/2024, act of indecency on a young person), the offender is convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for one year and three months, commencing on 25 May 2027 and ending on 24 August 2028. (8) On count 7 (SC CAN 84/2024, act of indecency on a young person), the offender is convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for one year and three months, commencing on 25 November 2027 and ending on 24 February 2029. (9) On count 9 (SC CAN 85/2024, act of indecency on a young person), the offender is convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for one year, commencing on 25 August 2028 and ending on 24 August 2029. (10) On count 10 (SC CAN 86/2024, act of indecency on a young person), the offender is convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for one year and three months, commencing on 25 November 2028 and ending on 24 February 2030. (11) On count 11 (SC CAN 87/2024, act of indecency on a young person), the offender is convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for one year and three months, commencing on 25 May 2029 and ending on 24 August 2030. (12) On count 12 (CAN 10668/2023, incest), the offender is convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for one year and nine months, commencing on 25 July 2029 and ending on 24 April 2031. (13) On count 13 (CAN 10669/2023, incest), the offender is convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for one year and nine months, commencing on 25 March 2030 and ending on 24 December 2031. (14) On count 14 (CAN 10665/2023, incest), the offender is convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for one year and six months, commencing on 25 February 2031 and ending on 24 August 2032. (15) On count 15 (SC CAN 88/2024, act of indecency on a young person), the offender is convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for one year, commencing on 25 February 2032 and ending on 24 February 2033. (16) On count 17 (CAN 10671/2023, aggravated act of indecency), the offender is convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for two months, commencing on 25 January 2033 and ending on 24 March 2033. (17) The non-parole period is five years, commencing on 25 June 2025 and ending on 24 June 2030. (18) Note that the offender is a prisoner at risk.

I certify that the preceding sixty-one [61] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Sentence of his Honour Justice Mossop. Associate: Date: