DPP v Raymond

Ms Dubroja appeared for Mr Raymond, as she does today, and today Mr Donaghy is appearing on behalf of the Director. 3. Insofar as the indictment is concerned, Mr Raymond, who was born in March 1986, was 35 when he was arrested on 22 May 2023. He is now 39. At the time of this offending he was aged between 25 and 34. I will deal with indictment P1111803.1A, the victim in the matter being Mr Raymond's daughter. She was born in December 2010. She was 15 at the time of the plea, and is still at that age. 4. The offending insofar as she was concerned took place from the age of six through to 11. The first charge is one of possessing child pornography. It was found at the premises where Mr Raymond was living at the time in Maffra. It was an image of the child in the shower dated 17 June 2011, with her vagina being displayed with a finger in it. This is an offence against s70 of the Crimes Act, for which the maximum penalty prescribed is one of five years imprisonment. 5. The second charge in the indictment is one of producing child abuse material. It is a rolled up charge that relates to five occasions between 7 July 2017 and 29 November 2021. The child at various stages was six, seven and nine

The charge is an offence against s51C of the Crimes Act, for which the maximum penalty is 10 years imprisonment. Insofar as comprehension of the matters involved, as I indicated, the matter is a rolled up charge and to fully appreciate that it is necessary to go to paragraph 11 of Exhibit A.

1. The materials that were taken from the home were subsequently analysed at the Sale police station. The first of the matters was on a SAN disk USB, a 43 second video, created on 7 July when the victim was six years of age which showed the victim naked on the living room floor of a different premises in Maffra. The victim is seen rolling around and spreading her legs and buttocks open, and appearing to pose so that her vagina and buttocks are shown.
2. The next item is on the same SAN disk. It is a 50 second video which was created on 22 January 2018, when the victim was seven years of age, at the same premises. There were eight images of real child prepubescent under 13 categorisation, and there were three further videos of such child.
3. The next item was found on a generic black USB. There were 10 sexually suggestive images created on 6 December 2018, when the victim was eight years of age, showing the victim wearing lingerie in various positions, including bent over on her hands and knees with her buttocks pointed towards the camera. The pictures were taken in the offender's living room in Maffra. The next part of the rolled up charge concerns the same generic black USB, which involved 19 nude images of the victim in various positions. It was created on 11 March, when the victim was nine years of age, with the victim lying on her back, spreading her legs and showing her genitalia with two of the images showing the offender's hands spreading the victim's labia open in the bathroom, at the offender's parent's house in Maffra.
4. The final image again on the generic black USB contained 29 images of child abuse material classified as real child prepubescent material under the age of 13.
5. The third count on the indictment relates to the attempted penetration of the child when she was aged nine years, which is an attempt incest charge, pursuant to s321M and 50C of the Crimes Act.
6. The attempt occurred somewhere between 4 December 2019 and

3 December 2020 when Mr Raymond tried unsuccessfully to force his penis into the child's vagina. The penalty for such a charge is one of 20 years imprisonment. It is a category 1 offence and has a standard sentence attached to it of 10 years. 7. In the same time period, on the same occasion, being unsuccessful with trying to place his penis in the child's vagina, he then digitally penetrated the child, and hence Charge 4 a charge of incest made up by way of a digital penetration of the vagina, which occurred on 3 December 2020. Such is an offence against s50C of the Crimes Act, for which the maximum penalty is one of 25 years. The standard sentence prescribed is one of 10 years, and it is a category 1 offence. 8. Again on the same occasion, Charge 5 and the circumstances making up Charge 5 were committed, as I have said, the child was nine years of age. The indictment puts this offending as happening on 11 March 2020. It is within that time period that was detailed in Charge 3, and involves sexual touching of a child under the age of 16 by way of the use of Mr Raymond's tongue on the child's vagina. Sexual touching of a child under the age of 16 is an offence against s49D of the Crimes Act, for which the maximum penalty prescribed is 10 years imprisonment, with a standard sentence imposed of four years. 9. Charge 6 in the indictment is also said to have occurred on 11 March 2020. Again it involves a sexual assault of a child under the age of 16, where Mr Raymond touched the child's vagina with his fingers, and indeed this is connected to Charge 2, with the producing of the child abuse material, because it was the touching of the vagina with his fingers to enable this photography or videoing of such circumstance, which makes up the charge of sexual assault of a child under the age of 16, again an offence under 49D. 10. We then come to the further charge of incest Charge 7, which involved sexual penetration of the child when she was aged 13. It occurred in the period

11 March 2020 to 3 December 2020. On this occasion he penetrated her vagina with his penis while wearing a condom. This occurred while the child was in the lounge room watching a movie, she indicated that such sexual activity, to use her words, "really hurt." 11. Mr Raymond, after such activity, is said to have ejaculated into a towel. As I have said, this is an offence of incest under s50C of the Crimes Act. The maximum penalty prescribed is 25 years imprisonment with a standard sentence of 10 years, and it is a category 1 offence, and s11A(4C) applies as to the non-parole period. 12. Charge 8 involves a sexual assault of a child under the age of 16, being the daughter of Mr Raymond. The period alleged is from 9 April 2022 to 18 April 2022. In this instance the charge involved the touching of the genitals prior to her going off to a camp. The touching involved the touching of the vagina and the buttocks of the child. 13. Charge 9 occurred on the same occasion as Charge 8, and involved an assault upon the child, as in a physical assault as against a sexual assault, while she was being abused in the bed. Prior to going off to camp she woke and the circumstances were such that Mr Raymond was unhappy with her, having woken and made various comments, and as a result slapped her face. That charge of assault in regard to his daughter is one laid at common law, for which the maximum penalty is one of five years imprisonment. 14. Charge 10 involves his son Shaun.[2] Again, it is an assault charge laid under the common law. It occurred when his son was aged 13, and the assault involved the hand of Mr Raymond being smacked upon the mouth of his son to the degree that the inside of the child's mouth was split. Shaun was 13 at the time, and is now 15. 15. Charge 11 involved his son Anthony[3] and occurred on 17 May 2023, when the child was 16, he is now 18. This assault involved the use of a bat when he hit the child on the legs with the bat. 16. As a result of these crimes, the sexual reporting provisions apply. The PSD at the time of the plea was 751 days. It is now 891 days. Mr Raymond has to be sentenced as a serious sex offender, as to Charges 3 to 8. The standard sentence, as I have already said, in in the 49D charges, is four years, and in regards to Charges 4 and 7 it is10 years. 17. The second indictment involving Mr Raymond is P1111803.1. These charges are more closely aligned to his background, as he was and has been for many years, a long term drug user. These involve cultivation of cannabis, and it is this cultivation that is deemed to be trafficking. 18. Charge 1 is a charge under s71AC of the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act. The maximum penalty prescribed for Charge 1 is 10 years imprisonment. The cannabis trafficked by way of cultivation on that occasion was 10 mature plants, and 16 seedling plants. The date of the trafficking is detailed in the indictment at 22 May 2023. 19. Charge 2 is a charge of possession of a drug of dependence pursuant to s73 of the same Act. The possession in this case involves methylamphetamine, and the date prescribed as the date upon which Mr Raymond was in possession of such drug is 22 May 2023. This is an offence against s73 of the Act for which the penalty is one of five years gaol and/or 400 penalty units. 20. The third charge involved cannabis L, possession, on 23 May 2023, and again is an offence under s73. 21. Of much importance in this case is the impact, insofar as the first indictment is concerned, upon the victim, the Court must take into account in this sentence this impact. 22. As I said, the child is now 15. It is a short, but quite dramatic, victim impact statement I should read it out for the purpose of the transcript. This was made on 5 June 2025, it reads, under "Emotional impact of the crime" as follows:

'I really do not know how to start. This has really wrecked me emotionally, mentally and physically. Some days I can barely get out of bed. The friends I have told they have looked at me with pity and I hate it. I hate the looks in their eyes when I told them what my father had done to me. I had lost family who don't believe me, and means a lot to me. I have little to no family left. My best friend that I have known for six years, she was the first to know and she had to carry that for me for years, and I'm so sorry that she had to carry that. I haven't been to school for months and it sucks, because I love school, but I can't go back because my friends know and I can't look them in the eye. Some nights I have nightmares about what he did to me and I wake up crying. I barely sleep anymore. Honestly I feel nothing. I am numb, I am angry, I am sad, I am confused. Why did this happen to me?'

1. As I said, short but dramatic, and totally consistent with what the Courts have observed over the years as to the impact of these heinous crimes upon a young child. Insofar as the plea was concerned, the prosecutor's submission, which did not only include Exhibit A, was that the only option here is one of prison and parole, and quite realistically counsel for Mr Raymond did not dispute that.
2. As to the sexual offender provisions, again it seemed to me realistically the prosecution did not seek a disproportionate penalty, given the penalty that must be imposed as a result of the seriousness of these crimes. Insofar as Charges 3, 4 and 7, the proposition put at p11 under the heading, 'Gravity of offending', that each should be in the range of mid to high range gravity, with which I do not disagree.
3. This assessment comes about of course from the factors that are set out at p12 of the prosecution summary, that is that the offending was targeted and calculated, occurred over a lengthy period of time and that the complainant as a daughter, given her age, was a young child in a position of special vulnerability. Also Mr Raymond, as the father of the child, was in a position of special trust, given the child's age, and the abuse occurred not only at the child's home, but at the home of her grandparents.
4. Finally, that while they are separate charges and one sentences separately for those charges, the offending involved in 3, 4 and 7 incorporated use of videos and photographs of the complainant during the sexual activity, which I have detailed in regard to Charge 2.
5. In Exhibit 1 of the submission, put to the Court by the defence, the seriousness of the crimes, as Ms Dubroja set out at paragraphs 14 to 17, was accepted. The offending is correctly classified.
6. The classification put in regard to Charges 1 and 2 is one of moderate, see Exhibit A of the prosecution statement at paragraph 28, again I accept that insofar as the factors relevant to that, they are set out in Exhibit 1, the defence document, but this time at paragraph 27, and the classification of moderate in that situation relates to the limited number of images, that there was no evidence that it was for the purpose of sale or further distribution, no evidence that Mr Raymond would profit.
7. The length of time it was possessed is set out in the charges themselves, although of course that has to be taken into account, that this pornographic material, both Charges 1 and 2 relate to his own daughter. However, I accept the assessment, and based upon such factors that one should take the view that this is moderate offending.
8. Insofar as the matters put by Ms Farrell in the plea, as I have said, I have already indicated her submissions as to gravity and to the option for sentence. She accepted that it was an important factor, the plea of guilty in this matter, not only because it was utilitarian, but it saved the trauma which I have just read from the victim impact statement, being exacerbated by the child who is now 15, being required to give evidence in Court.
9. Ms Farrell accepted that Verdins applied, especially in regard to principle 6, and should have a moderate impact on the sentencing. However, while not in any way breaching the obligations of the prosecutor, submitted that the totality of the criminality should lead to a lengthy sentence.
10. Ms Dubroja tendered Exhibit 1, that is the defence submissions, and also the report of the consultant psychologist, Mr Candlish, dated 9 June 2025. If I go to [3] of that report in the executive summary, Mr Candlish says this:

'Mr Raymond has no prior sexual offending history, and a history of general and violent offending. Mr Raymond reveals diagnostic complexity. He has a mild personality disorder, substance use disorder in remission, a somatic symptom disorder and a persistent depressive disorder. He is taking antidepressant medication currently. He developed a paedophilic disorder which is non-exclusive in nature as he is also aroused by women'.

1. I must say I do not understand that concept. I think what he is saying is that Mr Raymond is sexually aroused by women, but at the same time has got a paedophilic disorder as to young children. At [5] Mr Candlish assessed that

Mr Raymond falls into the moderate/low risk category for sexual offending. I accept that on the basis that there is no history, and clearly this offending has to be classified as situational, as bad as it is. 2. If I then go to [24], the following was said by Mr Candlish:

'Mr Raymond discussed how he was not in a good frame of mind when he sexually offended against his daughter. He described how he was having down periods where he wouldn't help out, staying in bed for a few days, call in sick. He stated that he always smoked pot and took MDMA, Xanax here and there, as he was trying to get himself out of a rut. He added that he was probably intoxicated by alcohol at times. He explained that his inhibitions were down due to substance use. Further he was impacted allegedly, apparently by an attack with a machete at his home forcing him and his partner to relocate, and seek assistance from his parents'.

1. That machete attack is set out at [49] and it led to him having to have some eight months off his scaffolding work which he had been successfully carrying out. He subsequently after that time off returned to concreting.
2. At [52] Mr Candlish stated that Mr Raymond reported that there had been five times that he had left a job. This was due to a clash of personality. He had had serious interpersonal conflicts with past managers. However it is clear that he has in fact been a consistent worker, albeit with those difficulties.
3. One of the problems set out, as I have alluded to, is that Mr Raymond has led a life subjected to heavy drinking and drugs. As he says at [55], his consumption at least during his 30s when he started to drink heavily, usually involved a 700 ml bottle of spirits each night on Friday and Saturday, and he explained that this type of drinking behaviour continued until he was incarcerated for these offences.
4. As is also detailed at [60], Mr Raymond was a multidrug user, having got into heroin and speed a fair bit. His abuse of amphetamine involved in the 12 months prior to this offending, some 4 grams of amphetamine per day, and a $200 a day heroin habit. Finally, he also had a habit of accessing Xanax without a prescription.
5. Finally, at [139] as to assessment, Mr Candlish said:

'Based on the presence of the above personality impairment and pathological trait domains, Mr Raymond meets the criteria for a mild personality disorder, with prominent features of negative affectivity, dissociality, detachment and disinhibition'.

'Based on his test results, and the account of his history, he appears to meet the criteria for persistent depressive disorder'.

'Based on the length of time of his offending, that is on 2017- 2022 the age of the victim and the nature of his offending, including the production of child abuse material, Mr Raymond meets the criteria for paedophilic disorder'.

1. As I think is clear from the history of these disorders, as Mr Candlish states at [144], such disorder is entrenched and preferential. As to substance use disorder, Mr Raymond meets the criteria for both cannabis use disorder and alcohol use disorder. Finally, in the opinion at [187], Mr Candlish says as follows:

'Mr Raymond has a persistent depressive disorder and a mild personality disorder. He has a cannabis use disorder and an alcohol use disorder, somatic symptom disorder and a paedophilic disorder'.

'Mr Raymond's chronic negativity and detachment have contributed to withdrawal from others and relationship dysfunction. He likely developed deviant interests due to childhood sexual abuse and sexualisation. He sexualised his daughter in this context, perhaps reflecting an attempt to use sexual offending to achieve pleasure as a form of emotional escape. He persisted due to egocentricity, and impaired empathy. His personality impairment has contributed to negative mood states and outlook of withdrawal. He likely experienced depressive symptoms affecting his ability to think clearly and self-reflect. He was aware that his behaviour was wrong.'

1. In what is obvious as to risk management at the last page of his report,

'Mr Raymond should avoid forming relationships with women who have young children, and he should not have any unsupervised contact with any children'.

1. It was thought necessary to obtain a neuropsychological report, dated 30 July 2025 of Dr Staios, a clinical neuropsychologist. There is really not any relevance in what was produced from that report, however at 7.2 in the summary it was essentially no different from Mr Candlish's report.
2. In 7.1 on p7 the following was said:

'Mr Raymond's neuropsychological assessment results indicated overall intellectual functioning with average range'.

1. I found however despite the limited relevance of the report, his comments at 7.2 were of assistance. They were:

'Mr Raymond's present offending is best understood within the context of his longstanding psychological vulnerabilities and complex development history. His early life was marked by significant adversity, including exposure to family violence, physical and sexual abuse and emotional neglect. These adverse experiences contributed to disrupted attachment patterns, emotional dysregulation and development of maladaptive coping strategies such as substance misuse and social withdrawal. Throughout adolescence and adulthood Mr Raymond demonstrated persistent difficulties in managing mood and relationships. He exhibited depressive symptoms, low self-esteem and a tendency towards impulsivity and attachment, which impaired his capacity for self-reflection and empathy. His history of childhood sexual abuse and premature sexualisation contributed to the development of distorted sexual beliefs and preoccupations, which ultimately manifested in his offending behaviour. The escalation of substance abuse, persistent depressive disorder and problematic personality traits, characterised by emotional detachment, disinhibition and poor impulse control further impact Mr Raymond's ability to manage interpersonal stresses and regulate his emotions. His offending occurred within the context of relationship instability, diminished protective factors, and increasing reliance and dysfunctional coping mechanism, including sexual behaviour and substance use as a means of emotional escape and deregulation.'

1. Importantly, as is noted at 73, Mr Raymond does not meet the criteria for any cognitive disorder.
2. That is the end of my referencing the reports. Clearly on any reading of those reports, the principles set out in Bugmy are relevant, [2013] HCA 37. While clearly such upbringing is not directly causal, once again one sees, in particular from the summary given by Dr Staios, the grave impact that sexual/emotional/ physical abuse, can have on a child, and the unfortunate impact of that many years later on another child.
3. I also accept the submission that Verdins' [2007] VSCA 102; [2007] 16 VR 269, limbs five and six are appropriate to take into account, a gaol term will not necessarily assist the psychological symptomology and there may well be, although there is no precise evidence on this, but one would presume that there may be impacts of being incarcerated in regard to that symptomology. In that case I do accept that the sentence to be pronounced needs to be moderated, if I can use that phrase, as a result of Verdins five and six factors.
4. In addition, as part of the plea was tendered Exhibit 4, the various self-help programs that Mr Raymond has attended while in prison, which is a hopefully good indication of his intent in the future, and Exhibit 5, which are five urine samples made over the period from 18 March 2023 to 3 February 2025, where the only positive results related to approved medication, so that at least while he has been on remand, he has not been abusing drugs. That might sound a strange comment, but often this Court gets results where persons on remand are still abusing drugs.
5. The sentencing in this matter, as I have already indicated, in particular in regard to the incest matters, requires one to assess and take into account the standard sentence, and in doing that I take into account the principles set out by the Victorian Court of Appeal in Brown [2019] VSCA 286, at [55] to [57].
6. I also take into account the case referred to the Court by the prosecution, being McPherson v The Queen [2021] VSCA 53, at [31], which referred to the difficulty in sentencing in cases such as this, and one having to ensure that standard sentencing principles, as declared in Brown, are maintained, despite the difficulties referred to in McPherson, as one factor only in the application of the intuitive synthesis process in regard to sentencing.
7. I have borne both of those cases, and indeed the warning words in McPherson, in mind and taken those into account in this sentence. I also take into account the comments of the High Court in Dalgliesh, which was of course an incest case[2017] HCA 41; , [2017] 91 ALJR 1063 and 1075 at [64] and [68], Mr Raymond, as far as you are concerned, the administration of the criminal law involves individualised justice. You are entitled to a just sentence based upon the facts of each charge in this matter.
8. In the sentence I am about to impose upon you I have tried to ensure that I take into account all of those principles that I have just recited. The aligning and particular reference to the standard sentence is as was referred to in McPherson, very difficult where you have got cases of this severity, and one has to sentence as best one can, taking into account, as I have said, the standard sentence, as simply part of and a factor of the intuitive synthesis.
9. If you would be good enough to stand please, Mr Raymond. On the first charge in indictment 1A, if I put it that way, which involves the matters concerning your child, on Charge 1 of possession of child pornography, you will be sentenced to imprisonment for two years.
10. On the second charge, of producing child abuse material, you will be sentenced to imprisonment for three and a half years. On Charge 3, being the charge of attempted incest, you will be sentenced to imprisonment for seven years. On the incest charge, Charge 4, that is incest with your daughter, you will be sentenced to imprisonment for 11 years.
11. In regard to Charge 5, being again the sexual assault of a child under the age of 16, being your daughter, you will be sentenced to imprisonment for four years. On Charge 6, again a charge of sexual assault involving your daughter, you will be sentenced to imprisonment for three and a half years.
12. In regard to Charge 7, being the incest with your daughter involving sexual intercourse, you will be sentenced to imprisonment for 12 years. In regard to Charge 8, being the sexual assault upon your child, you will be sentenced to four years imprisonment, and in regard to the three assault charges, being on each of your children, you will be sentenced to imprisonment for six months on each charge.
13. Insofar as this sentencing is concerned, I have adopted the methodology referred by the Court of Appeal in The Queen v Jones [2003] 40 VR 267 to 285, at [90]. Taking into account Parliament's view as to the need for cumulation as a result of these types of offences, one has to balance that legislative guide, and one has to of course take it into account, but one has to balance it with the principle of totality.
14. One cannot disregard of course the requirements of Parliament, and in that regard I refer to McL v The Queen [2003] CLR 452, [476] to [477] and [75] to [76], and to the comments of Redlich AJ, in Gordon v The Queen [2013] VSCA 343. His Honour was talking about the issue that I of course have to deal with here, and I will quote from [74]:

'A sentencing judge must evaluate the overall criminality involved in all the offences for which the offender is to undergo sentence, ensuring there is no disproportion between the totality of the criminality and the totality of the effective length of sentences imposed. A judge is also required to ensure the totality principle is applied in a manner which will not undermine the legislative policy inherent in 6E of the Sentencing Act as to serious sexual offending. The tension between the policy underlying s6E and the principle of totality is difficult to reconcile. Authorities have thus far provided no clear guidance as to the circumstances in which the statutory presumption of full cumulation under 6E should override the principle of totality. However, it may at least be said that as the objective gravity of the total offending increases, so will the degree of cumulation which is ordered, thereby producing a total effective sentence which will more closely correspond with both the legislative policy underlying s6E and the principle of totality'.

1. Taking into account those principles, and in particular the legislative intent insofar as serious sexual offending of this type is concerned, I order that the base sentence in this matter should be the sentence of 12 years imposed for Charge 7. I cumulate with Charge 7 and each other six years of the charge of incest and the sentence imposed in Charge 4, two years of the charge of producing child abuse material in regard to Charge 2, and one year of the attempted incest in regard to Charge 3, making a total effective sentence, Mr Raymond, to be imposed against you of one of 21 years.
2. Again the issue of non-parole period must be aligned with the statutory provisions set out in s11A(4C) as to Charges 4 and 7, and in regard to that I do my best to take that into account in regard to a sentence of this dimension and number of charges.
3. In regard to the non-parole period which you must serve before being eligible for parole, I order that the period be 15 years. The PSD is 891 days and you have already of that sentence served this amount, and you are to be sentenced as a serious sexual offender on the offences that I have indicated.
4. You have been served and signed the requirements that you are subject to SORA for your life and that organisation will contact you when you are released from gaol, and then the final matter, Mr Prosecutor, in this matter is the question of forfeiture. Have we got that order?
5. MR DONAGHY: I understood Your Honour had already signed it.
6. HIS HONOUR: Mr Brown, then I come to sentence you in regard to the other indictment, which is .1. In regard to Charge 1, I sentence you to imprisonment for one year. In regard to Charge 2, a period of imprisonment of three months, and in regard to Charge 3, a period of imprisonment of three months. I make no order in regards to those matters as to cumulation so that effectively they have no impact in regard to the totality of your sentence, which for all of this criminality will be a total effective sentence of 21 years with a minimum of 15 years to serve before you are eligible for parole, with 891 days already been served.
7. Ms Dubroja, do you want time to talk to your client?
8. MS DUBROJA: Your Honour, I will go downstairs to see him.
9. HIS HONOUR: I hope the steps you have taken in gaol and the words of the psychologist eventually assist you to make some dramatic changes in your life, Mr Raymond. I wish you well.
10. MS DUBROJA: Your Honour, I don't believe there has been a s6AAA announced.
11. HIS HONOUR: Another Parliamentary requirement, which is almost impossible in this case, is to demonstrate what the benefit of your plea has been to you Mr Raymond. In that regard, as the total effective sentence is the best I can do, because the factors in regard to non-parole period are simply too complex to be able to make such a statement, but in order to demonstrate the impact and worth of your plea, can I indicate that had you not pleaded guilty the total effective sentence would have been not 21 years, but 27 years.
12. Can I thank counsel for their assistance in what was clearly a very difficult decision for the Court. Mr Raymond can be taken down, thank you.