DPP v Rigo [2025] ACTSC 220

1. The offender Michael Rigo is to be sentenced with respect to four separate acts of indecency that occurred between 28 November 1985 and 24 April 1987. The offending was contrary to s 92J(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), which provides: Act of indecency without consent (1) A person who commits an act of indecency upon, or in the presence of, another person without the consent of that person and who knows that that other person does not consent, or who is reckless as to whether that other person consents, to the committing of the act of indecency is guilty of an offence punishable, on conviction, by imprisonment for 5 years.

2. It is not in dispute that the only appropriate penalty is one of imprisonment. Both parties acknowledge that the gravity of the offending requires this. However, the prosecution submit that this involve a fulltime component, and the defence submit that a term of imprisonment served fully in the community is appropriate.

The offending

3. The victim and the offender came to know each other through umpiring in football leagues. In 1985 or 1986 when the victim was just about to turn 16, or was 16 years of age, he began officiating the ACT AFL and the ACT Junior Football League (ACTJFL).

4. In accordance with the dates of the charges, the victim was aged 16 years and 7 months through to 17 years and 11 months at the time of the first three offences, and was aged 17 years and 8 months through to 17 years and 11 months at the time of the fourth offence. The offender was aged from 30 years to 32 years at the time of the offending.

5. In early 1986, during the pre-season, the victim had an officiating day in Curtin. He had ridden his bike from his address in Page. On the way home, the victim’s bicycle had a flat tyre. The offender, who was driving a blue Nissan Bluebird with South Australian numberplates, stopped to assist him. The facts provide that the offender was a “large male” and he was wearing a white umpire’s uniform.

6. The victim accepted a ride home from the offender. During the car ride, the offender offered to assist the victim with his umpiring. He also spoke to the victim about girls at school, and the victim disclosed that he had “not been with anyone”.

7. Thereafter, the offender would attend the home residence of the victim in Page in the period before the victim went into the Air Force. The offender was friendly with the victim’s parents. During this time, the victim would also go to the offender’s house for dinner and would spend time with him.

8. Throughout the interactions with the offender, the victim was fearful about what would happen if people knew what was occurring. He was concerned about not getting into the Air Force and scared of the offender.

9. The victim believed that the offender was a police officer. The first time he got into the offender’s car, the offender had what the victim believed was a South Australia Police Force badge. The victim also believed that the offender was in Canberra as he was working at the Bureau of Criminal Intelligence, and he was aware that the offender was a senior AFL umpire and worked with St John’s Ambulance Service.

Incident One: Act of indecency (CAN 2023/7032; Count 3)

10. This incident occurred around one to two weeks after the offender and the victim first met.

11. On this date, the victim and the offender went to the football oval near the victim’s residence. They played with the football and the offender provided umpiring advice to the victim. Afterwards, they went to the Kippax gym where there was a spa and a sauna. After they left the gym, they went to get Chinese food in Belconnen, and they rented a video. The offender drove the victim around in his vehicle, and they went to the offender’s residence in Weetangera.

12. When at the offender’s residence, they watched one of the movies, which the victim describes as involving “soft porn”. They were sitting on the couch together. The victim was aroused by the movie they were watching. The offender put his hand on the victim’s penis and stroked the victim’s penis through his pants. The victim ejaculated almost immediately.

13. After this incident, the offender drove the victim home. The victim’s fear of the offender came from what he believed the offender could do with his connections and the victim’s concern that his position with the Air Force could be jeopardised.

14. The victim did not tell his parents what had occurred. He had a long shower when he arrived home and remembered being in trouble for the length of time that he was in the shower after this incident.

Incident Two: Act of indecency (CAN 2023/7033; Count 5)

15. This incident occurred on Belconnen Way at Weetangera. There was around one to two weeks between incident one and incident two.

16. The offender and the victim were in the offender’s car, driving along Coulter Drive. The offender came to pull over his vehicle to a nature strip. It was dark outside.

17. The offender asked the victim whether he wanted to use the speed radar he had in his vehicle, to which the victim agreed. The doors to the vehicle were locked at the time, via a central locking system. The victim recalled the radar going off several times. The offender was in the driver’s seat and the victim in the passenger seat.

18. At a time when the victim had hold of the speed radar, the offender reached over with his left hand and grabbed and rubbed the victim’s penis, over the top of his pants. The victim was not aroused at the time the offender first did this. The victim’s penis became erect, and he ejaculated.

19. After the offender had touched his penis, the victim told the offender that he wanted to go home. The victim believed the doors to the vehicle were locked at this time. The offender eventually drove the victim home.

20. The offender told the victim not to disclose what had happened.

Incident Three: Act of indecency (SCCAN 2024/91; Count 9)

21. On this occasion, the victim and the offender had been to the Canberra Club, located in Canberra City. The victim, the victim’s family, and the offender had dinner. This was shortly before the victim left Canberra to join the Air Force. After dinner, the victim and the offender went back to the offender’s residence.

22. When they returned to the offender’s residence in Weetangera, the offender caressed and groped the victim. This occurred in the loungeroom of the offender’s residence. The victim was lying on his back and was naked at the time. The offender grabbed the victim’s penis and masturbated him for a few minutes. The victim ejaculated from this act.

23. The victim could not recall going home after this incident.

Incident Four: Act of indecency (CAN 2023/ 7034; Count 11)

24. This incident occurred at the offender’s residence on a Friday, around 6 months before the victim turned 18. The victim recalled it was before he turned 18, due to thinking “I’m going to be an adult soon”. The victim had joined the Air Force and had been to his induction in Sydney.

25. The victim had been at the Belconnen Labor Club with his family, some of his parent’s friends, and the offender. They had been there for the Friday night raffles. The victim’s parent’s vehicle was full, and the victim was intending on walking home. The offender offered to drive him home. They spent time on Belconnen Way, with the speed radar gun again. Nothing occurred in the car at this point.

26. The offender then took the victim to his new residence. The victim recalled asking the offender where they were going, and the offender responded that he had moved. The victim knew that there would be a sexual interaction, however, accepted this fact.

27. When they went inside the loungeroom, the offender began kissing the victim on the face and groping the victim all over his body. The victim could not recall whether he reciprocated or not by groping the offender as well. The victim recalled just wanting to get it over and done with. The victim became undressed. The victim recalled the offender touching his penis on this occasion.

28. This is the last occasion where there was a sexual encounter with the offender. The offender reiterated to the victim not to disclose what had happened.

29. The agreed facts provide that the victim could not recall a time when the offender ejaculated, had any end gratification, or climaxed during the sexual encounters.

30. The agreed facts further provide that during the first three incidents, the victim did not give any consent. In submissions for the sentence hearing, the parties advised that with respect to the fourth incident, although the complainant knew there would be a sexual interaction and accepted that fact, consistently with his plea of guilty, the offender accepts the victim’s acquiescence was not true consent.

Complaint

31. The victim first disclosed that he had been sexually assaulted in early 2023 to a then girlfriend during a sexual interaction. Their conduct reminded the victim of the actions of the offender, and the victim responded by standing up from the bed without warning and saying, “I have to go”, before leaving the residence. The victim’s hands were shaking. The victim returned a short time later, and disclosed that he had been sexually assaulted.

32. After this, the victim told his parents that he had been sexually abused, and he later disclosed the identity of the offender.

Police investigation

33. From 15 March 2023, police began investigating the matter. During the investigation, the South Australian Police Force and the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission confirmed they had no employment records for the offender.

34. On 10 July 2023, police attended at the residence of the offender and they left a calling card. The offender subsequently spoke to police, and he was informed of the allegation made by the victim. Several minutes after this conversation, an intercepted call between the offender and another person captured the offender stating that he was in a lot of trouble, that it related to when the offender first came to Canberra and that the victim was 16 years old.

35. On 13 July 2023, police executed a search warrant at the offender’s residence. During the search, the offender stated that he was not in Canberra in 1985 “that he knew of”. Police asked the offender “whereabouts were you”, and he stated, “I grew up interstate”. Police asked the offender “when did you arrive in the ACT”, and he said “um, I’d have to have a look”. Police asked the offender “do you have a rough idea at all”, and he said he did not. The offender said that he would seek legal advice. Police asked the offender if he was aware who the victim was. The offender said “yes” and he declined to answer further questions.

36. The offender spent two days in custody before being granted bail: s 63 Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) (Sentencing Act).

Assessment

37. Any sexual offending is serious, particularly where it involves a victim of the age involved here. The victim was vulnerable because of their age, and the age disparity with the offender, and the offender exploited the relationship of trust he developed with the victim and the victim’s parents. On each occasion, the victim was in the supervision of the offender, either at the offender’s home or in his car and was in a position of relative isolation. The offender was plainly aware of the wrongfulness of the conduct, in coming to tell the victim not to disclose what had happened. There is insidiousness to the offending, and conduct engaged in for sexual gratification of the offender. There was not though physical or emotional violence involved beyond the inherent characteristics of this in this form of offending.

38. The sexual conduct involved touching the victim to a stage of ejaculation in the first three incidents, although the first two occasions did not involve skin-to-skin contact. The latter two occasions did involve skin-to-skin contact, this being more serious conduct. On these occasions, the victim was particularly exposed and exploited. He was naked, the incidents were of longer duration, and there was sexual touching of the victim’s body beyond only his penis.

39. The offending involved four distinct incidents in a period of some 18 months. They were not isolated incidents and there was increasing severity as the victim’s compliance became assured. The totality principle is of application in the sentencing exercise. Effect on the victim

40. In his victim impact statement, the victim describes that since he was aged 15 to 16 years he has had depression, anxiety, and anger issues and that he could not understand the reason for this. He would have large arguments with his father, and became rebellious, and now understands he was projecting his anger on his parents. His relationship with his father has been impacted, which the victim describes as the “worst part of all that happened”. This is something that the victim does not blame his father or himself for, but attributes the blame on the offender.

41. The victim was fearful of being alone with males, particularly older men, when by himself. He has found it hard to maintain relationships and friendships. Both of his marriages have failed because of his trust issues. His trust in others was “stolen” from him. He developed a hatred of authority from his belief of the offender’s employment, and clashed and rebelled against some of his superiors in the military as a result.

42. The victim has not maintained a coaching role in football, despite his capability as an umpire. He describes how the offender caused him to lose interest and respect in the game.

43. The victim has relied on gambling as an “escape from reality” throughout his adulthood, and has in the past drunk alcohol and used marijuana heavily to numb himself. He describes that for a period of about 15 years he was “completely off the rails”. He has experienced self-esteem issues, hyper vigilance, mental health challenges, and has had difficulty in working. He struggles with feelings of guilt.

44. The victim describes how he had suppressed the events for a long time and that he is still affected to this day.

45. It is clear from the victim impact statement that the offending has had a pervasive effect on the victim’s life.

Subjective circumstances

46. The offender is now 70 years of age. He has no criminal history.

47. The offender experienced a loving and supportive childhood in Adelaide. He was the only biological child to his parent’s union, and had younger adopted siblings. His father was a commemorated war veteran, and his mother undertook home duties until she began an administration role when the offender was an adolescent. He maintained a loving and supportive relationship with his parents until they died aged in their nineties. He continues to have a supportive relationship with his siblings.

48. He came to relocate to Canberra in 1986. He met his wife in that year, and they married in 2002. His wife has three children from a previous relationship whom the offender considers as his own children. The children are now adults and two daughters who reside in Canberra have children of their own. His son resides on the South Coast of NSW and suffers from multiple mental health diagnoses.

49. The offender completed year 10 and has held various employment as a paramedic and lifeguard. After relocating to Canberra, he owned and operated a private investigation business as well as a medical care business. He has been employed by ACT Ambulance Services and the ACT Government in COVID-19 related roles. The offender ceased working as a paramedic when he was charged with the offences.

50. The offender has pro-social friends and associates, and has no substance dependency issues. He does not engage in organised pro-social activities, but enjoys spending time with his partner, children, and grandchildren, and walking his dogs in his spare time. He manages any mental health strain by focusing on the positives.

51. His subjective circumstances are otherwise convenient to consider with reference to three distinct submissions made on his behalf. The information as to these subjective circumstances is drawn from a pre-sentence report, an intensive correction order (ICO) assessment report, a letter from the offender, letters from the offender’s family members, a letter from a former colleague and friend, medical evidence, and certificates.

52. The ICO assessment report, dated 22 April 2025, finds the offender suitable for such an order. He is found suitable for a community service work condition. He is assessed as a low risk of general reoffending.

Good character

53. The offender himself sets out the contributions he has made to the community through ambulance work in both a paid capacity and in a volunteer capacity. He received a certificate of commendation from the Royal Life Saving Society in 1985, a commendation for his contribution to the Defence Academy Rowing Club in 1995, and recognition by a Major General of the Army in 2004 for his skill and professionalism as a paramedic. In more recent years, the offender’s contributions have included providing critical roles in assisting with the pandemic response.

54. A daughter describes the offenders significant community contribution through teaching first aid, and that he was incredibly passionate about this work. She describes that the offender came to be widely known and respected in the medical field and through this he has mentored and supported many young people. This daughter had commenced drafting an application to nominate him for an Australia Day Honours award for his lifelong dedication and contribution to the pre-hospital care industry in Australia, but ceased this upon the charges being laid. She describes that the offender’s contributions have saved countless lives.

55. Another daughter expresses similar sentiments, describing the offender as having made positive contributions to society over decades. His volunteer work has included at the grandchildren’s schools. He provided care, and was trusted by the family to provide guidance, when their biological father was in palliative care. This daughter expresses that she believes her stepfather to be truly sorry for his conduct. She says that the offences were out of character and do not align with the values of the offender that she has witnessed over decades.

56. The offender’s former professional colleague and friend speaks of the offender’s contributions to the medical field, particularly in the area of research and education. This letter expresses that the offender has “critically aided in the development and progression of many healthcare professionals and therefore indirectly positively affected the lives and health of an immeasurable number of people in the community”. He is described as having lived a life of service to his family, friends and community.

57. It is clear that the offender has been of good character in the period after the offending and, on the information known to this Court, for much of his later adult life. It is also clear that what appeared to be good character, with involvement in community sporting groups, was enabling in terms of the offender having unsupervised and trusted access to the victim at the time of the offending.

58. In accordance with s 34A(b) of the Sentencing Act, the Court must not reduce the severity of the sentence it would otherwise have imposed because of the offender’s good character to the extent that the good character enabled the commission of the offences. It appears not to be in issue that s 34A is of application given the meaning to be given to ‘a sexual offence against a child’ as provided by the Dictionary to the Legislation Act 2001 (ACT).

59. On behalf of the offender it was submitted that the Court can still take into account ‘otherwise’ good character: Richards v The King [2023] NSWCCA 107; DPP v Roberts [2025] ACTSC 53. In accordance with those authorities, I accept this. The material as to good character supports a finding that there has been established rehabilitation and there is little, if any, risk of reoffending at this time. The prosecution accepted that the material as to good character was capable of being informative in this regard. Extra curial punishment

60. It was submitted on behalf of the offender that he has experienced extra-curial punishment as a result of the loss of his employment. I understood this to be a reference to the offender having to cease his employment once he was charged and in circumstances of media reporting about the then alleged offending. However, the pre-sentence report provides that the offender advised the report writer that he “retired from formal employment in February 2025”. This information was not challenged. I am not persuaded that extra curial punishment in the sense contended arises. I accept though that the offender has experienced impacts from the time at which he was charged and that employment in his chosen field was inevitably effected.

Hardship to family

61. The offender describes having significant caring responsibilities for his wife, his grandchildren, and his son. In respect to his son, he assists at times of crisis which may require him to travel to the South Coast on short notice. The importance of the offender in providing support to his family members is borne out in the references tendered on his behalf. These letters also speak of their love and gratitude for the offender for the support he has provided them in the past and still does to this day. It is plain from this material that the offender is a valued, trusted, and respected member of the family. Further, it is plain from the letter from the offender’s professional colleague and friend that he is a committed family member, and valued friend who is “genuine, caring and attentive to other people’s needs”.

62. The offender’s wife describes the support the offender initially provided to her and her children following her separation from her former husband. The offender has been trusted with the responsibility of her children and their grandchildren without question. He has been a constant figure in his grandchildren’s lives since they were born. The offender and his wife provide care for their grandchildren. In respect to their son, the offender’s wife explains that the offender is the only family member that is able to calmly reason with him when he is in crisis, and they financially support him. They have had to rely on their superannuation to support themselves and family members since the offender had to stop work.

63. The offender also provides care to his wife, who describes that her health has been in a slow decline over the past five years. He provides her with daily care and attends to the housework. He is her driver for medical appointments, as well as providing this for one of the grandchildren. The offender’s wife’s general practitioner reports that the offender is the main carer for his wife and his son, and that the offender’s wife has become more dependent on the offender. She will continue to require significant support from him.

64. A daughter of the offender describes that there has been a profound impact on the family as a result of the charges. There was significant psychological distress from media reporting, and impacts on career choices as a result. The offender has become a shell of who he was, and his bail conditions have resulted in the grandchildren being affected. Her parents have become isolated and withdrawn. This daughter expresses that she does not think her stepfather would survive a custodial sentence. She also speaks of the importance of the offender in caring for her brother and her mother, and the daily care and support he provide as a carer to his grandchildren.

65. His other daughter describes the offender as having been an active and loving grandparent who has provided caring duties for her children. She observes also the carer role that the offender has taken on with their mother, and the consequential reduction in emotional distress for all of the children knowing that their mother is being cared for.

66. On behalf of the offender it was submitted that there is a probable hardship that will be occasioned to the offender’s family by a custodial sentence: s 33(1)(o) Sentencing Act. I accept this, although it does not follow that other sentencing considerations and purposes are eradicated.

Physical health issues

67. The offender has received treatment for skin cancers. He has undergone multiple surgeries and has further surgeries scheduled. He reports that this has been difficult, with treatment seemingly never ending, but he reports his physical and mental health as otherwise “okay”.

68. A letter from his general practitioner confirms the diagnosis of skin cancers and describes that the offender is “currently under active surveillance as new lesions appear to be evolving rapidly with the attendant risk of distant spread if the lesions are not identified and treated promptly”. The doctor provides that the offender will definitely require more surgeries in the foreseeable future. As at 15 April 2025, the doctor reported that the offender requires regular three monthly skin checks to facilitate early detection and treatment. At the sentence hearing, I was informed that the offender was scheduled for a further scan in May 2025, and a further surgery in June 2025.

69. Nonetheless, there was no information to suggest that the offender’s physical health conditions are unable to be addressed by the custodial authorities. I accept though that his ongoing need for monitoring for his physical health will exacerbate the mental strain he would experience from a custodial sentence. This, along with him being elderly and the mental strain arising from the hardship his family will experience by any incarceration, will, I accept, impose a greater burden on him in custody.

Remorse and insight

70. The observation above at [37] that the offender was aware of the wrongfulness of the conduct is to be contrasted with the offender’s explanation for the offending as contained in the ICO assessment report. It reports that: When asked to explain his motivations behind his offending behaviour, Mr Rigo advised at the time the offences occurred and until the day he was charged with the offences, he did not believe he was causing harm to the victim. He was of the impression the victim was eager, willing and consenting to the sexual contact.

71. Nonetheless, the ICO assessment report provides that the offender agreed with the statement of facts and that he expressed “his decisions were poor”. The report finds that the offender appeared to show insight into how his behaviour could have negatively affected the victim, and the ongoing harm he could have caused to the victim. The offender expressed a desire to engage with restorative justice so that he can grasp a thorough understanding of how his actions impacted the victim and so that he can begin to make amends. Neither party submitted that such an order was an appropriate one to make.

72. In a letter to the Court, the offender expresses his deep remorse and conveys his “heartfelt apologies” to those affected and to the community. He expresses his deep regret for the hurt and harm he has caused and acknowledges the ongoing harm caused to the victim and his family. He reflects that at the time of the offending he was not a good person, and that once he settled down with his wife in around 1988, he put his past behaviours behind him. He further reflects that he experienced a traumatic experience as an adolescent which profoundly affected him, but that he still takes full responsibility for his actions against the victim. The offender expresses that he has sought to live a life of integrity and respect and to help others.

73. I accept that there has been progress since the time of the offending, and particularly seemingly as a result of the initiation of criminal charges, with insight into the seriousness of the conduct. The offender displays gains in remorse and insight, with this solidifying a conclusion that there is a low prospect of further offending of this type in the future.

Pleas of guilty

74. Pleas of guilty were entered in the Supreme Court following a criminal case conference. This was prior to a trial date being set. This was at an early stage in the Supreme Court. I consider a reduction in the range of 15 to 20 per cent is appropriate: Blundell v The Queen [2019] ACTCA 34 at [12], [14]. A reduction in the upper end of that range will be applied given the significant utilitarian value in sparing the victim from the anxiety of a trial listing and having to give evidence.

Current sentencing practice and patterns

75. Both parties acknowledged the limitations that authorities said to be comparative provide, although it remains a consideration in the sentencing exercise in accordance with ss 33(1)(za) and s 34A(a) of the Sentencing Act.

76. The prosecution assisted with a number of authorities: Police v Jewkes [2024] ACTMC 29 (Police v Jewkes); DPP v Mitchell [2023] ACTSC 117; DPP v Mitchell (No 3) [2024] ACTSC 274 (DPP v Mitchell); Police v AB [2020] ACTMC 16 (Police v AB); R v Wright [2020] NSWDC 411 (R v Wright); R v Kisun (No 5) [2018] ACTSC 311 (R v Kisun (No 5)); R v Trezise [2018] ACTSC 135 (R v Trezise); R v Morgan [2018] ACTSC 113 (R v Morgan); R v Pretorius (No 2) [2016] ACTSC 358 (R v Pretorius (No 2)); and R v Stone [2016] ACTSC 231 (R v Stone).

77. On behalf of the offender, particular attention was drawn to the authorities in which fully suspended sentences were imposed, with it submitted that R v Kisun (No 5) involved similar type offending, Police v Jewkes involved more serious offending, and R v Pretorius (No 2) involved more serious conduct.

78. I have considered each of these authorities and note in particular: (a) that in an example where fully suspended terms of imprisonment were imposed, the age disparity was less than what occurred here, although the victim was slightly younger (Police v Jewkes); (b) the offending in R v Pretorius (No 2), in which a fully suspended sentence was imposed, involved less serious sexual contact but a younger victim; (c) similarly, in R v Trezise, some of the sexual contact was less serious, but it involved younger victims; (d) the offending in R v Stone involved some examples of more serious offending, but younger victims; (e) the act of indecency offending in DPP v Mitchell involved course of conduct charges; (f) some authorities include more serious sexual conduct (Police v AB; R v Wright); (g) one authority involves a higher maximum penalty for some of the offending (R v Wright); and (h) one authority is factually very distinguishable (R v Morgan).

79. The authority I have found of most assistance is that of R v Kisun (No 5). In that matter, Mossop J had regard to the length of time since the offending conduct and the offender’s good character in that period and found it appropriate to fully suspended the sentence of imprisonment (at [33]). The offending involved the serious aspect of the offender holding a position of authority as a teacher. Some of the sexual contact was of a less serious nature, but the victims were significantly younger. For acts of indecency involving touching the breast area and the torso, sentences of four months imprisonment were imposed. For acts of indecency involving touching the victim’s penis and genitals, terms of 12 months imprisonment were imposed. It warrants emphasising, noting the sentencing practice considered by the Court in R v Kisun (No 5) (at [30]), that the sentence was decided prior to the commencement of s 34A of the Sentencing Act, which came into effect from 5 December 2018.

80. Authorities with respect to offending, and sentencing, for offending of this type otherwise often consider the impact of delay in the commencement of criminal proceedings. I take this into account, but not in the circumstances of this matter because the offender was left in a state of “uncertain suspense”: see PR v The Queen [2014] ACTCA 40 at [27]-[45] and the authorities cited therein. The delay here has been informative as to the demonstrated progress as to rehabilitation and that a “measure of understanding and flexibility of approach” in sentencing is appropriate: PR v The Queen at [29], citing R v Blanco [1999] NSWCCA 121; 106 A Crim R 303 at 306, [16].

Consideration

81. I accept that the offender is someone who presents with compelling subjective circumstances such that rehabilitation has essentially been achieved and the role of community protection is limited in the sentencing exercise. Nonetheless, I cannot accept that an entirely community based sentence order, even one that involves intensive correction supervision requirements and/or community service work, can reflect the other important purposes of sentencing.

82. Ensuring adequate punishment that is just and appropriate, that gives effect to general deterrence, denunciation, and accountability, and recognises the harm done to the victim and the community, can only be reflected by a period of fulltime imprisonment in this matter. There is a gravity to the offending here that, even whilst it is of a historical nature, warrants the imposition of sentences that reflect all sentencing purposes through a period in fulltime imprisonment. The historical nature of the offending is meaningless in terms of the impact of the offending on the victim, and on the community.

83. However, the subjective circumstances of the offender are such that a partial suspension of the term is appropriate. Individualised justice remains an important sentencing consideration. There is no suggestion that community protection warrants supervision by parole upon release, and certainty of a release date recognises the offender’s health issues and the hardship his family will experience by his incarceration.

Orders

84. For those reasons the following orders are made: (1) On the charge of act of indecency without consent (CAN 2023/7032), the offender is convicted and sentenced to 6 months and 16 days imprisonment, reduced from 8 months on account of the plea of guilty, to commence on 27 May 2025 and end on 12 December 2025. (2) On the charge of act of indecency without consent (CAN 2023/7033), the offender is convicted and sentenced to 6 months and 16 days imprisonment, reduced from 8 months on account of the plea of guilty, to commence on 11 October 2025 and end on 26 April 2026. (3) On the charge of act of indecency without consent (SC CAN 2024/91), the offender is convicted and sentenced to 9 months and 20 days imprisonment, reduced from 12 months on account of the plea of guilty, to commence on 7 February 2026 and end on 26 November 2026. (4) On the charge of act of indecency without consent (CAN 2023/7034), the offender is convicted and sentenced to 8 months imprisonment, reduced from 10 months on account of the plea of guilty, to commence on 27 September 2026 and end on 26 May 2027. (5) The total period of imprisonment of 2 years is to be suspended after 4 months, from 26 September 2025. (6) Michael Rigo is required to sign an undertaking to comply with the offender’s good behaviour obligations pursuant to s 85 of the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) for a period of 20 months and 1 day, from 26 September 2025 until 26 May 2027.

I certify that the preceding eighty-four [84] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Sentence of her Honour Acting Justice Christensen. Associate: 15 Date: