DPP v Shead

1. At school you experienced learning difficulties and the ongoing effect means you were granted a Disability Support Pension. You had various unskilled work in the past and with your partner you had been planning to establish a gardening business. She supported you throughout the two trials.
2. You have been a father to her four children and you have one daughter of your own, with whom you are not in contact owing to the trial.
3. You have nine half-siblings and have kept in touch with four on your mother's side of the family. You regard them as providing strong support for you, as do your friends, who have written references for the court. I note that they have been made aware of the nature of the charges.
4. You have not used any drugs since your younger years and your once excessive alcohol consumption was discouraged by your partner and has no longer been a problem.

1. You have been diagnosed by Dr Linda Borg with a major depressive disorder. Dr Borg has seen you twice at the beginning and end of 2025. In the second report dated 12 December 2025, Dr Borg noted past treatment for ADHD and depression and current low mood, but with improvement since she saw you in January 2025[2]. Despite that comment, Dr Borg reported your description of your incarceration as being distressing, and she noted that it has taken a significant toll on your wellbeing, in terms of your presentation[3].
2. Dr Borg raised this again when stating that the stress, isolation and lack of access to your support network in prison are likely to exacerbate your depression and anxiety, with a heightened risk of worsening psychological symptoms and overall decline in mental wellbeing[4].

1. Mr Marshall submitted on your behalf that this circumstance enlivened the Verdins principles limbs 5 and 6, meaning your experience of custody will be and has been more difficult for you than for other prisoners.
2. Mr Fisher responded that this would not be different than the experience of other first-time prisoners, and so Verdins is not enlivened.
3. I understand that you have spent most of your time on remand in protective custody and that has now been documented. A letter from an officer in the Department of Justice and Community Safety has confirmed that once you are sentenced, no material changes are expected to your conditions which are outlined in the letter.
4. You have reported that you have been the victim of an assault, but that has not been documented.
5. Dr Borg has identified a degree of risk of mental deterioration, and I shall give some moderated consideration to that possibility. In other words, limbs 5 and 6 of the Verdins principles are enlivened but with slight effect. I have read the recently obtained report from the Department of Justice and Community Safety which outlines the provision of health services for prisoners, including mental health services. It states that referrals for psychology services are triaged according to acute mental health need and there are waiting lists. It further states 'Justice Health cannot provide advice about the likelihood of a particular individual receiving prison-based psychology services'.[5]
6. Bearing that in mind, I have made the comment that the Verdins principles limbs 5 and 6 are enlivened, as I said, with slight effect.

1. Dr Borg stated that your learning disorder, described as a neurodevelopment language disorder, did not impair your capacity for judgement of right and wrong and did not contribute to the offending. There was no evidence of depression or anxiety at that time[6].
2. Dr Borg's observations as to your limited insight into your offending are explained by your denial of the offences, which in turn limits an assessment of your prospects for rehabilitation, and the chances for progress through any sex offender program you might take part in[7]. Dr Borg noted that your denial poses a significant barrier to effective engagement in sex offender treatment.
3. The references from people who know you well indicate a history of positive links with the community and a good likelihood of support once you are released.
4. As you are only 32 now, you will still be relatively young when released, assuming you achieve parole. If so, you will have an opportunity to rekindle those links and avoid further offending. The need for your sentence to reflect specific deterrence is tempered slightly by those observations.
5. The importance of general deterrence should always be balanced against the individual characteristics of the offender, including the need for specific deterrence in a particular case.
6. This is in the context of sexual offending against children who are too young to be able to give consent, being regarded with abhorrence by the community and deserving of strong denunciation by the courts.
7. The maximum penalties indicate the seriousness with which the legislature has regarded this type of offending. For sexual penetration and indecent act with a child, the maximum penalty is 10 years' imprisonment. For attempted sexual penetration and common assault, the maximum is five years.
8. It is expected that appropriate punishment should aim to deter others from it. It is serious offending and your behaviour was particularly serious given that the complainant was a vulnerable young teenager who loved and trusted you as her older brother. She was scared to tell anyone and did not do so at any point during the offending period, or for a considerable time afterwards.
9. It is an aggravating fact that you did not use a condom in relation to Charges 1 and 4 on the second indictment and so subjected the complainant to the risk of pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease.
10. Her eloquent and moving victim impact statement, which she read aloud to the court at the plea hearing, tells of the fundamental and enduring impact upon her, which she described as having serious effects upon her wellbeing.
11. Mr Marshall raised the issue of delay as a mitigating factor to be taken into account. There were certainly unusual delays in completing the trial. The first trial had been due to proceed before Judge Carmody in November 2023 but was not ready apparently for numerous reasons. It was then commenced before Judge Hawkins in May 2024, but the jury was discharged before verdict. The same result occurred in the next trial before me in June 2024.
12. Until this point, the case had been listed in the Latrobe Valley circuit list. To assist in accommodating the trial, the venue was changed to Melbourne.
13. At the next trial in November 2024, the jury found you guilty of three charges but was unable to reach a verdict in relation to the other charges, as I explained earlier.
14. You were remanded in custody at the end of that trial on 21 November 2024. Although the next trial could have been accommodated by the court earlier, the first suitable date after that time in order to accommodate the same defence counsel, was not until November 2025. It was at this trial on 18 November the jury found you guilty of the remaining five charges.
15. The three-month delay since then has been partly due to the need for an updated psychological assessment, and partly due to the January court closure and my availability. I take this delay into account in the sense that regardless of the reasons, you have had the matter hanging over your head for several years.
16. I sentence you to the following terms of imprisonment.

1. For Charge 1 on the first indictment, one year.
2. For Charge 5 on the first indictment, three years.
3. For Charge 8 on the first indictment, four years.
4. The following sentences relate to the numbering on the second indictment.

1. For Charge 1, four years.
2. For Charge 2, six months.
3. For Charge 3, three years.
4. For Charge 4, four years.
5. For Charge 5, two years.
6. The base sentence for the purposes of cumulation is the sentence for Charge 1 on the second indictment. I order that one year of each of the sentences for Charges 5 and 8 on the first indictment, and two years of each of the sentences for Charges 3 and 4 on the second indictment be served in cumulation upon the base sentence. The remaining sentences are to be served concurrently. This results in a total effective sentence of 10 years. I order that you serve seven years before being eligible for parole.
7. Because you are sentenced to prison for Charges 1 and 5 on the first indictment, you are to be recorded as a serious sexual offender in relation to Charge 8 on the first indictment, and Charges 1, 3, 4 and 5 on the second indictment.
8. You will be placed on the Sex Offenders Register for the rest of your life. That means you will have to provide the police with details of your residence and other matters, every year, once you are released from custody.
9. You have spent 512 days in pre-sentence detention - I think that is not including today - and I declare that to be reckoned as already served and I shall note it on the court record.
10. Can I just check that that pre-sentence detention calculation is correct?
11. MR FISHER: It's correct, Your Honour, thank you.
12. HER HONOUR: Mr Marshall? Thank you.
13. Are there any other matters?
14. MR FISHER: No other matters, thank you, Your Honour.
15. MR MARSHALL: No, Your Honour.
16. HER HONOUR: Thank you to counsel and your instructors for your assistance during the process.
17. MR FISHER: As Your Honour pleases.

[2] Report of Dr L. Borg dated `12.12.25 at [25]

[5] Letter from Ashlea Shaune, general manager, Adult Health Services, Justice Health 25.2.26 at p.5

[7] Discussed by Dr Borg in her second report at [28(iii)]