DPP v Shipp

1. At your plea hearing victim impact statements from Natalie Shipp and Angelina Barbour were read out in court and tendered. Both detailed the lasting and profound effects that your offending has had on them.
2. Natalie Shipp described the shame and guilt she felt because of your offending, which she carried like a weight. She struggled to cope as a teenager and turned to drinking and smoking to try and numb herself. Natalie self-harmed and had thoughts of not wanting to be here anymore. She felt fear and distrust toward the world as she entered adulthood and has battled depression for a long time. The pain, anger and sadness Natalie has felt has been enduring. In the lead-up to reporting your offending to the police, the intensity of the pain resurfaced to the extreme point where she suffered thoughts of suicide. Natalie described that your actions have not broken her and she has fought for justice.
3. Angelina Barbour has endured a deep sense of violation, fear and loss because of your offending. She described being deprived of having a normal childhood, being deprived of being a normal little girl. Since your offending her life has been turned upside down. The effects of your offending continue to persist, affecting her sense of safety, mental health and relationships. Angelina described that she suffers from constant anxiety, finds it difficult to focus, to relax or to find joy in the things she once loved. In her relationships she is wary, hesitant, and at times distant. At work she finds it hard to concentrate and perform and simple tasks are monumental struggles. Sleep is difficult and she is always exhausted by the emotional weight that she carries. Angelina spoke of the profound emotional toll, the weight of loss and loneliness that your offending has caused to her and her family.
4. It is clear from these statements that your offending has had a catastrophic impact on the victims and their families. I hope that through this process both the victims can move forward in their healing and that they experience some closure. Their voices have been heard by the court and there will be accountability and consequences for the person who has caused their trauma.

1. The sentence I impose must reflect the gravity of what you have done. Sexual offending against children offends against our intrinsic values as a community and our common humanity. Such offences are among the most abhorrent, depraved and the most serious matters heard by the courts. The law is clear that the protection of children from exploitation by those with more power and maturity is a paramount consideration for our community. All sexual offences against children carry with them a presumption of long term and serious harm, both physical and psychological.[7] There is no doubt that sexual offences against children call for just punishment, public denunciation and general deterrence.
2. In your case you offended against two victims over a four-year period on five separate occasions, each representing a grave breach of trust arising from your relationship. The seriousness of your conduct is further aggravated by the fact that the victims were your nieces, staying in your home under the care of you and your wife. Instead of providing a safe and nurturing environment, you exploited them for your own gratification. Your offending is also aggravated by the very young age of the victims: Angelina Barbour was between four and eight years old and Natalie Shipp between seven and nine. You were aged between 48 and 52, placing you in a position of considerable power.
3. Further, you have shown little to no remorse. Indeed, more than 20 years after the offending you threatened to kill Natalie Shipp if she reported your conduct to police. Although your victim was older at the time this threat was made, I accept the prosecution submission that this is a serious example of the offence. On its face your threat was motivated by your desire to avoid the consequences of your abhorrent sexual offending.
4. Given the date of your sexual offending in the early 90s, each of the indecent assault charges are punishable by a maximum of five years' imprisonment. Indecent assault at that time covered a wide range of behaviour, including some penetrative acts against children not covered by other offences. Part-way through your offending period a new charge of indecent act was enacted. This offence was specific to non-penetrative sexual conduct against children. Indecent act offences are punishable by a maximum of 10 years' imprisonment. The final charge of make threat to kill is also punishable by a maximum of 10 years' imprisonment. The maximum penalty of a charge is the starting point and the yardstick by which the gravity of your offending is to be measured, and in your case this is somewhat complicated by the fact that similar offending behaviour is punishable by different offences carrying significantly disparate maximum penalties.
5. I must sentence you based on the applicable maximum penalty that applied at the time of your offending, and I must sentence you according to current sentencing practices applicable at the time of sentence. The court must also have regard to the sentencing practices at the time the offences were committed in arriving at a sentence that is just in all the circumstances and to ensure that the principle of equal justice is adhered to where it can be shown to have required significantly lower sentences.[8] Your counsel, Mr Malik, submitted that the most relevant sentencing statistics for indecent assault were for the period most proximate to your offending of 2001 and 2002 to 2005 and 2006 and that these statistics provided evidence of such sentencing practices.
6. I have exercised considerable caution in acting upon these statistics. Whilst I accept that a suspended sentence is a penalty open on each of the sexual offences[9], I do not consider the statistics relied upon provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate sentencing practice at the time of the offending to warrant the exercise of equal justice.
7. I consider your offending to be serious and your moral culpability to be high.

1. In terms of your personal history, you were born in October 1952 and are now 73 years of age. You are the second eldest of seven children.
2. You had a typical childhood and did not experience any abuse in the home. You completed school to Year 10 and then commenced an apprenticeship in electrical fitting which you did not complete. From there you worked in a factory for three years before you were made redundant and following this you drove taxis for two to three years and then drove trucks for over 40 years, working very long hours in the process.
3. You married your wife in 1981. You had one child together, Lauren, who you are not in contact with.
4. Prior to being charged with this matter you lived together with your wife and grandchildren in private rental accommodation. Given the nature of these charges, it was no longer appropriate for you to remain in the family home. Arrangements were made for you to be relocated to alternative accommodation, and you are currently a resident at a residential aged care facility and have been living at this facility since April 2023. Correspondence from the facility suggests that you are independent with your usual activities of daily living.
5. In the past you have suffered from multiple health issues. Several medical reports were tendered and a report from a consultant physician and geriatrician. Your health conditions can be summarised as follows. In 2000 you suffered your first heart attack resulting in stents being inserted.
6. In 2011 you had a further heart attack which resulted in you having to stop work. In 2015 you were diagnosed with bowel cancer, requiring surgery to remove a portion of your bowel, and following a period of chemotherapy you have since been in remission. In 2022 you had a stroke which resulted in your hospitalisation, but the symptomology had resolved by the time of your discharge. In addition, you suffer mild renal impairment, you have had your left testicle removed and you have tremors in your upper limbs that have required treatment with Botox. You currently also suffer from sleep apnoea which is treated with a CPAP machine. You suffer COPD, which is chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and complex regional pain syndrome. You have osteoarthritis in both knees, ischaemic heart disease and mild vascular neurocognitive disorder.
7. It was the opinion of the consultant physician and geriatrician that your prognosis is reduced compared to healthy individuals of the same age. He considered that you were at increased risk of further heart attack and stroke if you continue to smoke. Further, he considered that continued smoking would also increase and lead to deteriorating lung function from your COPD and would also lead to an increased risk of developing vascular dementia. Further, the consultant physician and geriatrician opined that the impact of these health issues on your day-to-day life were limited. It was his view that as long as you had access to your medications, CPAP and regular medical review, it is not anticipated that your health conditions would adversely impact you in a custodial setting.
8. You are currently taking a suite of medication including pain killers, cholesterol tablets, blood thinners and tablets for osteoarthritis. At the time of your plea on 21 July 2025, you were experiencing difficulties with your lungs for which you have undergone a CT scan and were awaiting a consultation with your general practitioner to discuss the scan results. On 12 December 2025, at your last plea hearing, I was advised that there were no further submissions in relation to medical updates or material and no further change in your condition.
9. Given your range of health difficulties, I sought material from the custodial health services as to their ability to appropriately care for you if you were incarcerated. I received two letters, one from Ms Westin the deputy commissioner, Custodial Operations and one from Ms Ashmore the clinical director of Adult Health Services Justice Health. I accept the contents of these documents and consider that the prison system will be able to provide adequate healthcare for your health conditions.

1. At your plea hearing on 21 July 2025, your counsel Ms Andrews tendered a neuropsychological assessment report from Dr Loretta Evans.
2. In her report Dr Evans found that you display extremely slow cognitive processing speed and difficulties with flexible thinking. However, your reasoning capabilities and decision-making capability are relatively well preserved.
3. You presented with significant vascular related changes, the result of risk factors including smoking, your previous stroke and heart attack, lung and heart issues. These changes have led to memory inefficiencies, poor mental control, and symptoms consistent with probable mild vascular neurocognitive disorder. You are at further risk of neuropsychological decline should you have another vascular episode. Dr Evans opined that as you continue to cognitively decline there is an increased risk of impulsivity and aggressive behaviour.
4. Your history of alcohol abuse did not reveal results consistent with an appreciable alcohol acquired brain injury. However, your history does demonstrate instances of functional forgetting that may be related to subtle changes in your brain contributed to alcohol abuse.
5. With respect to your mental health, you are currently experiencing depressive symptoms and anxiety around your current legal situation.
6. I accept the opinions of Dr Evans.

Impact of neuropsychological material on sentence

1. Ill-health will be a factor tending to mitigate punishment only when it appears that imprisonment will be a greater burden on the offender by reason of his state of health or where there is a serious risk of imprisonment having a gravely adverse effect on the offender's health. I accept that the state of health of any offender is always relevant to the consideration of the appropriate sentence for the offender, and I am mindful that ill-health cannot allow an offender to escape punishment. [10]
2. Further, I accept your counsel's submission with respect to the relevance of age on sentence and that it can be relevant to whether you are a likely danger to the community. In some circumstances, a term of imprisonment may represent a life sentence, gaol will likely be more burdensome for you than for a younger person, and that it is a significant step to incarcerate someone of your mature years for the first time who has no prior convictions in relation to the sexual offending or in general. However, age cannot permit the imposition of an inappropriate sentence.
3. I consider your ill-health will very likely increase the burden of imprisonment by reason of your state of health. However, on the state of the evidence before me, I do not find that imprisonment would have a gravely adverse effect on your health, and I also consider your old age in sentencing you, and I accept that your advanced years in combination with your physical illnesses are such as to make imprisonment more difficult than it would for a prisoner of younger years in a healthy condition. I consider it a serious matter to imprison a mature offender with no prior convictions for the first time.

1. Your counsel advanced other significant mitigatory matters on your behalf including the impact of delay. In this regard you were first interviewed by police in July 2020 and again in December 2020 and February 2021. Charges were ultimately laid in October 2022, representing a significant delay of two years and three months between the initial interview and the laying of charges. There was then a further delay of approximately two years between the filing of charges and the trial, and these delays have had a substantial impact on you as noted by Dr Evans.
2. Further, at the time the charges were laid you were living with your wife in private rental accommodation, along with your two grandchildren. Because of the nature of the charges, you were required to leave the family home and relocate to shared aged-care accommodation. You and your wife now spend only a few hours together each day and almost your entire pension, aside from $75 a fortnight in rental assistance is directed toward the cost of residing at the aged care facility.
3. I accept that the delay has caused you considerable anxiety, particularly given the serious nature of the charges and the real prospect that if convicted a substantial term of imprisonment may follow. I also note that you have not reoffended since being charged which indicates your capacity for reform. Further, I accept that there has been no further offending of a sexual nature for in excess of 30 years.

1. Your counsel submitted that your plea of guilty is of significant utilitarian value, sparing the complainants the trauma of giving evidence and being cross-examined in relation to historical sexual offending.
2. In evaluating the discount to be given to your plea of guilty, I note that your plea was entered shortly before trial after a sentence indication hearing. A contested committal was conducted where both victims were cross-examined, and I accept that you have spared this court the time and expense of a trial and you have spared the victims giving evidence for a second time. Further, you have pleaded guilty to less serious charges than those you originally faced and you have in the end accepted responsibility for your offending.
3. In the circumstances, I consider you are entitled to a demonstrable discount for your plea of guilty.

1. The basic purposes for which a court may impose a sentence are punishment, general, specific deterrence, rehabilitation, denunciation and protection of the community. In sentencing you I am required to have regard to a range of matters including seriousness of your offending, your culpability, your personal circumstances and those of your victims.
2. I take into account the sentencing guidelines referred to in s5 of the Sentencing Act where relevant in your case. I have also had regard to current sentencing practices for the offences for which you have pleaded. I have considered the cases referred to by your counsel of Henry, Hilt and Iles,[11] and whilst these cases have been instructive, each case turns on its own particular facts. I have also given full weight to the maximum penalties which pertained at the relevant time as they are an important yardstick, as I have said, in fixing the present sentence.
3. There was no dispute between the parties that a term of imprisonment is warranted in your case. The dispute centred around whether you should be required to serve an immediate term of custody. Your counsel submits that a wholly suspended sentence, which is open to be imposed in your case, would satisfy all sentencing principles. The crown made no submission as to the precise structure or form of sentence but did submit that an immediate term of imprisonment was required.
4. I should note that the charge of make threat to kill, a suspended sentence is not open for that charge, and in relation to that charge it was submitted by your counsel that the court should impose a good behaviour bond.
5. Mr Shipp, I have given very close and careful consideration to your case and whether you should be required to serve an immediate term of imprisonment. I consider that specific deterrence and community protection have a limited role to play in the sentencing exercise. However, I have reached the conclusion that the seriousness of your offending and the need to unequivocally condemn such behaviour and to deter others, does call for an immediate term of imprisonment to be served.
6. In determining the sentence, totality, parsimony and proportionality also have an important role to play, and weighing up all matters and in light of the significant mitigating factors advanced on your behalf, I consider that a term of imprisonment that is partially suspended in all the circumstances is the desirable and appropriate penalty.
7. The sentence I impose is as follows:
8. In relation to Charge 1, you are sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment:
9. Charge 2, you are sentenced to 15 months' imprisonment.
10. Charge 3, you are sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment.
11. Charge 4, you are sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment.
12. Charge 5, you are sentenced to 15 months' imprisonment.
13. Charge 6, you are sentenced to 15 months' imprisonment.
14. Charge 7 you are sentenced to 15 months' imprisonment.
15. Charge 8, you are sentenced to 15 months' imprisonment.
16. Charge 9, you are sentenced to 15 months' imprisonment.
17. Charge 2 of 15 months is the base.
18. I order that two months of the sentence on Charge 1, two months of the sentence on Charge 3, two months of the sentence on Charge 4, three months of the sentence on Charge 5, three months on Charge 6, three months on Charge 7 and three months on Charge 9 be served cumulatively, and on my calculation that would mean that for the sexual offending I have imposed a sentence of 33 months. I order that of the 33 months, three months is to be served immediately, and the balance of 30 months is to be suspended for a period of three years.
19. In relation to Charge 10, the charge of make threat to kill, I intend to sentence you to a period of two months' imprisonment and that is to be served cumulatively.
20. My intention is to impose a term of imprisonment of five months that is immediately to be served. Once released you will have a term of 30 months' imprisonment which is suspended for three years.
21. If you were to commit an offence punishable by imprisonment within the operational period of the suspended sentence, you would have to show exceptional circumstances as to why you don't serve the 30 months.
22. Upon sentencing you to imprisonment on Charges 1 and 2 of indecent assault with a person under the age of 16, your status changes to one of a serious sexual offender. A 'serious sexual offender' means an offender who has been convicted of two or more sexual offences for each of which you have been sentenced to a term of imprisonment. This means that community protection becomes the predominant sentencing purpose.
23. Pursuant to s6F of the Sentencing Act, I cause to be entered into the records that for Charges 3 to 9 you are sentenced as a serious sexual offender.
24. s6E of the Sentencing Act applies and that every term of imprisonment imposed by a court on a serious sexual offender for a relevant offence must, unless otherwise directed by the court, be served cumulatively on any sentence of imprisonment imposed on that order whether before or at the same time as that term.
25. That section must, however, give way to some extent to the principle of totality. I believe I have done that in terms of the sentence I have imposed.
26. The prosecutor, Mr Plummer on behalf of the crown, did not seek a disproportionate sentence.
27. Charge 1 to 4 of indecent assault and Charges 3 to 9 of indecent act are deemed to be Class 2 offences under the Sex Offenders Registration Act 2004 and given the circumstances of your offending you are to be registered as a sex offender, and the applicable registration period is for the remainder of your life.
28. There is material that the court must provide to you detailing your reporting obligations, and this will be forwarded to you in due course.
29. Pursuant to s6AAA of the Sentencing Act, but for your plea of guilty the sentence I would have imposed is three years and six months with a non-parole period of two years.

[2] Crimes Act 1958, as amended by the Crimes (Sexual Offences) Act 1980 (Vic).

[7] Crimes Act 1958, as amended by the Crimes (Sexual Offences) Act 1980 (Vic).

[8] Stalio v The Queen [2012] VSCA 120.

[9] Bromley v The Queen [2018] VSCA 329.

[10] R v VanBoxtel [2005] VSCA 175; Smith [1987] SASC 9802; Brooks (a pseudonym) v the King [2023] VSCA.

[11] R v Iles [2009] VSCA 197, Henry v The King 2023] VSCA 100, DPP v Hilt [2023] VCC 821.