DPP v Spencer [2025] VCC 412

Her mother who was separated from the complainant's father, was working full-time as a nurse which involved working night shifts. You were not working, and you were entrusted to look after the complainant and her younger half-sister when their mother was not home. You would pick her up from school and perform other parental responsibilities.

1. You began to spend a lot of time with the complainant including play-fighting and wrestling. You told her stories and took her shopping, and she helped you with gardening. This relationship became more physical as you gave her foot rubs, had her sit on your lap, held hands, and on one occasion she sucked your finger while you read to her.
2. Her mother observed this closeness and warned you to be careful of spending so much time with the complainant as she looked like she was falling in love with you.
3. In 2009 the complainant was in Grade 6. Towards the end of that year, she experienced a hallucination of a demon figure which terrified her, and she became more attached to you thereafter as you were receptive to her fear and she felt understood by you.

1. Some time after that the first sexual incident occurred, which is not the subject of a charge. You and the complainant were sleeping on separate mattresses next to a heater when you held hands, and she touched your penis over your pyjamas and felt it become erect. On another night in the same sleeping arrangement she lay on top of you while both were fully clothed, and you held her buttocks while moving her up and down. She described this as 'dry humping' or 'dry sex'.
2. On a third occasion in the same place, you exposed your penis to her and began to masturbate. the complainant then took over and held your penis for some seconds. That is Charge 1.
3. Charge 2 occurred in 2010 when she was aged 12 to 13. You touched her vagina under her underwear.
4. Around the same time, you allowed her to masturbate you when you were in a bath. She leaned over and masturbated your penis until you ejaculated. That is Charge 3.
5. The first charge of sexual penetration occurred when the complainant was aged 12 to 13. You stepped out of a shower and she put her mouth over your penis and sucked on it. Her mother was not at home at the time, and she was in your care. That is Charge 4.
6. Charges 5 and 6 occurred at Wilson's Promontory where you took her for an overnight stay. You showered together, naked, which is Charge 5, and in the tent you performed oral sex on her by licking her vagina, Charge 6.
7. During a second trip to Wilson's Promontory in the same timeframe you and the complainant were sleeping in a caravan. You had brought a box of condoms before the trip. When alone with her in the caravan you put on a condom and allowed her to masturbate you before taking over yourself. That is Charge 7.
8. Around the same time, you took the complainant to Falls Creek where you stayed together in a hotel. You showered together while naked, which is Charge 8. In the shower she performed oral sex on you by putting her mouth over your penis. That is Charge 9. After showering you performed oral sex on her by licking her vagina and clitoris. Charge 10. You then placed your penis against her vaginal opening and rubbed it up and down. Charge 11.
9. Also, around this time when the complainant was aged 12 to 13 years, you allowed her to perform oral sex on you by placing her mouth over your penis, through your underwear, while driving along the Burwood Highway. That is Charge 12.
10. In 2011 you moved out of the Tecoma home and lived in Rosanna. the complainant came to stay with you for a month. On an occasion at that home, you engaged in 'dry humping' with her, by lying on top of her and rubbing your erect penis against her vagina. That is Charge 13. On another occasion you put your hand under her top and bra and touched her breast. Charge 14.

1. By its very nature, sexual offending against children is extremely serious. It always involves the exploitation and manipulation of their vulnerability, and the law presumes that harm is done to the child.[1] It is regarded by the community as abhorrent.
2. In this case, there are a number of aggravating factors, in addition to those attached to Charges 4 and 9, when the complainant was under your care, supervision or authority, in the absence of her mother. In your role within the household as a family friend, you were trusted to be with her at any time, indeed much of the time you were in loco parentis, such as when you picked her up from school, and in this way she herself came to trust you implicitly, and indeed you groomed her to believe her relationship with you was special.
3. From time-to-time the complainant had a strained relationship with her mother, and her father had terminal brain cancer. She had experienced trauma from domestic violence at the hands of her former stepfather. She had limited peer friendships. You exploited her vulnerability by making her feel important and understood while gradually progressing from seemingly innocent physical contact to sexual activity. You led her to believe that the two of you could marry one day and have children together. You told her highly inappropriate information such as details of the sexual relationship between you and your former wife. You isolated her from her peers by threatening to disappear if she pursued any interest in boys her own age. You told her that your relationship was secret because others would not understand, thereby maintaining control over her.
4. This aspect of your offending was in fact a basis for it and enabled it to continue for about three years, persistently over that time, sometimes between three and five times a week.
5. Your persistence extended to timing the abuse by arranging trips away from home, by continuing to abuse her when she moved to your house, and by arranging sleeping configurations which facilitated your access to her. You gave her alcohol on the trip to Falls Creek. You were made aware of her mother's concerns about the relationship, and you were given explicit warnings by her stepfather.
6. All these matters add to the gravity of your offending. In addition, the severe psychological harm done to the complainant tells of the gravity, which is apparent from her impact statement and those of her mother and stepfather. In an eloquent and articulate statement, she described being exhausted, fatigued and traumatised by the passage of two decades since you abused her. She has permanent psychological scars from having been your victim and from the very long-drawn-out process brought about in part by your deliberate absence from the jurisdiction for five years.
7. She recalls as a teenager being humiliated by you in front of others, as part of your controlling behaviour, and she gave examples of your emotional cruelty which was part of the grooming and manipulation you employed. She said you had used your belief system, a form of indoctrination, to cause her to be fearful of the world at large, which seems to have had the effect of increasing her isolation and her dependence on you.
8. Since the cessation of the offending, she has had to endure multiple hospital admissions, ongoing psychology and psychiatry appointments, group therapy and phone-line support. She struggled to complete her tertiary education in nursing, and to maintain consistent employment.
9. Such was the breach between the complainant and her mother at this time, caused by your offending in part, that she was removed from her mother's care, and mother and daughter did not see each other for more than three years.
10. the complainant's mother and stepfather also spoke eloquently about the extreme dysfunction caused to the family, which contributed to the breakdown of their marriage. It caused enormous grief for her mother, who stated that the complainant's father died without knowing that justice in any form had been served. Her younger sister also suffered from the extreme disruption in the family, while being too young to be given an explanation of the cause.
11. Such severe impacts from extended periods of offending are to be taken into account in cases such as this.[2] They point to a high degree of moral culpability on your part.
12. That calls for a significant focus on the need for deterrence and denunciation to be reflected in the sentence.[3] The circumstances of this case call for very strong condemnation of your acts, and a forceful message of general deterrence. Having denied the charges, you have shown no remorse nor taken any responsibility for your offending.

1. You observed the plea hearing from custody but chose not to take part in it, and I have heard nothing by way of any mitigating material. I know little about you, other than what I have gleaned from the trial process. Initially you chose to represent yourself. The progress of the trial was complicated and needs to be set out in brief terms.
2. The trial began on 5 August 2024. That morning, your counsel Mr Kounas appeared to inform me that you had withdrawn your instructions. You chose to represent yourself, but it was explained to you that counsel would need to be appointed by Victoria Legal Aid for the purpose of cross-examination of the complainant, in line with the legislation requiring it. You chose not to instruct Mr Cameron, who was appointed to act, and he withdrew.
3. At this stage I heard and ruled upon submissions from the prosecutor Dr Harkess as to a number of pre-trial issues, your opposition to which had been flagged by Mr Kounas.
4. The evidence of the complainant and of her mother and stepfather was pre-recorded, with no cross-examination.
5. Shortly after a jury was empanelled you changed your mind and asked Mr Cameron to represent you. The trial proceeded and the recordings of the witnesses were played to the jury. The trial was almost completed when new evidence emerged, which had not been put to the complainant. The jury was discharged, and a new trial began on 20 November, by which time the three witnesses concerned had been cross-examined by Mr Cameron and that evidence had been pre-recorded.
6. A verdict was delivered on 2 December, and you were found guilty of all charges.
7. As I said, I know little about you. You were described in the evidence as a man who was not working when living with the complainant's family, but you had some talents of a practical nature which you apparently attempted to put into practice at the family's home. It appears you had some horticultural interest and skills. You have no prior criminal convictions.
8. It was also apparent from your decision to represent yourself, and initially to play no part in the trial, that you took this stance from a type of ideological concern. I discerned this from the comments you made before you were placed in a remote courtroom for the initial part of the proceedings. It appears from what the complainant said in her victim impact statement that you classify yourself as a 'sovereign citizen', and your approach to the trial was consistent with that characterisation. The only relevance for the purposes of sentencing is that it provides an explanation for some of the delay.
9. Delay in the trial process was due in no small part to your frequent change of legal practitioner. Your absence from the jurisdiction, following your departure for Queensland after you had been charged and in breach of your bail, was the major cause of the long delay. You remained there for some five years before being located and extradited to Victoria.
10. While the delay you caused is an aggravating factor, you are not to be punished for your belief system, and that is not my intention. It is relevant only to partially place the delay in context.

1. Mr Spencer, I sentence you now to the following terms of imprisonment.

For each of Charges 3, 6, 7, 10, 11 and 13, two years;

1. The sentence for Charge 4 is the base sentence for purposes of cumulation. I make the following orders for cumulation:
   • Six months of the sentence for Charge 1;
   • Four months of the sentence for Charge 2;
   • Nine months of each of the sentences for Charges 3, 6 and 12;
   • Two years of the sentence for Charge 9;
   • Two months of the sentence for Charge 13; and
   • One month of the sentence for Charge 14.
2. They are to be served in cumulation upon the base sentence.
3. This results in a total effective sentence of 10 years and four months. I order that you serve a minimum period of seven years before being eligible for parole.
4. You are sentenced as a serious sex offender for each charge following Charge 2, pursuant to the Serious Offender Provisions of the Sentencing Act. The prosecution has not sought a disproportionate sentence given that in this case there is adequate sentencing power to recognise the protection of the community as a priority consideration. It shall be noted on the court record.
5. Under the Sex Offenders Registration Act you will be required to provide your details to police every year for the rest of your life. A form in relation to that for you to sign will be sent to you in custody in due course, Mr Spencer.
6. You have been in pre-sentence detention for 648 days, by my calculation. I declare that is to be reckoned as time already served and I shall cause that to be noted on the court record.
7. HER HONOUR: Dr Harkess, do you agree with that calculation.
8. DR HARKESS: 649.
9. HER HONOUR: Forty-nine. 649 days is the pre-sentence detention to be reckoned as already served.
10. Are there any other matters, Dr Harkess.
11. DR HARKESS: No, Your Honour.
12. HER HONOUR: Is there anything you want to say, Mr Spencer.
13. ACCUSED: No.
14. HER HONOUR: Thank you. Adjourn the court please.

[1] Clarkson v R [2011] VSCA 157

[2] DPP v DDJ [2009] VSCA 115

[3] DPP v Abad [2016] VSCA 279