• Lawyers in Sydney
• Lawyers in Melbourne
• Lawyers in Brisbane
• Lawyers in Perth
• Family lawyers
• Employment lawyers
• Criminal lawyers
• Wills and estates lawyers
• Find a lawyer

The offending

Background

3. During the period of time when the offences were committed, the offender and his two sisters lived in their family home in the ACT. The father of the offender and the victims was diagnosed with cancer in 2010. He passed away in February 2013, when the offender was 17 years old, Anna was 13 years old and Kathleen was 7 years old.

4. After the death of the offender and victims’ father, there was an incident when a family friend was visiting and heard voices from the bathroom. She entered the bathroom and

1 This pseudonym was chosen by the victim. found the offender and Kathleen naked in the shower together. The offender immediately jumped back from Kathleen. The family friend yelled at the offender, took Kathleen to her own home, and disclosed what she had seen to the children’s mother.

5. Their mother also recalled an occasion where she had been informed that Kathleen and the offender were in the shower together. She confronted the offender, who told her he had been washing Kathleen’s hair, and acknowledged that he was naked when he did this. She told him that he was not to be naked in the shower with Kathleen and that he was required to wear clothing.

6. On 1 September 2013, the same family friend made a report to police regarding child pornography that had been located on the computer used by the offender. The family friend had observed records of searches for “sibling porn”. Police attended and observed a website featuring incestuous pornography. The offender made admissions to searching for explicit pornographic material online. He said that he had an addiction to this material. No further action was taken by police at that time.

Offending against Anna Act of indecency on a person under 16 (CH2025/844)

7. On an occasion shortly after the death of their father in 2013, Anna was home alone with the offender. She was 13 or 14 years old at the time. The offender was 17 years old. Anna had just finished showering and was wearing only a towel. She went to her bedroom and closed the door.

8. The offender knocked on the door. Anna opened the door, still wearing her towel. The offender asked Anna whether they could “wrestle”, which was something they had done before. Anna told him that they could, but only after she had dressed.

9. The offender entered Anna’s bedroom. Anna again told the offender she wanted to get dressed. The offender suggested that they turn off the light, and he did so. He then grabbed Anna and there was a struggle, during which Anna’s towel fell off. The offender grabbed both of Anna’s breasts and squeezed, causing her pain. Anna kicked the offender in the genitals and told him “no”. Despite this, the offender continued to hold her breast.

10. Anna and the offender fell to the ground. The offender was still holding Anna’s left breast. He let go a short time later when their mother and uncle returned home.

11. Later that night, Anna confronted the offender and told him that if he ever touched her or anyone else, she would make sure he was removed from the family. Offending against Kathleen

Act of indecency on a person under 10 (CH2025/841)

12. The first occasion Kathleen recalled of sexual offending against her was when she was around 4 years old, and the offender was 14 years old. Kathleen was home alone with the offender, and they were sitting on the couch in the lounge room watching television. Their father was still alive at this time.

13. Whilst they were watching television, the offender began “cuddling up” to Kathleen. Kathleen did not find this to be usual, as the offender was her brother. However, he then began touching her chest and her vagina over her clothing. The offender was using pressure and moving his hands backwards and forwards. Kathleen pushed the offender’s hands away and moved away from the offender to stop him from touching her, but the offender continued to move closer to her. Kathleen did not know what to say or do due to her very young age.

14. The offender only stopped touching Kathleen when their parents arrived home. Kathleen ran out the front door to greet them. Kathleen did not disclose what had occurred to her parents due to her very young age. After this occasion, she had issues sleeping, and she was concerned about the offender coming into her room while she was asleep.

Act of indecency on a person under 10 (course of conduct) (CC2025/13478)

15. The offender continued to engage in sexual touching of Kathleen. The offending followed a similar pattern, with the offender touching Kathleen’s chest and groin. Kathleen could not recall how many times this occurred but knew that it was more than one occasion during the time she was in preschool.

16. The offending against Kathleen continued after their father had died. Prior to his death, the offender’s father had grown orchids in frosted greenhouses in the backyard of the family home. The offender assisted his father with maintaining the orchids. The offender took over the care of the orchids after his father was diagnosed with cancer, and carried on doing so after his death.

17. Kathleen recalled that the offending would occur when the offender asked for assistance in the greenhouse. Kathleen explained that she would agree to assist as it was a way of still having her father around. During these occasions, the offender would rub himself against Kathleen’s body and touch her vagina and breasts. This included over her clothing and underneath her clothing. The offender would also touch Kathleen’s vagina under her underwear. This touching occurred on a regular basis and began to affect Kathleen’s schooling.

18. On one occasion, the offender made Kathleen stand up and bend over to pull out weeds. The offender grabbed Kathleen’s hips to lift her up to stand and positioned himself behind her. The offender pushed Kathleen’s back down and began rubbing her vagina with his right hand, initially over her clothing and then under her clothing.

19. The offending would occur when the children’s mother, as well as Anna, were home. Their mother and Anna did not usually come to the greenhouse, as it was too difficult to be there due to memories of the children’s father. The offender told Kathleen that what was happening was a secret and she should not tell anyone.

20. On one occasion, the offender’s then partner (who was then living with the family) had walked into the greenhouse and observed Kathleen sitting down with the offender in front of her. The offender “jolted” away from Kathleen.

21. The children’s mother also recalled an occasion where she had visited the greenhouse, and saw the offender positioned behind Kathleen, facing her back. When their mother entered the greenhouse, the offender quickly moved away from Kathleen.

Incest on a person under the age of 10 (CC2024/11032)

22. This charge is a rolled-up count encompassing one act of digital penetration and one act of penile-vaginal sexual intercourse.

23. On one occasion during summer, Kathleen was 7 or 8 years old and the offender was 17 or 18 years old. Kathleen was in the greenhouse, and the offender positioned himself behind her and rubbed her vagina over her clothing. He then began touching Kathleen’s vagina under her underwear, and inserted his fingers into her vagina. This incident lasted around 15 minutes and ended when Kathleen’s mother called out to her.

24. The first occasion of penile-vaginal intercourse between Kathleen and the offender occurred after October 2013, when Kathleen was 8 or 9 years old and the offender was 18 or 19 years old. The offender had asked for Kathleen’s help to retrieve some boxes, which were stored in a space underneath their family home. When Kathleen entered this space, she observed a doona and pillow. The offender laid the victim down on the ground. He began touching her breasts and vagina. He removed the victim’s clothing and his own clothing, and inserted his penis into Kathleen’s vagina. This caused Kathleen pain. She was confused about what had occurred. The offender did not use a condom and ejaculated over Kathleen’s vagina.

25. After this, Kathleen showered and stayed in her bedroom for some time. The offender approached her later and asked whether she had enjoyed what had occurred. Kathleen said that she did not.

26. Kathleen first came to comprehend what the offender was doing when she commenced sexual education around Year 7. After this, Kathleen began to physically resist the offender when he made attempts to engage in sexual conduct toward her, and when he would ask for her to come to the greenhouse. Kathleen told the offender that his conduct was disgusting and it was wrong.

Incest on a person under the age of 16 (CC2024/11035)

27. The last time sexual offending occurred was around two weeks before Kathleen’s 14th birthday in 2019. The offender was then 23 years old. Kathleen had been suspended from school, and the offender had come home during his lunch break. He asked Kathleen to come and help him in the greenhouse. In exchange, he said that he would talk to their mother to try to get Kathleen “less of a punishment”.

28. Kathleen went to help the offender weed in the greenhouse. While she was pulling out weeds, the offender grabbed her from behind. Kathleen tried to push the offender away but was stuck in the corner at one end of the greenhouse. The offender grabbed Kathleen’s arm and manoeuvred her body, so that Kathleen was pushed to the ground. The offender then got on top of Kathleen. He pulled down his shorts and underwear down, masturbated his penis, and inserted his penis into Kathleen’s vagina. The offender did not use a condom.

Complaint and police report

29. Kathleen first disclosed the offending in 2020, and Anna first disclosed the offending to her partner in 2021. In 2022, Anna and Kathleen each disclosed the offending to each other, and subsequently told their mother what had occurred.

30. Their mother called police on 27 January 2022 and reported the offender’s sexual offending against both victims. Police arranged for her and her daughters to attend the police station at a later date. On 22 May 2022, their mother told police that neither victim was able to proceed with a police investigation at that stage.

31. On 27 December 2022, police were informed that Kathleen wished to participate in an interview and to have an investigation commenced. Between 2 February 2023 and 9 February 2023, Kathleen participated in two interviews with police. However, on 17 March 2023, she advised police that she did not wish to continue with the investigation.

32. In May 2023, both Anna and Kathleen informed police they wished to proceed with the investigation. Interviews were subsequently obtained from both victims.

33. An arrest warrant was issued for the offender in relation to the offences on 8 November 2024. The offender was residing in Western Australia at the time. Police attended his address on 11 March 2025 and he was arrested. He was extradited to the ACT on 12 March 2025. The offender has been bail refused and in custody since 11 March 2025.

The Victim Impact Statements

34. Victim impact statements were provided by Anna and by Kathleen. Both described the profound effect that the offending has had upon them.

35. In her victim impact statement, Anna described the grave effects that the offending has had upon the way in which she perceives the world. The offending continues to impact both her perceptions at work and her perceptions and understanding of relationships.

36. In her victim impact statement, Kathleen also described the severe negative impacts that the offending has had on every aspect of her life: her childhood, her education, her employment and her relationships. She explained that the offending made her feel “like I was worthless, nothing and insignificant”. As a result of the offending, Kathleen has developed both Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and Complex PTSD. She finds it “extremely hard” to trust others, explaining that “[b]ecause I trusted [the offender], I don’t trust anyone else”. She told the Court that “[f]or as long as I can remember I haven’t been living my life I have just been surviving it”.

The offender

37. The Court was provided with a Pre-Sentence Report (PSR) dated 2 April 2026, as well as a psychological report by Ms Kris North dated 29 March 2026.

38. As the offender was a young person at the time that the offending commenced, the matter was adjourned to allow Children, Youth and Families (CYF) to provide a PSR as required by s 41(8) of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) (Sentencing Act). CYF subsequently provided a PSR on 21 April 2026. In that report, CYF stated that there was no further information or risk assessments to provide beyond that which had already been provided to the Court.

39. The offender, Anna and Kathleen are the three children from their parents’ marriage. As noted above, the offender’s father was diagnosed with cancer when he was 14 years old. He passed away when the offender was 17. The offender completed Year 12, but his interest and attendance at school decreased after his father’s death. The offender moved to Western Australia in 2020 and worked in the mining industry until he resigned when he was charged with the current offences.

40. The offender has explained that he started viewing pornography when he was 13 years old. Within months, he was viewing pornography on a daily basis. He came across “incest pornography” whilst viewing regular pornography. The offending started about a year after the offender started watching pornography.

41. In her report, Ms North expressed the opinion that the offender had a “dysfunctional childhood” and “limited social interactions”, noting that he spent his spare time assisting his father with his father’s orchids. Ms North stated that the offender’s exposure to pornography, particularly relating to incest, directly contributed towards the onset of his offending against Kathleen. Ms North identified the offender’s limited social interactions as another contributing factor.

42. Ms North assessed the offender as posing a Level III Average risk of reoffending, noting that the risk appeared to be specific to “intrafamilial sexual offences”. Ms North also assessed the offender as meeting the criteria for a diagnosis of compulsive sexual behaviour disorder. Ms North recommended that the offender engage in specialised treatment to address his pornography addiction, as well as treatment to address his offending behaviour such as a custodial based sex offender program.

Remorse

43. The offender has expressed remorse for the offending to the PSR author, in his letter to the Court, and to Ms North. He also has shown insight into the impact of his offending on the lives of the victims. In his letter to the Court he states that he “cannot express how much guilt & self hatred [he has] for this catastrophic failing”. He also tells the Court that he will always carry a deep level of shame and remorse for the impact that his actions have had on the victims as well as his wider family.

44. I am satisfied that the offender is remorseful for his offending.

Prospects of rehabilitation

45. The offender is now 30 years old. He has engaged in a pro-social lifestyle since the offending, up until his incarceration. He has a stable employment record and has maintained positive adult relationships. In a letter to the Court, the offender explained he has, since his arrest, “proactively sought out & consumed content on pornography addiction, sexual offending & confided in others who are further along on their rehabilitation journey to understand what has helped them”.

46. In view of the offender’s insight and remorse, I am satisfied that, with support, the offender has good prospects of rehabilitation.

47. The offender has stated he is willing to engage in rehabilitation programs whilst in custody. It appears that there are some rehabilitation programs that were available to the offender whilst on remand, which he has not yet accessed. It is not clear whether the offender was made aware of his eligibility for those programs prior to the sentence hearing. There are further offence specific programs that will become available to the offender in custody following the imposition of my sentence today.

Comparative cases

48. The Court is required by s 33(1)(za) of the Sentencing Act to consider sentences imposed in comparative cases when determining the sentences to be imposed on the offender. The parties drew my attention to DPP v Creighton (a pseudonym) [2025] ACTSC 511; DPP v Vance (a pseudonym) [2024] ACTSC 308; R v AQ [2021] ACTSC 74; and DPP v Bravo (a pseudonym) [2024] ACTSC 221.

49. I have taken the sentences imposed in those decisions into account, whilst bearing in mind the limitations of comparative cases: see, for example, R v Pham [2015] HCA 39; 256 CLR 550 at [29]; DPP v Dalgliesh (a pseudonym) [2017] HCA 41; 262 CLR 428 at [51]-[53]; Hili v R [2010] HCA 45; 242 CLR 520 at [48]-[49]. These limitations are particularly acute in the present case, which concerns offending against two victims, largely whilst the offender was a young person, but also whilst the offender was an adult.

Determination

50. As the offender acknowledges, the offences are each inherently serious. The sentences to be imposed must recognise the profound harm that has been caused to each of the victims.

51. Each of the offences occurred at the family home where the victims were entitled to feel safe, loved and protected. Each involved the betrayal of a family relationship by an older brother against his younger sisters (although this is a matter which is incorporated into the maximum penalty that is provided for the incest offences).

52. Anna was 13 or 14 years old at the time that the offender committed the act of indecency against her. The offender was 17 years old. The offending occurred when Anna was vulnerable, as she had just had a shower and was wearing only a towel. The offender persisted in his conduct, even after Anna kicked him in the genital region. The offending caused Anna pain, and the offender only ceased his conduct when other family members returned home.

53. As to the offending against Kathleen, the offender was approximately 10 years older than Kathleen. The offender was in a position of trust, as he had caring responsibilities for Kathleen and was trusted to be alone with her. I will also take this into account, whilst being careful not to double count the element of trust which is inherent within an offence of incest. The acts of indecency against Kathleen commenced when she was only 4 years old. On the first occasion, Kathleen physically resisted by moving away.

54. The second offence of act of indecency on a person under 10 is a course of conduct offence that occurred from around 2009 to 2015. Kathleen could not recall how many times the offending occurred, but recalled that it did occur on a regular basis. I do not consider it necessary to make a finding as to precisely how many times this offending occurred. It suffices to find that the offending was regular.

55. The offending after Kathleen’s father’s death occurred in the greenhouse, which held sentimental memories to Kathleen about her father. There was a level of planning involved in the offending in the greenhouse, as the offender would ask Kathleen to “assist” him in the greenhouse, and the offender knew his other family members were unlikely to enter that place.

56. The offence of incest on a person under 10 years old occurred when Kathleen was 7 to 9 years old. It consisted of two acts, an act of digital penetration, which occurred when the offender was either 17 or 18 years old, and an act of penile-vaginal intercourse, which occurred when the offender was 18 years old. The act of digital penetration lasted for 15 minutes and only ended when Kathleen’s mother called for her. The act of penile-vaginal intercourse also involved a degree of planning (as the offender had arranged a pillow and doona in the storage space). This offending caused Kathleen pain. The offender did not use a condom, and the offending occurred to the point of ejaculation. th

57. The offence of incest on a person under 16 years occurred just before Kathleen’s 14 birthday. The offender was 23 years old. The offender used force to engage in penile-vaginal intercourse with Kathleen, who was physically resisting and had been cornered. He did not use a condom.

58. The offending commenced when the offender was cognitively and sexually immature. I accept the offender’s counsel’s submission that the offender’s repeated and early exposure to incest pornography had led to a normalisation of that type of sexual activity, distorting his understanding of sexual relationships.

59. However, as the offender acknowledged to Ms North, he knew that his acts towards his younger sisters was wrong. So much is clear from the care that the offender took to cease the offending acts when adults were around and in his instructions to Kathleen to keep the offending a “secret”. It is also clear from the continuation of the offending against Kathleen even after Anna had clearly warned the offender that if he continued offending against anyone else as well as her, she would take action to ensure he was removed from the family home. The offender continued to offend despite a visit from police in 2013. He persisted with offending even though it was clear that he was causing pain to each of his sisters.

60. The offender also continued to offend even as he matured. I find that his moral culpability for the offending increased with each passing year. I agree with the prosecution submission that the offender’s moral culpability for the offending is highest with respect to the offence of incest on a person under 16 years, as the offender was a mature adult at this time.

61. A matter that considerably complicates the present sentencing task is the application of principles relating to the sentencing of young persons. Ch 8A of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act requires that, when sentencing a young person (that is, a person under the age of 18 years): (a) A court must consider the purpose of promoting rehabilitation of a young person, and rehabilitation may be given more weight than other sentencing purposes: s 133C of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act. (b) A court must consider the offender’s culpability for the offence having regard to their maturity, state of development, and their past and present family circumstances: s 133D(1) of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act. (c) A court must only impose a sentence of imprisonment on a young person as a sentence of last resort, and for the shortest appropriate term: s 133G(2) of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act. (d) A court must consider making a combination sentence including a good behaviour order with a supervision condition: s 133G(3) of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act.

62. Where an offender is over the age of 18, even by a period of days or months, the above provisions do not apply. However, bearing in mind that “there is no bright line between an offender who is just under 18 years of age and one who is just over 18 years of age”, it remains necessary to consider the application of youth justice principles more generally, particularly the importance of affording rehabilitation to young persons when dealing with an offender who, whilst over 18, is still young: see Sarhene v the Queen [2022] NSWCCA 79 at [25].

63. The charges of act of indecency on a person under 10 years old (CC2025/13478), and incest of a person under 10 years old (CC2024/11032) each straddle periods where the offender was both under and over 18 years of age. It is not possible to apply the Ch 8A requirements to only part of the offending which constitutes a single charged offence.

64. In oral submissions, the prosecution accepted that the only appropriate course that is open to the Court in view of the way in which the offences have been charged is to apply the Ch 8A requirements to the whole of the sentencing exercise for each of the offences which incorporated offending that occurred whilst the offender was under 18 years of age, including the offence of incest on a person under the age of 10 (CC2024/11032). I will adopt this approach. As outlined above, the offender is remorseful and has good prospects of rehabilitation. Particular weight will be given to these matters when determining the sentences to be imposed for each of these offences: see similarly MT v The Queen [2021] ACTCA 26 at [64].

65. The requirements of Ch 8A do not apply to the offence of incest on a person under 16 years (CC2024/11035), as the offender was 23 years old at the time of the commission of that offence. By this time, the offender was well into his adulthood. As I have already observed, the offender’s moral culpability for this offending is highest for that reason. The weight to be given to denunciation, punishment and deterrence will be highest with respect to this offence.

66. The offender entered pleas of guilty in the Magistrates Court. As the law requires, it is necessary to recognise the value of these pleas, so that other offenders will be similarly encouraged to not go to trial, thereby minimising trauma for other victims. The sentences to be imposed will be reduced by 25% to take into account the offender’s pleas of guilty. There will also be a corresponding reduction in the period of full-time custody that is required.

67. There are distinct periods of offending, and the offences were committed against two separate victims. Accordingly, there will be accumulation of the sentences, both as between the offending relating to Kathleen and Anna and as between the different offences concerning Kathleen. However, as the first offence against Kathleen (CH2025/841) occurred within the period encompassed by the second offence against Kathleen (CC2025/13478), which was particularised as a course of conduct offence, those two offences will be entirely concurrent. In determining the extent of accumulation between the remaining offences, I will take into account totality principles. The sentences will be backdated to 11 March 2025 to take account of the offender’s presentence custody.

68. As I observed in DPP v Lock (a pseudonym) [2025] ACTSC 231 at [205] it is not practicable to impose a non-parole period. The majority of the offending is subject to Ch 8A of the Sentencing Act, which does not permit the making of a non-parole period. The setting of a non-parole period for the remaining offence would defeat the purpose of that Chapter. In those circumstances, the overall sentence will be partially suspended.

Orders

69. The orders of the Court are: (1) For the offence of act of indecency on a person under 10 years old (CH 2025/841), the offender is convicted and sentenced to 9 months’ imprisonment, discounted from 12 months, commencing on 27 July 2031 and expiring on 26 April 2032. (2) For the offence of act of indecency on a person under 16 years old (CH 2025/844), the offender is convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for 6 months and 23 days’, discounted from 9 months, commencing on 16 August 2032 and expiring on 10 March 2033. (3) For the offence of act of indecency on a person under 10 years old (course of conduct) (CC2025/13478), the offender is convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for 13 months and 15 days, discounted from 18 months, commencing on 27 July 2031 and expiring on 10 September 2032. (4) For the offence of incest on a person under 10 years old (rolled up count) (CC2024/11032) the offender is convicted and sentenced to 3 years’ imprisonment, discounted from 4 years, commencing on 11 December 2028 and expiring on 10 December 2031. (5) For the offence of incest on a person under 16 years old (CC2024/11035), the offender is convicted and sentenced to 4 years and 6 months’ imprisonment, discounted from 6 years, commencing on 11 March 2025 and expiring on 10 September 2029. (6) The overall sentence is imprisonment for 8 years, commencing on 11 March 2025 and expiring on 10 March 2033. (7) The sentence is to be suspended after 4 years and 6 months, on 10 September 2029, upon entry into an undertaking to comply with good behaviour obligations under the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) until 10 March 2033. I certify that the preceding sixty-nine [69] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Sentence of her Honour Justice Baker . Associate: Date: