DPP v Woolford [2025] VCC 1588

1. All of the offences occurred in your unit in Hastings. It was not in dispute that in the years of your offending you had become friends with the Steele[2] family who lived in your neighbourhood. At the time you worked in the local supermarket and would sometimes assist this family by providing them with discounted groceries. You were regarded as a family friend. You became particularly close to one of the children in the family; Sally Steele[3], who is the victim of three of the offences of which you were found guilty in the first trial referred to above. She was aged between 11 and 14 years of age when you committed the offences against her, but evidence in the trial established that you had befriended her through her family from when she was aged about five or six.
2. Evidence in the trial established that you encouraged Sally and her girlfriends to visit your home. You offered Sally and her friends money to do housekeeping chores at your home. You showed them toy and coin collections, let them watch TV and movies, gave them generous quantities of 'Milo' drinks and when they were older, in early teenage years, provided them with alcohol, and in the case of Sally, cigarettes.

1. The offending which relates to Charges 7 and 8 on Indictment M11636971.3 (offences of indecent Act with a child under 16) occurred on a date between 15 June 2003 and 17 November 2005. The complainants in relation to this offending were Sally Steele and her school friend, Olivia Harrell[4]. Sally would have been aged between 11 and 13 years old during this date period, and Olivia would have been aged between 10 and 12 (although she would have turned 13 in November 2005). They were friends in primary school and would visit your unit together to complete household chores for money. Both Sally and Olivia gave evidence that on one occasion when they visited your unit, they were asked by you to show you their bottoms in return for money. Sally gave evidence that you asked them to 'go in the lounge room and pull their pants down and bend over to show [their] bums... and stay there for one minute'.[5] Sally remembered being 'side by side' with Olivia in the loungeroom of the unit and that you were sitting on your bed watching from your bedroom. Both Olivia and Sally gave evidence that responding to your request and the inducement of being paid money, they pulled down their pants and underwear, bent over facing away from you and exposed their buttocks to you. Sally recalled in her evidence that afterwards you gave them 'both the same amount of money' and that the money they received was 'more than [they] were used to getting.'[6] Olivia gave similar evidence that the offending occurred as you sat in your bedroom and the two girls stood in the lounge room. Olivia recalled that they both 'pulled down [their] pants and bent over' and that they were bent over for 'about 30 seconds.'[7] Olivia described that as they were bent over her head was near her knees. She recalled that at one point you started 'whinging' because the hallway door frame was 'blocking half of [her] arse off.'[8]

Sexual penetration of a child under 16 relating to Olivia Harrell

1. Charge 9 on Indictment M11636971.3 relates to the same occasion as Charges 7 and 8 referred to above. Following the girls bending over as described above, both girls were offended against again when they were each alone with you in your bedroom. Olivia's evidence was that you told her to go to your room and lay down at the end of your bed. Once Olivia was in the room you shut the bedroom door behind you, leaving Sally in the loungeroom. Olivia felt 'scared' and you started to pull her pants and underwear down. Olivia told you that she 'didn't want to do this anymore'[9]. You told her that 'it's okay. It will all be over in a minute'.[10] You then started to 'play' with Olivia's vagina with your fingers. Olivia described that you rubbed her vagina 'up and down,'[11] touching the 'inside of the vagina and the clit part.'[12] When your finger was inside her vagina, Olivia recalled that 'it kept going up and down',[13] and it caused her pain. She recalled in her evidence that the offending went for about a minute and she felt scared and embarrassed. Olivia laid down with her eyes closed and wished for it to be over. The offending eventually stopped and Olivia got up, pulled her pants up and walked off.

Indecent act with a child under 16 relating to Sally Steele

1. Charge 10 on indictment M11636971.3 relates to the same occasion as Charges 7 and 8 referred to above. Sally's evidence was that after exposing her bottom to you with Olivia in the lounge room, you took her to your bedroom and asked to see her vagina. She remembered you putting money on the bed and you sat on the bed as she pulled her pants and underwear down. As she pulled her pants down, she was standing up facing your bed. You leaned in towards her, inhaled near her vagina, about 'a hands width away' and 'asked [her] to open it',[14] referring to her vagina. When Sally refused to do so you looked frustrated and 'sat back on the bed and sighed.'[15] Sally pulled her pants back up and you sat her on the bed next to you and told her not to tell Olivia or anyone, and you gave her some money as a reward. You said sorry to her and told her that you would not do that again. Sally estimated that she was in the bedroom with you for 'a few minutes' in total. Olivia gave evidence that when Sally was in the room, the door was shut, and she was unable to give a time as to how long Sally was in there with you.

Indecent act with a child under 16 x 1 and Rape x 1

1. The offending which relates to Charge 11, on Indictment M11636971.3, (indecent act with a child under 16) was committed against Sally Steele. Charge 1 on Indictment M11636971.3A (an offence of rape) relates to offending against another friend of Sally's, named Hollie Reese[16]. Both of these offences occurred on 15 July 2006 when both girls were 14 years of age.
2. Both girls attended your unit in the evening of 15 July 2006 knowing that you would supply them with alcohol. Hollie had not been to your unit before but gave evidence that Sally had told her that you would provide alcohol to them. Hollie gave evidence that there was one occasion before that evening when she and Sally had met you in the Coles Supermarket car park and you had supplied them with alcohol. Sally's older sister also gave evidence that when she was a teenage you supplied her with alcohol after she had been told by Sally that you would do so.
3. It was in this context that on 15 July 2006 both Sally and Hollie attended your unit. There was a number of inconsistencies in the evidence of Sally and Hollie as to their movements on this evening but they both gave evidence that they returned to your unit on a second occasion late in the evening in an intoxicated state (after having consumed alcohol that you provided earlier in the evening). The jury's verdict indicated that they accepted this aspect of their evidence.
4. In relation to Charge 11 on Indictment M11636971.3, Sally gave evidence that she was 'fairly drunk' as a result of consuming the alcohol that you had supplied. You asked her to have a shower and she refused. Despite this, you picked her up by '[putting] your arms around her' and dragging her 'in a standing position' to the bathroom.[17] Sally's evidence was that Hollie was following you both but you shoved Hollie away and shut the bathroom door in her face. Whilst her memory was 'fuzzy', Sally recalled being against the wall in the shower with you holding her up. Sally's evidence was that you took her clothes off and whilst she was in the shower, she was naked except for her socks. Sally's next memory was being in the lounge room on the futon with her clothes on and without her socks on. The jury's verdict is based upon the jury finding that your physical dealings, placing Sally into the shower in a naked state constitutes an indecent act with a child under the age of 16.
5. In relation to Charge 1 on indictment M11636971.3A, the charge of rape, Hollie's evidence was that at the time of getting to your unit on this second occasion, her level of intoxication was 'quite high' but 'still at the point where [she] could walk and talk.'[18] Once in the unit Hollie recalled that she became separated from Sally and she ended up sitting on the end of a bed in one of the bedrooms with the lights off. Hollie gave evidence that after about 10 to 15 minutes of sitting there you entered the bedroom and pushed her down onto the bed. You then removed your pants and Hollie's pants and underwear and inserted your penis into her vagina. Whilst on top of her, you thrusted your penis in her vagina for what Hollie estimated to be 'maybe five minutes.' Hollie remembered that whilst you were doing this you held her down and she felt 'scared' and like she 'couldn't get [you] off physically' because she was too small and she felt like she 'couldn't scream and shout.'[19] Hollie's evidence was that she asked you to stop 'two or three times' and that after you had raped her, you left the room to find Sally. Whilst there were some inconsistencies between the evidence of the complainants in terms of the events that followed your offending in relation to each charge, both Hollie and Sally gave evidence that they ultimately left your unit that night with a sense of urgency.

1. Mr Woolford, the procedural history of this matter is a significant consideration in determining your sentence. Prior to the two trials in which guilty verdicts were returned on the charges for which I am sentencing you for, you have been subject to two further trials relating to this matter, by no fault of your own. On 13 November 2023 your first trial commenced and after several days of the trial, the jury was discharged before reaching deliberations as a crucial witness had become unwell and unable to give evidence. On 13 August 2024 a second trial commenced and after a number of days the jury was again discharged before reaching deliberations as the Prosecutor became unwell and the trial could not continue. And as referred to above in your third trial, the jury were unable to reach a verdict on the charge of rape and therefore a fourth trial had to take place.

1. Olivia Harrell and Hollie Reese had their victim impact statements read aloud to the court. Both complainants described the deep and lasting impact that your offending has had on them. Olivia described how she now suffers from 'severe anxiety and PTSD to the point that [she doesn't] like being in public' and throughout the four years of these proceedings, Olivia has isolated herself from those around her. Olivia also described how her confidence and health had been impacted by your offending. According to Olivia she stopped brushing her teeth which caused nerve damage and ultimately she has had to have all her teeth removed. She stated that she 'was in survival mode where I just didn't care anymore about myself or the way I looked.'
2. Olivia no longer trusts men and 'can't deal with being around' them. She feels this has affected her relationships and opportunities to work and study. Olivia also described how the two people who have suffered as much as her are her daughter and niece whom she cares for. She feels they miss out on going to certain places, such as family member's or friends' homes, as she does not want to put them 'at any risk of letting something like this happen to them'.
3. Hollie describes how your offending has haunted her for more than half her life. She described her anguish in having her virginity taken away from her without her consent at such a young age. She states 'I still have traumatic memories that play in my mind that will never go away, I still hold so much anger and I still have so many questions as to why and how "you" could do what you did, and think you could get away with it.' Hollie describes her mental health as having been significantly impacted and she suffers extreme anxiety which is 'heightened around any men.' She feels this anxiety has affected her career and passion for hairdressing as she is not able to feel comfortable around men and is therefore unable to cut men's hair. Hollie stated that 'I'm finally able to give justice to the little girl inside me that holds so much anger inside, knowing "you" are finally where you should be.' Both Hollie and Olivia expressed their regret over not coming forward about your offending sooner, given they now know they were not the only ones offended against.

1. Mr Woolford, the maximum penalties for the offences you have committed, indicate how seriously Parliament regards this offending. Rape has a maximum penalty of 25 years' imprisonment.
2. Our Court of Appeal has described the offence of rape in the following terms:

The very act of rape is inherently serious, simply by virtue of the invasion of the victim's bodily integrity without consent. It is, quite simply, an act of violence, whether or not accompanied by other violent conduct. The violation is physical, emotional, and psychological. It follows that, aggravating features apart, all acts of non-consensual penetration are objectively serious, irrespective of the form and the extent of the penetration.[20]

1. The other five charges that you have been found guilty of each carry a maximum penalty of 10 years' imprisonment.
2. The circumstances of your offending and the context of your offending show a pattern of behaviour at this time in your life where you were sexually attracted to young girls. Our Court of Appeal has described sexual abuse of children as 'inherently evil and depraved' and that such offending 'strikes at the heart of the value which our society places on the lives and well-being of each of its young persons.'[21] Offending of this nature must be publicly denounced.
3. Whilst I must be conscious of the sentencing practices at the time of your offending, current community standards have a role to play in determining an appropriate and just sentence. It has become apparent in more recent times that offending of this nature can have a long-lasting significant impact. The victim impact statements of Hollie Reese and Olivia Harrell make it clear their lives were unfairly changed by your offending.
4. When you raped Hollie Reese, you were 33 years old and approximately 19 years older than her.
5. Your counsel has submitted that I should view your offending in relation to the rape charge and the shower incident as opportunistic rather than pre-planned. He points to the evidence being unclear that the girls were going to go back to your flat to get more alcohol. I accept that submission. However, when the girls did return to your home you clearly took advantage of their intoxication and vulnerability. Hollie Reese hardly knew you, and you raped her when she was isolated from Sally and alone in a bedroom of your home. While there was no threats of violence, she was 14 and describes you as much larger and physically stronger and that she was unable to resist you when you pushed her down onto your bed and lay on top of her. You continued to rape her despite her asking you to stop 'two or three times.'
6. Your counsel submitted that you should not be sentenced on the basis that you did not wear a condom as the evidence did not substantiate such a finding. I accept that submission. Although the offending was not prolonged, was not accompanied by threats of violence, or acts intended to humiliate Hollie, the fact that she was so young, intoxicated and effectively isolated in your home, does make this a serious instance of rape and I assess your moral culpability for this offending as significant.
7. In relation to the sexual penetration of Olivia Harrell this is also serious offending. It occurred in circumstances where you were offering inducements to children to come into your home and perform chores. Again, you took advantage of Olivia's isolation, without another adult being present and her young age. The digital penetration you committed caused her pain and was committed after she indicated she did not want you to do this. Again I assess your moral culpability for this offending as significant.
8. In relation to your offending against Sally Steele, and Olivia Harrell exposing themselves to you, and Sally being placed in the shower on the later occasion, I regard this offending as less serious than the other offences committed by you. However, it was still exploitative of these vulnerable children in circumstances where you had induced them to come into your home. The offending that occurred after they exposed their buttocks to you was close in time to the offending that occurred afterwards when you took each girl into your bedroom, and these charges can be viewed as part of one ongoing episode of offending. For that reason, I intend to order substantial concurrency between the sentences imposed in relation to what occurred in the loungeroom and the later offending in the bedroom.
9. In relation to the offending against Sally, the sentence needs to reflect the fact that she is a separate victim to your offending against Olivia and Hollie.

Personal circumstances and matters of mitigation

1. I turn to your personal circumstances which were outlined by your counsel's oral submissions and the written submissions dated 11 September 2025.
2. You are currently 52 years old and you were born in Redcliffe, Queensland. You have two sisters with whom you have sporadic contact and a brother with whom you maintain a strong relationship. Your parents both died in 2019, after 53 years of marriage.
3. Your father worked for Telecom for 33 years and both he and your grandfather abused alcohol. Your counsel submitted that throughout your childhood you were regularly abused by your father. You told your counsel that your earliest recollection of physical abuse was when you were four years old and your father grabbed you by the hair and threw you to the ground, breaking your ribs. Despite this type of abuse continuing, no report was ever made to the authorities.
4. You had a difficult relationship with your mother and did not maintain a close relationship with her in your adulthood. Your mother was a teacher at your high school and as a result, this led to some bullying at school. However, on the whole, you had a fairly unremarkable educational experience and you attended high school until Year 11.
5. Whilst you had a difficult relationship with your parents growing up, in 2010 you returned to live with your parents and you had caring responsibilities for them until their passing in 2019. During this period, you were in receipt of Centrelink payments.
6. In regard to your employment history: following school, you held a number of jobs such as working in a pet shop, as a butcher and as an antique furniture restorer. In 1996 you started working at an abalone factory before moving to work in a plastics factory. In 1999 you began working at Coles where you remained until 2008. You then worked in various labouring jobs until you injured your back. When you were released from custody in December 2023 you began working casually at an IGA supermarket.
7. In December 2020 you moved to Tasmania and purchased a property there in 2021, which remains under mortgage. You told your counsel, you have never had a significant romantic relationship and you have never had any children.
8. You suffer from a number of medical issues that were outlined by your counsel at your plea hearing and in a number of documents tendered on your behalf.[22] I do not intend to outline your entire medical history but in terms of day to day medical problems, your counsel highlighted that you experience thrombosis and clotting in your legs and you suffer from ankylosing spondylitis which causes pain to your hip, back and pelvis region which in turn makes it difficult for you to move around and disturbs your sleep. You also experience chronic complications and ongoing pain as a result of the injuries you sustained in a motor vehicle accident in 1998. More recently, you have been diagnosed with diverticulitis which causes you intestinal issues and gastric pain. Whilst not an active issue, at your plea hearing, your counsel also referred to your medical history of pulmonary embolisms, and the various conditions and complications that flow on from that, as an ongoing concern. I accept your counsel's submission that you are generally a man of poor health and the day-to-day medical problems you suffer from will make your experience of imprisonment more onerous. I also accept that you may suffer from increased anxieties surrounding past medical issues and your ability to treat and manage such issues while in custody. That in no way equates to a finding that you will not receive professional and adequate medical treatment while in custody; however, I accept that your ability to choose your own treatment regime will be limited and is likely to cause you some concern.
9. Your counsel also submitted that the delay in finalising your charges is a factor that must be taken into account in mitigation of your sentence. During the plea he clarified what was in his written submissions, by indicating he relied on the delay since you were charged with the offences, rather than the delay since the offending occurred. It is recognised that offending against children is often not brought to the attention of the authorities until many years later. This is partly because of the time taken for children to understand what has happened to them and because of shame and embarrassment associated with the offending. That kind of delay is not of itself mitigatory; although, in your case the point is made that there is no evidence that you have offended for a very long time and this is relevant to your risk of offending and prospects of rehabilitation. I will refer to that aspect of delay later in these reasons.
10. You were charged with offences related to the trial in May 2021, and your committal proceeding was heard in March 2022. As outlined above, before you were found guilty you stood trial on two occasions where neither trial was finalised for reasons that were in no way attributable to you. You then had to have two further trials in order for all charges to be finalised. This means there has been a delay of over four years since you were first charged until your case was finalised and you have had to stand trial four times. There was also some delay with some of the victims coming forward. You were arrested on 3 August 2021 and remained in custody until 21 December 2023 when you were granted bail. I accept that during the period of over four years since being charged until your case was finalised, you have been in a state of uncertainty and no doubt this has weighed upon you and should be taken into account in mitigation of your sentence.
11. Mr Woolford it was not in dispute that other than the offending the subject of these trials, you have only one prior court appearance in a Queensland Local Court where you were placed on probation for offences against the Vagrancy Act. Your offending on that occasion related to you exposing yourself to a minor. You would have been aged 20 at that time and I regard that matter as having limited relevance to the sentence I now impose.
12. Your counsel submits that despite the seriousness of your offending, the delay of at least 19 years since these offences is important in considering the sentencing purpose of specific deterrence and protection of the community. Two character references were tendered on your behalf. One was from a family friend who knew you since you were in school and describes you as kind, courteous and honest. The other reference was from David Redford, a mature man, who has had contact with you over the last twelve to thirteen years, and is aware of your interests in antiques and coins. He describes you as helpful and that you have acquired many friendships in the Redcliff community in Queensland. He kept in contact with you while you were on remand and despite your charges, indicates he will maintain his friendship with you. These references do satisfy me that you do have the ability to involve yourself in prosocial activities that may lessen the risks of offending in the future.
13. Mr Woolford, the purposes of sentencing include specific and general deterrence, rehabilitation, denunciation, protection of the community and just punishment.
14. The period of approximately 19 years since the offending, in which there is no evidence of further offending, does moderate the weight I attach to the sentencing purposes of specific deterrence and protection of the community. However while moderated, those sentencing purposes still have some role to play. You have pleaded not guilty to all of the offending and cannot rely upon any evidence of remorse to mitigate your sentence. It is also the case that any programs authorities might regard as promoting your rehabilitation are not likely to be beneficial in circumstances where you continue to deny your offending.

1. I must also have regard to current sentencing practices. The prosecution has since your plea referred me to cases they submit are comparable.[23] I have reviewed those cases and they were of some limited assistance. No two cases are exactly the same and the sentence to be imposed in any case must be determined by the specific circumstances pertaining to that case.
2. It is not in dispute that as you are to receive a gaol sentence in respect of the first two charges on the first indictment, you are to be sentenced as a serious sexual offender in relation to the following charges of which you have been found guilty. The prosecution has indicated that in respect of that status and those charges they do not seek a disproportionate sentence. While s6E of the Sentencing Act 1991 creates a presumption that sentences imposed on such a person for a relevant offence should be served cumulatively, I must still have regard to the principle of totality and not impose a crushing sentence.
3. Mr Woolford, although I assess your prospects of rehabilitation to be reasonable and will take that into account, as I have referred to above, your offending is very serious. The sentence must reflect punishment that is just in all the circumstances. The community rightly finds sexual offending against children abhorrent. Such offending must be publicly denounced. The 'social rehabilitation' of your victims must, to some extent, be promoted by a sentence that recognises the very serious nature of your offending and the harm that has been inflicted on the victims. General deterrence is a weighty consideration.
4. Balancing as best I can the various purposes of sentencing and having regard to all relevant matters I have determined that you should be sentenced as follows.
5. In respect of the charge of rape - Charge 1 on indictment M11636971.3A - you are convicted and sentenced to seven years and two months of imprisonment. This is the base sentence.
6. In respect of the charge of sexual penetration of a child under the age of 16 - Charge 9 on Indictment M11636971.3 (the digital penetration of Olivia Harrell), you are convicted and sentenced to four years' imprisonment.
7. In respect of the charges of indecent act with a child under the age of 16 - Charges 7 and 8 on Indictment M11636971.3 (having Olivia Harrell and Sally Steele display their buttocks to you), you are convicted and sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment in respect of each charge.
8. In respect of the charge of indecent act with a child under the age of 16 - Charge 10 on indictment M11636971.3 (having Sally Steele display her vagina to you), you are convicted and sentenced to two years and four months' imprisonment.
9. In respect of the charge of indecent act with a child under the age of 16 - Charge 11 on Indictment M11636971.3 (undressing Sally Steele and placing her in the shower) you are convicted and sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment.
10. I further declare that 18 months of the sentence imposed on Charge 9, one month of the sentence imposed on each of Charges 7 and 8, eight months of the sentence imposed on Charge 10, and three months of the sentence imposed on Charge 11 be served cumulatively on the base sentence and all other sentences imposed this day.
11. That makes a total effective sentence of nine years and nine months' imprisonment. I further declare that you serve a period of seven years before being eligible for parole.
12. Pursuant to s18 of the Sentencing Act 1991, I declare that you have served 986 days' pre-sentence detention that will be reckoned as time served as part of this sentence and will be entered into the records of the court.
13. It is agreed between the parties that the classification of your offending pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act warrants that you be declared as a registrable offender with reporting obligations for the remainder of your life.
14. I also make a declaration that you are to be sentenced as a serious sexual offender in relation to charges 9, 10 and 11 on indictment M11636971.3 and charge 1 on indictment M11636971.3A. That declaration will be entered into the records of the court.
15. Any other matters?
16. MS STOKES: No, Your Honour.
17. HIS HONOUR: Can I just confirm counsel, whether you recorded the sentence appropriately and it all added up, as far as you are concerned?
18. MR CONNELLY: Yes, it added up.
19. HIS HONOUR: Yes. I will leave you on the link for a time if you need to discuss anything with Mr Woolford.
20. MR CONNELLY: As Your Honour pleases.
21. HIS HONOUR: Can I thank you both for your assistance.
22. MS STOKES: As Your Honour pleases.
23. MR CONNELLY: As the court pleases.

[1] The trial Judge also directed that there was no case to answer in respect of one charge of indecent act with a child under the age of 16.

[20] DPP v Mokhtari [2020] VSCA 161 at [41].

[21] Fichtner v The Queen [2019] VSCA 297, per Maxwell P and Kaye JA.

[22] Exhibit 1 - Submissions on behalf of Defence dated 11 September 2025, Exhibit 3 - Problem List from Justice Health, Exhibit 4 - Patient Health Summary, Exhibit 5 - Letter from Dr Warner 21/01/2025, Exhibit 6 - Form sent 24/1/25 - 7 pages ending with local file attachments.

[23] The prosecution table of comparable cases incorrectly implied that the rape charge in this case was a 'standard sentence offence' whereas that is not the case as this offending occurred before the introduction of the standard sentence scheme.