R v JA

Catchwords: CRIME — Child sex offences — Sexual intercourse with child <10 years (DV) — Intentionally incite child <10 years sexually touch the person (DV)

Legislation Cited: Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987
Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

Cases Cited: BP v R [2010] NSW CCA 159
JA v R [2021] NSWCCA 10
R v Elliott & Blessington [2006] NSWCCA
R v JR [2022] NSWDC 618
R v SH [2024] NSWDC 104

Category: Sentence

Parties: Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
JA (Offender)

Representation: Counsel:
Mr J Hanna for the Crown
Ms M Cusack for the Offender
Solicitors:
Director of Public Prosecutions for the Crown
Legal Aid Commission for the Offender

File Number(s): 2024/233361

JUDGMENT

Introduction

1. The offender was born on 20 March 2007 and the offences for which he is to be sentenced occurred in the periods 1 February 2023 to 31 March 2023 and 1 September 2023 and 20 October 2023. Thus at the time of the offending he was aged either 15 or 16 in respect of the first offence in time (count 2) and 16 in respect of the second offence in time (count 3). It is due to his age that he will be referred to as JA in these reasons when not referred to as the offender.

2. The offender pleaded not guilty to the charges and was found guilty by a jury of counts 2 and 3 which respectively were as follows:

3. Sexual intercourse with a child under 10, an offence under section 66A of the Crimes Act 1900 and for which the maximum penalty is life imprisonment.

4. Intentionally inciting a child under 10 to sexually touch him, an offence under section 66DA(b) of the Crimes Act and for which the maximum penalty is 16 years imprisonment.

5. Both of the offences have a standard non-parole period however by reason of section 54D(3) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 the standard non-parole provisions have no application in this case as the offender was under the age of 18 years at the time the offences were committed. I have regard to the maximum sentences as a legislative guidepost, indicating the legislature’s view of the seriousness of the offending.

6. The offender was arrested on 25 June 2024 and spent one day in custody. He has therefore been on bail for nearly 20 months, and also I would note has been at liberty since the date of the second offence in October 2023. There has been no other offending in that time and indeed the evidence referred to below shows him to be pro social. He has no criminal history and was not known to the authorities for any reason prior to this offending.

The facts

5. Forming part of the Crown bundle was a statement of facts that the Crown argues should be found to be the basis of sentence in light of the jury’s verdict. The Crown’s proposed facts are largely agreed but there are some notable points where the offender takes issue. One issue is whether the evidence of the offender’s father that he saw his son pulling up his pants as he walked past the victim’s bedroom on the occasion of count 2 was conduct relating to the offence. The Crown relies on this for the submission that the offending only ceased as the offender had been disturbed on this occasion. I do not consider the evidence supports a finding that the pulling up of the pants was a part of the offending; just what part it is said to be is not asserted; is the suggestion of masturbation whilst assaulting the victim? Nor do I accept that the father walking by brought the offending to an end. When the victim was asked whether the offender had his pants down and exposed his penis she answered “No”. Other evidence from the victim’s mother supported the view the offender was wearing baggy pants and was simply pulling them up.

6. A second issue relates to the number of times behaviour like the offending occurred. The Crown accepts it was unable to identify discrete incidents, an acceptance that it could not establish what it now relies on beyond reasonable doubt. Evidence that events occurred often or repeatedly may be admissible as context or tendency perhaps, but for that the standard of proof is not beyond reasonable doubt, which it is here if the other alleged incidents are to be taken into account adversely to the offender. The victim’s evidence was that count 2 type conduct occurred on more than one occasion, though it varies. In one answer in the police interview the offender said “No, just in my room” when asked if there was another time when the count 2 conduct occurred, (Q101), but then at Q103 said it happened every day the offender was with them. The second answer seems extreme, and hence unreliable; the first is ambiguous, and may mean it happened nowhere else. At Q124 the victim was asked if the offender had done it before, a reference to count 2, and she said “Yeah”.

7. The victim was aged 9 at the time of trial, and 8 at the time of her police interviews. It is recognised that a child may not recall with sufficient particularity matters that they allege occur. What is in issue here is not whether the alleged conduct occurred on a particular date in particular circumstances, but rather, whether some such similar conduct occurred on some other non specified occasion. The jury accepted the complainant in significant respects. The result I come to is I cannot conclude just how often this conduct occurred, and I do not make a finding that the offender committed such conduct in any specific manner or number of times, but I do proceed to sentence him on the basis that the conduct was not an aberration. This approach is consistent with the finding of the jury that there was at least one other proven occasion of sexualised behaviour by reasons of count 3.

8. As to count 3, in the second interview with police at Q66-76 the evidence does not favour the Crown argument. The evidence is of count 3 and goes on to say the offender always comes into the victim’s room after dinner in his pyjamas. The victim says that he always does this after dinner. The evidence is at best ambiguous, but more likely is to the effect that what happens each night is the coming into the room in his pyjamas, not the act of incitement alleged. Nevertheless, consistent with my finding relating to count 2, and for the reasons already set out, I am satisfied that there were other occasions of sexualised behaviour beyond count 3 itself, and proceed on the basis it was not aberrant behaviour.

9. The offender's parents separated when he was about a year old, and both his parents had re-partnered and had further children. The offender spent time with both his parents alternating between their respective houses. The victim is the daughter of the offender’s father and his new partner. The offending occurred at a time when the offender was spending time in the victim’s home with his father and stepmother. On 20 October 2023 the offender left those premises and did not return.

Count 2

10. In February or March 2023 the offender’s father at about dusk walked past the victim’s bedroom and saw that she was lying down on top of the bed and the offender was sitting on the side of the bed. The evidence was that as the father walked past the offender he stood up and appeared to pull his pants up in one motion.

11. At the trial there was evidence about school lessons attended by the victim relating to how people should not touch them and the teaching of the slogan “no, go, tell”. She prepared a drawing which she put on her bedroom door including words such as “don’t touch me there”. She told her mother the poster was to stop the offender from getting into her room. This poster could simply reflect what she has been taught and that her brother is not to touch her; on the other hand it could be reflecting the fact that he had touched her. The victim’s mother was concerned and asked the victim if the offender had inappropriately touched her on her private parts to which the child replied “yes”; subsequently the matter was reported to police and child interviews took place.

12. The actual facts of count 2 amount to the statement of the victim saying she was laying on her belly in her room and the offender was “poking it with his fingernails and stuff”. She said she was referring to her vagina. She was asked how he was poking at her and demonstrated by moving her index finger back and forward horizontally. When asked whether the touching was on the outside, the inside or something else she said “like kind of in the middle” and said she knew that because that is where it had been hurting some times.

13. In terms of the objective seriousness of this count it is permissible to take into account the offender’s age of 15 or 16 (see JA v R [2021] NSWCCA 10 at [67]). I note that the victim was born on 5 December 2016 so that at the time of this count she was aged 6. That is of course a significant age difference and it also shows that the child is at that midpoint of the age range for the age element of the offence. At the same time relative to offences of this type that age difference is much less than is often the case. The offender asserts the offence was of short duration and given what was involved I accept that submission. I note that the merest form of penetration of a female’s genitalia amounts to sexual intercourse but I consider it does remain relevant that what has been described here is the horizontal backward and forth movement of the finger (and not a vertical more penetrative movement) suggesting that there has been the touching of the outer and possibly the inner lips of the genitalia. It is not clear whether the Crown argues the pain referred to by the victim is said to be pain arising from the offending; the offender argues that the victim was suffering some pain in that region of an unrelated cause, and it was by reference to that the victim identified where the offender had touched her. I accept the offender’s submission.

14. Both counts 2 and 3 are aggravated by occurring in the home of the victim, a place she is entitled to feel safe. Additionally there is an element of a breach of trust by the offender, her step brother.

15. There is no hierarchy in the types of sexual intercourse and the matter is to be determined by the facts and circumstances of each case. The facts and circumstances I have described lead me to conclude that this offending is well below the middle of the range of objective seriousness. That perhaps does not provide much precision and to assist in better indicating my view of the matter I consider it in the bottom 20% of a range of objective seriousness.

Count 3

16. On the happening of count 3 the victim was again in her bedroom. By this time the offender was 16 and the victim still 6. The offender was holding a mobile phone with a timer and it was counting down. The offender grabbed the victim’s hand and tried to make her touch his “doodle”, to quote her. Her evidence was she did not touch his “doodle” but he tried to make her do so. She tried to pull her hand away and she said he held it like a lock. She was asked to describe how the offender made her touch his doodle and she said “like he puts it into a lock and then he liked just makes me shut it in my hand”. The offender told her not to tell mum as he would get in trouble.

17. The offender made a submission that this allegation only arose on the second police interview; that strikes me as a submission more suited to the trial of the matter rather than the sentence hearing. The fact is that the above-described matter occurred.

18. What is clear is that the above evidence on one view supports the touching of the penis, yet it more strongly shows the offender “tried” to make her touch his penis. The offender grabbed the victim's hand and pulled it towards his penis. I note it is not clear on the proposed agreed facts whether he or not the offender was wearing pants. Based on Q72 of the second interview, the victim states the offender was wearing pyjamas at the time of this offence.

19. The offence is made out without the incitement having achieved its goal. I consider it relevant that the incitement was brief and involved only the grabbing of a hand which the victim managed to resist in circumstances where he was wearing pyjamas. There is as already noted the aggravating feature of the offence occurring in the victim's home, and the element of a breach of trust.

20. I would assess count 3 in relative terms as less serious than count 2, appreciating that they are of course different offences with different elements and different maximum sentences. I consider this to be towards the bottom of the range of objective seriousness.

Subjective case

21. The Crown bundle (exhibit A) contained material relied upon by the offender in his subjective case. Additionally there were 3 references tendered by the offender.

22. The material in the Crown bundle was firstly his criminal record confirming that he has no criminal record. That fact needs to be recognised in light of the offender’s young age, yet it is a matter that is consistent with other material. There was also a Juvenile Justice Psychological report dated 2 February 2026 (but signed 29 January 2026) and a Youth Justice Background report dated 30 January 2026.

23. The history of the offender as set out in the confidential background report is that his parents separated when he was a small baby. The offender’s mother repartnered with his stepfather who has been the offender’s stepfather for 17 years. The offender now lives full time with his mother, stepfather and two younger siblings. They live in Casino. I would note that the stepfather was present at the sentencing hearing as was his mother and that the stepfather was also present for much of the trial and it is plain that he has significant support from his mother and stepfather. It is also noteworthy that there seems to be no concerns of any inappropriate behavior concerning the two younger siblings and the offender.

24. There had been a “shared care” arrangement prior to 20 October 2023 between the homes of his mother and father.

25. The background report notes the mother describing the family dynamics as healthy which is said to mirror the author of the report’s observations, and were described as a supportive and a positive bond and noting a strong positive rapport with his stepfather.

26. The offender attended Casino high school and left during 2023 in year 11. He was an average student and did not truant and there were no suspensions or expulsions.

27. He was diagnosed with ADHD when 6 or 7 and was on medication until about year 8 or 9. When the medication stopped he felt a bit more rowdy and was a bit more disruptive.

28. He began working part-time at 14 working at a wreckers yard. This led to a full-time job and an apprenticeship as a light vehicle mechanic. He is now in his third year of that apprenticeship which he really enjoys. He says he can struggle to sit still on his days at TAFE. The offender says he is working well and moving through his apprenticeship.

29. Inquiries of his employer were positive with the offender demonstrating consistent professionalism. He is described with customers as being respectful and attentive earning a positive reputation. The offender has good rapport with his colleagues, is punctual and dependable and diligent. He follows instruction well.

30. He has maintained contact with two or three friends since his arrest. Those friends have never been in trouble and are involved in structured positive activities as might be expected of teenagers such as going to the river or the beach.

31. There was a time after the arrest where he struggled to go out and he isolated himself for periods of time.

32. Until about a year ago he used cannabis regularly but then ceased. He smokes cigarettes about two packets a week. He drinks alcohol mainly on the weekend and mainly at home.

33. In his younger years he was a scout member. He now listens to music to relax and spends significant time gaming.

34. The background report extracts passages from the confidential psychological report noting the diagnoses of ODD, ADHD and specific learning disorder. There is reference to his relational immaturity which can make it likely that he forms stronger relationships with younger people. This may increase the opportunity to meet his sexual and other relational needs with those younger than him.

35. A significant feature of this sentencing is the continued denial by the offender of committing the offence and in the passage cited from the psychological report it is said that that this and a deficit in empathy for the victim “may reflect his impacted ability to reflect on the event for a number of reasons: unbearable shameful effects, unresolved sexual trauma and poor self reflectivity”. The background report notes the recommended psychological treatment which includes therapy including focusing on relationship skills to build healthy mature relationships with same aged others, healthy/appropriate relationship development and rapport building to assist reflection in the context of his current state of denial, amongst others.

36. Whilst it is damaging to the offender's sentencing case that he continues to deny the offences, and so there is a lack of remorse, I note that the psychological report as recounted in the background report states that denial in itself does not increase the risk or reduce the effectiveness of therapy. The offender stated that he was motivated to never reexperience the consequences of these proceedings.

37. Perhaps somewhat at odds with what had earlier been expressed in the psychological report it states that the offender did express empathy towards his victim saying that she may be scared of him and that he was upset because he failed her as a big brother. He also made the observation that he had grossly avoided his youngest stepsister which was described as being hypervigilant of others capability to make similar accusations. That would appear to me to be a positive factor in a consideration of any risk of reoffending.

38. The report concludes that in respect of count 3 he is eligible to be sentenced to a community-based order under the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (CCPA). I would note there was little resistance to a community-based order in respect of count 3 by the Crown and the note in this report is that if a supervision condition is imposed the order would be transferred to Community Corrections upon the offender turning 19 which will happen on 20 March 2026. In effect, it would seem that if the conclusion reached is that there should be a community-based order with supervision in respect of count 3 it should be imposed pursuant to the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act (CSPA) rather than the CCPA.

39. Essential matters of background in the psychological report have been noted by the reference to the background report. I note however that consistent with the suggestion already made of some unresolved sexual trauma, it is noted in the psychological report that the offender stated he had suffered his own sexual victimisation but that did it not include excessive force or penetration and he did not wish to provide further details. It notes a limited dating life referring only to a girlfriend in year 7 and he presently has no girlfriend but does speak online to a woman he refers to as a friend.

40. The psychological report undertook a juvenile sexual offender assessment protocol. The report at page 7 states there were minimal static (historical) risk factors associated with sexual offending in terms of sexual drive and sexual preoccupation. It notes the lack of criminal history and that the offence was perpetrated on one victim without any sexual aggression and that the victim was female. His levels of sexual drive and preoccupation are described as normative, even below that of average males. It notes his stable upbringing and that he appears to have no tendency towards anger while stating the ODD history. He has not engaged in any juvenile delinquency and has never been arrested.

41. The conclusion is that there are very low risk factors associated with sexual offending. His living situation and work situation are very stable, living with his parents and younger stepsiblings and thriving in his work and with career goals.

42. The conclusion is that he presents as a young man well supported in the community and stably involved in work and social life both currently and historically. He appears to have some social immaturity and a lower than average sexual drive. There is a background of sexual abuse he is not willing to detail. This hampers his ability to enjoy relationships of maturity and reflect upon his internal states and appear to play a part in the sexual offending and the difficulty in forming an appropriate response to the offense. There are then recommendations in line with what has already been noted.

43. The Crown did not challenge the background report or the psychological report. I accept the background they give and the conclusions they reach.

44. The three references relied upon were firstly from family friends. They described him as respectful and a hard worker and was in scouts with their children. They give an example of him helping someone after a scouts evening searching for a lost woggle. The second is from his stepfather who speaks of his willingness to help others. He gives an example of helping others carry their backpacks on a scout hiking trip.

45. Lastly is a letter from the offender’s employers. They hope he continues to work with them when he becomes a mechanic. They described him as reliable, trustworthy and genuine and speak well of his performance at work and say he has a great future.

Consideration

46. The subjective case that has just been set out was not challenged by the Crown. The matters recounted easily allow for the conclusion that the offender has good family support from his mother and stepfather and good community support from his employers and family friends and has good support of prosocial friends being the few face-to-face friends that he has, and his gaming community. The offender has a stable home life which includes, I infer, engaging appropriately with his younger step siblings, and has a stable and well-established work life with a promising future. He does not have a history of violence, he does not have a history of excessive alcohol use and his only history with drugs is being a cannabis user up until one year ago. Presently there is a use of substances that is limited to what might be called social drinking and tobacco. He is said to have a lower than average sex drive and has been assessed as presenting with minimal static risk factors. There are some dynamic risk factors associated with him which have been noted above such as his denial of the offences and some relationship issues. There are very low risk factors associated with community stability. The report does not give a definitive assessment of the risk but it is clear that the assessment of the risk is overall low.

47. In short the offender is a young hard-working well supported prosocial individual.

48. The offender is also not just young but on the evidence somewhat immature than the average 18 year old male.

49. Both parties provided written submissions. I have addressed the objective matters concerning the offences above. A major submission for the offender and understandably so is his youth which it is argued and I accept calls for a more lenient sentence for the reasons identified. These were that as a person as young as he is general and specific deterrence have a lesser role to play than would otherwise be the case. I would add that argument is strengthened in light of the immaturity of the offender that has been evidenced. The offender also argues that a term of imprisonment may be particularly harsh for a very young offender and could impact negatively on his rehabilitation regardless of whether it be in a juvenile facility or an adult facility.

50. In terms of section 21A(3) CSPA matters it is said that the offending was not planned. I find that what occurred was opportunistic. The offender has no previous convictions and is unlikely to reoffend. His prospects of rehabilitation are obviously excellent; it is now more than 2 years since count 3 and in that time the offender has lived without incident with his younger stepsisters and advanced himself in his young life.

51. Adverse to the offender is his lack of remorse, yet even there empathy for the victim is evidenced and accepted.

52. I note section 6 CCPA provides as follows:

A person or body that has functions under this Act is to exercise those functions having regard to the following principles--

(a) that children have rights and freedoms before the law equal to those enjoyed by adults and, in particular, a right to be heard, and a right to participate, in the processes that lead to decisions that affect them,

(b) that children who commit offences bear responsibility for their actions but, because of their state of dependency and immaturity, require guidance and assistance,

(c) that it is desirable, wherever possible, to allow the education or employment of a child to proceed without interruption,

(d) that it is desirable, wherever possible, to allow a child to reside in his or her own home,

(e) that the penalty imposed on a child for an offence should be no greater than that imposed on an adult who commits an offence of the same kind,

(f) that it is desirable that children who commit offences be assisted with their reintegration into the community so as to sustain family and community ties,

(g) that it is desirable that children who commit offences accept responsibility for their actions and, wherever possible, make reparation for their actions,

(h) that, subject to the other principles described above, consideration should be given to the effect of any crime on the victim.

53. The offender helpfully highlighted a number of pieces of the legislation and relevant authorities going to the issue of greater leniency to be allowed to juvenile offenders. This was expressed to be on the basis of a reduced moral culpability which in light of the fact that the law recognises the need for guidance and assistance to youth and the fact that the law recognises differences in terms of responsibility between adults and children, as reflected in section 6.

54. The offender relied on s6 CCPA, as just noted. Section 6 recognises the need to provide guidance and assistance to juveniles due to immaturity and dependence, the need to wherever possible to allow the education or employment to proceed without interruption, where possible to allow the child to reside in their own home and that it is desirable that offenders who were children be assisted with the reintegration into the community to sustain family and community ties.

55. In JA v R [2021] NSWCCA 10 the court was sentencing a 44-year-old in respect of an offence committed when he was 14, being a charge under 66A. The Court of Criminal Appeal in upholding an appeal said that the sentencing judge ought to have considered that the principles to be applied when sentencing for an offence committed when the offender was a juvenile apply whatever the seriousness of the crime and should also have considered whether and to what extent both general and specific deterrence should be given much if any weight.

56. By reference to R v Elliott & Blessington [2006] NSWCCA reference was made to the jurisprudence recognising the difference in responsibility between adults and children. The difficulty of adolescents regulating their impulses and behaviours was noted. Also noted was the recognition that the capacity for young people to reform and mould their character to conform with the society’s norms meant considerable emphasis is placed on the need to provide the opportunity for rehabilitation. The potential of immaturity to contribute to a breach of the law is recognised; see KT v R (2008) 182 ACrimR 571. The point being made is that subject to the facts and circumstances of the particular case the emphasis is on rehabilitation rather than deterrence and retribution.

57. The evidence in this case shows the now 18-year-old offender to be somewhat immature. In BP v R [2010] NSW CCA 159 Hodgson JA noted that it does not follow that a person is mature at 18 and that emotional maturity and impulse control may not be fully developed until the early to mid 20s. The evidence in the present case shows the young offender to be more than usually immature, so that there should be significant emphasis placed on the youth and immaturity of the offender.

58. The Crown submissions fairly recognised the application of section 6 of the CCPA. The Crown also accepted that rehabilitation attains a greater emphasis in sentencing a juvenile.

59. There was little submitted by the Crown arguing against what I consider is a strong subjective case for the offender. Sensibly the Crown focused on the structure of the sentence which it was submitted should be such as to facilitate the psychiatric management and psychological treatment of the offender. For this reason the Crown accepted a finding of special circumstances could be made.

60. As to the ultimate disposition the Crown argues that there should be a custodial sentence in respect of Count 2 but not in respect of Count 3. The submission for the offender ultimately was that the court should proceed by way of community correction orders.

61. Section 5 of the CSPA provides that there should only be a term of imprisonment if there is no other more appropriate sentence. In support of her argument Ms. Cusack for the offender referred to two cases from this court in which charges under section 66A were dealt with by the imposition of a CCO. Those cases were R v SH [2024] NSWDC 104 and R v JR [2022] NSWDC 618. In JR the offender was sentenced in respect of 3 counts under section 66A. Pleas of guilty were entered on the first day of the trial and the discount allowed was 15%. There was also a form 1 matter of indecent assault to take into account on one of the three charges. The offender was 14 or 15 at the time of the offending and the victim aged 8 or 9. The 3 charges were each acts of fellatio.

62. SH was a sentence in respect of one count under section 66A which again was a case of fellatio at a time when the victim was aged four and the offender aged 14

63. The offender also provided some statistics concerning sentences for s66A matters. In respect of the statistics relating to all offenders from a sample of 154 cases, 11.7% were dealt with by CCO and 87.7% by way of prison. Where the offender had no priors and was aged between 14 to 17 on a sample of 25 cases, 44%, or 11 of them were dealt with by way of a CCO. It is not clear whether the age range of 14 to 17 is the age at the time of offending or sentence; it would likely be the time of offending, but if that be wrong it makes little difference in the present case.

64. The well recognised limited utility of comparable cases and statistics is accepted. Nevertheless it does demonstrate by reference to the two authorities and the statistics that a noncustodial outcome whilst not frequent is not rare. This case of course must be determined upon its own facts and circumstances.

65. The impact upon the victim should not be forgotten. There is no victim impact statement but it should be accepted that these events have had a significant impact on the victim and section 3A CSPA requires that the harm to the victim be recognised and it is a factor weighting the outcome toward imprisonment.

66. To be balanced against that however is the range of matters canvassed above, including the factor of the offender’s youth, and my finding that it is very clear that the continuation of the offender’s strongly pro social life with stable family and work and community connections will be far better maintained and promoted by a result that sees the offender remaining in the community rather than being placed in custody. Not only would custody sever those ties to varying degrees, there is a prospect of adverse influences within the custody system negatively impacting on his prospects. What this means is that the offender is significantly more likely to continue along the pro social path that he is on and to continue with his rehabilitation in engaging with the therapy he requires (which I would infer is more likely to be effectively obtained in the community than in custody) by being in the community. This has the obvious benefit to the community that it has the far greater likelihood of a healthy pro social young adult with already low prospects of reoffending which will diminish even further if he obtains the treatment he requires. Nor should it be forgotten that this is hardly an outcome free of punishment. His arrest at a young age saw him maintain contact with only a few of his social group that he formally was part of. He has been on bail conditions for almost 20 months, also a form of punishment which should be recognised. He has endured a trial (albeit due to his continuing denial), and he will now endure, should a noncustodial sentence be imposed, a life restricted by the conditions placed on each community-based order. These matters adequately meet the needs for the requirements of punishment and general and specific deterrence and retribution particularly when bearing in mind the lesser emphasis to be given to those matters in cases such as this.

67. The result therefore is that in respect of each offence there will be the imposition of a community corrections order with appropriate conditions. In respect of count 2 I have chosen a period of 2 years rather than 3 bearing in mind the time that has passed since he was in fact arrested and note that his engagement with this whole process will by the end of that further two-year period extend to almost 4 years. In respect of count 3 there will be a CCO for a period of one year.

Orders

1. The offender is convicted on counts 2 and 3 on the indictment, being respectively the offence of sexual intercourse with a child under 10, and intentionally inciting a child under 10 to sexually touch him.

2. In respect of Count 2 I impose a Community Corrections Order for a period of 2 years to date from today 13 February 2026 with the following conditions:

3. That the offender commit no offence;

4. That the offender appear before the court when called upon to do so;

5. That the offender submit to the supervision of Community Corrections, and for that purpose attend at the Lismore office of Community Corrections by no later than 20 February 2026;

6. That the offender engage with Community Corrections to facilitate his attendance at counselling sessions as recommended in the Justice Health Confidential Psychological report dated 2 February 2026, and to that end I order that report be provided to Community Corrections, and that the offender attend at all such counselling sessions.

7. In respect of Count 3 I impose a Community Corrections Order for a period of 1 year to date from today 13 February 2026 with the conditions in the same terms as for count 2.

**********