R v JRN

The sentence hearing

1. The sentence hearing took place at Sydney District Court on 5 September 2019. The Crown Sentence Summary became Ex A. It included a Crown Case Statement that summarised the facts consistent with the jury verdicts. Those facts are set out in my summary above, and were not contested by the offender.
2. Exhibit A also contained the criminal antecedents of the offender. It included a mid-range PCA offence (1996), for which he was fined, a number of assault occasioning actual bodily harm (domestic violence related) offences, together with contravene prohibition/restriction in AVO offences in 2010, for which he was initially sentenced by way of fines and bonds pursuant to s 9 to be of good behaviour for a period of three years, but ultimately resulted on 21 February 2012 to a sentence of imprisonment for eight months with a non‑parole period of four months on call-up for breach of the bonds.
3. In 2010, he was again convicted of drive with middle range PCA and subsequently to offences of use unregistered vehicle and drive whilst disqualified, for which again, a s 9 bond for 12 months was imposed. For an offence of drive whilst disqualified, he was sentenced on call-up on 21 February 2012 to imprisonment for eight months with a non-parole period of six months, commencing on 21 February 2012.
4. Exhibit A also included a Sentencing Assessment Report under the hand of Mr C Tyrrell dated 25 July 2019. The author of that report noted that the offender had the support of his wife and one of his daughters, and that the current offences were the first offences in New South Wales of a sexual nature. He had, however, been convicted in Victoria in 1988 for wilful and obscene exposure in a public place. Under the heading "Attitudes", the author noted that the offender denied committing the offences. He had an issue with alcoholism around the time of the offences, consuming up to three bottles of bourbon per day, however, he denied that was a contributing factor to the offences.
5. The offender was assessed as a low/medium risk of reoffending and suitable to undertake community service work.
6. Exhibit A also included a Victim Impact Statement from the offender's son TN. In that statement, TN, set out succinctly the effect of the abuse of the offender on him. It resulted in a loss of self-confidence, self-harm to the point of cutting himself, degradation of his relationship with his siblings and led him to be quick to anger. This made it hard for him to concentrate at school, causing him learning difficulties. It also caused him to fight, leading to him being suspended and spending more time on suspension than at school. As a result, he has trouble obtaining decent employment. There was no Victim Impact Statement from the offender's daughter RN.
7. Exhibit B was a chronology demonstrating that Counts 3 and 4, as outlined above, were committed whilst the offender was on conditional liberty by way of at least one s 9 bond in respect of each offence. That was not contested by the offender's Counsel.

The offender's evidence

1. The offender tendered a report from Mr Patrick Sheehan, forensic psychologist, dated 29 July 2019 (Ex 1). Under the heading "Family History and Development", the author recorded that he was well cared for as the eldest of five children. He left school at 14 years and nine months and worked in a family business for two years. He then worked on commercial fishing boats until he was 30 years of age when his first child was born. He married at 25 years of age and has two children by that marriage, which ended in 2008. He remarried in 2011, and one of his adult daughters continues to live in the home formerly shared by the offender and his wife.
2. The author noted a problematic history of alcohol abuse. Throughout his adulthood, the offender would consume two bottles of bourbon each week. At the end of his marriage in 2008, his drinking increased sharply to as much as two bottles of bourbon each night, however, he ceased this use in 2010. It was the author's opinion that he met the criteria for Alcohol Abuse Disorder (Mild in sustained remission).
3. The author also opined that despite the offender's emphatic denial of any sexual interest towards children, there was a possibility of Paedophilic Disorder (non-exclusive, limited to incest, gender non-specific).
4. The author noted that the offences occurred between 2002 and 2013, and involved two of the offender's biological children, being a boy (aged between 5-16 years), and a girl (aged between 5 -10 years). The offender continued to deny the offences and proposed that the victims colluded to invent the allegations. The author opined that this categorical denial of offences - "Is common at these early stages of sentencing for this type of offences. There is a possibility that the offender will shift from this defensive position as he progresses through his sentence and begins to reflect on his actions, taking more responsibility over time."
5. The author noted that the offender would be considered in the medium to high, or above average risk category for sexual reoffending. His denial of the offences made him unsuitable for the Custody Based Intensive Treatment ("CUBIT") program. He would be suitable for a deniers program.

The Crown submissions

1. The Crown provided a detailed and thorough outline of written submissions which outlined general principles of sentencing in relation to child sex offences, none of which were controversial.
2. The written submissions set out the facts to be taken into account in relation to each offence, in assessing the objective seriousness of the offending. Those submissions were supplemented by oral submissions in which Counsel made submissions as to the objective seriousness of the offending, having regard to a hypothetical offence in the mid-range of objective seriousness. This of course is a mandatory part of sentencing where Standard Non-Parole Periods are proscribed, as in Counts 1, 2, 3 and 7 - see s 54A(2) of Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 ("CSPA"). It is also important to assess objectively the seriousness of the offending in sentencing generally where no Standard Non-Parole Periods are proscribed - see R v Van Ryn [2016] NSWCCA 1 at [134].
3. In assessing the objective seriousness of the offending, the Crown submitted that the court would take into account that the offending took place over a number of years, that they were part of an ongoing cycle of abuse, and were not isolated incidents. Nor were they examples of opportunistic offending.
4. Notwithstanding that the Crown resiled, in a note forwarded after the sentence hearing, from its submissions in respect of Counts 4, 5 and 6, I have taken those submissions into account in coming to my own conclusions as to the objective seriousness of the offending, as the offender did not disagree with them. In assessing the objective seriousness of each offence, the Crown submissions were as follows:

Count 1

1. In this offence, the victim got into the bed of her parents because she was scared of the dark, and was therefore seeking comfort and support from them. The offending involved an abuse of trust by the offender, by placing his hand inside her pants and touching her vagina, in an act involving skin on skin contact. The Crown submitted that the objective seriousness of this offending fell below the mid-point for an offence pursuant to s 61M(2) of the Crimes Act, but not well below that mid-point.

Count 2

1. This offence occurred when RN was in the top bunk in her brother's bedroom. The Crown submitted that she was entitled to feel safe there. The offender placed his hand inside her pyjamas and commenced rubbing her vagina and inserting his finger or fingers into her vagina, before he moved his hand around to the back of the victim's body and was "playing with her bum" (without penetration).
2. The Crown submitted that this offending was more serious than Count 1 and there was an element of violence, as he had placed his hand over her mouth to ensure that she remained quiet. This did not amount to a use of force, however, it elevated the offending to within the mid-range for an offence pursuant to s 66A(1) of the Crimes Act.

Count 3

1. This offence occurred at a motel in Goulburn when the offender was tucking his daughter RN into bed. He touched the inside of her thigh and pulled her pants down. There was skin on skin contact with her vagina, as he was rubbing it, however, no penetration. At the time of the offending he was "playing with himself", moving his hand back and forth. It was submitted that this offending involved abuse of trust, however, it fell "possibly well below" the mid-point of objective seriousness for an offence pursuant to s 61M(2) of the Crimes Act.

Count 4

1. This offending occurred when his daughter was visiting the offender's home and others staying at the home were out shopping. The offender came into the room where the victim was laying on her bed and threatened her by saying: "If you ever tell anyone what I've done, I'll kill you or I'll get someone to kill or hurt you." The offender then held the victim down with his forearm across her chest, pulling down her pants and playing with her vagina by rubbing it on the outside, and then penetrating her vagina with his fingers. Whilst this offending took place, the offender told the victim to be quiet.
2. The Crown submitted that whilst not an offence to which a Standard Non‑Parole Period applied, (like Counts 5 and 6 below), the objective seriousness of the offending in respect of Count 4 was within the mid-range for an offence pursuant to s 66C(2) of the Crimes Act, particularly as it involved the use of force and threats.

Count 5

1. The offending occurred when the victim TN was five years of age and having a bath. It involved the offender rubbing TN's penis. The Crown submitted that the objective seriousness of this offending fell some way below the mid‑point for an offence pursuant to s 61M(2) of the Crimes Act. It did involve skin on skin contact, however, there was no evidence of the duration of the offending.

Count 6

1. This offending occurred when the offender came into TN's bedroom, removed his pants and sexually assaulted TN by "putting his penis into the victim's anus continuously". The Crown submitted that this should be interpreted as meaning thrusting his penis into the anus of the victim, or, several penetrations by the offender of the anus of the victim. The Crown submitted that there was an element of abuse of trust here, however, this constituted an element of the offence and was therefore not an aggravating factor. The Crown submitted that the objective seriousness of the offending here was at the mid-point for an offence pursuant to s 66C(2) of the Crimes Act.

Count 7

1. This offending occurred on 24 December 2012 and I would be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that it occurred when the victim was aged 15 years, 11 months and 2 days. The offender walked into the bedroom of the victim and punched him in the side of the head, then rolled him onto his stomach and held his arms above his head, and pulled his pants down. The offender then positioned himself behind the victim and shoved his penis into his anus. The Crown submitted that given the use of force and application of violence, together with the threat that he would "murder the victim if he told anyone", the objective seriousness of this offence was within the mid-range for an offence pursuant to s 61J(1) of the Crimes Act.
2. The Crown submitted that the following aggravating factors are to be taken into account: 1. In respect of Counts 2, 4, 6 and 7, the offences involved the actual or threatened use of violence by the offender towards the victims - see s 21A(2)(c). 2. Counts 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7 were committed in the home of the victim - see s 21A(2)(eb). 3. In respect of Counts 1, 2, 3 and 5, each of those offences involved a breach of the offender's position of trust or authority as the victims' father - see s 21A(2)(k).
3. In respect of the absence of any Victim Impact Statement from the victim RN, the Crown submitted that no inference of the absence of harm could be drawn from that fact, relying on WAP v R [2017] NSWCCA 212 at [78]. It was a matter of judicial experience and common sense that victims of child sexual assaults usually experienced some degree of psychological harm. The Victim Impact Statement of TN demonstrated the effect of the offender's conduct on TN.

The offender's submissions

1. In respect of the assessment of objective seriousness of each of the seven offences, Counsel for the offender agreed with the Crown assessment in respect of each offence. In respect of Count 7, it was submitted that the court would be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the events must have occurred in December 2012, and therefore s 25AA of the CSPA applied to it.
2. The offender submitted that the court could take into account the opinion expressed by Mr Sheehan, that notwithstanding that the offender maintained his denial of the offences, consistent with his plea of not guilty, there was a possibility there will be shift over time and that he may eventually take some responsibility for his offending. It was further submitted that in accordance with Mr Sheehan's report, the offender would be suitable for the Deniers Program. On those bases, there was some prospect for some change of heart by the offender in due course and therefore some prospects of his rehabilitation.
3. Counsel for the offender agreed with the Crown submission that there were no applicable discounts to be applied in sentencing the offending.

Determination

1. Section 3A of the C(SP)A sets out the purposes of sentencing as follows: "3A The purposes for which a Court may impose a sentence on an offender are as follows: (a) To ensure that the offender is adequately punished for the offence, (b) To prevent crime by deterring the offender and other persons from committing similar offences, (c) To protect the community from the offender, (d) To promote the rehabilitation of the offender, (e) To make the offender accountable for his or her actions, (f) To denounce the conduct of the offender, (g) To recognise the harm done to the victim of the crime and the community."
2. I accept the Crown's submissions, which were not contested by the offender, as to the objective seriousness of the offending in respect of each count. Thus, the offending in Count 1, where the offender's five year old daughter had gone to her parents' bed, as she was scared, and the offender had placed his hand inside her pants, with skin on skin contact between his hand and her vagina, which continued for about half an hour, was below the mid‑range of objective seriousness for an offence pursuant to s 61M(2) of the Crimes Act. That section has regard to a very broad range of indecent assaults that may take place on persons under the age of 10 years. I find the offending in Count 1 falls in the middle of the low range of objective seriousness for an offence pursuant to s 61M(2) of the Crimes Act.
3. Count 2 involved digital penetration of the offender's daughter, who was aged seven years. She was sleeping on the top bunk in her brother's bedroom and the offender entered that room and stood near her bed. He put his hands inside her pants, down the side of her hip, and moved his hand to the front of her pants on her vagina and rubbed her on the outside of her vagina. He then put his fingers inside her vagina. At the time of the offending the offender placed his hand over her mouth to ensure that she remained quiet. I accept the Crown submission that this involved an element of violence to the extent that it constituted an assault, but did not amount to the use of force. Having regard to all of the circumstances of the offending, I find that it fell within the mid‑range of objective seriousness for an offence pursuant to s 66A(1) of the Crimes Act, although towards the lower end of the mid-range for such an offence.
4. Count 3 involved the offender touching the victim, who was nine years of age, in a motel room in Goulburn, when others in the room were asleep. He knelt down beside her bed and touched the inside of her thigh with his hand. He then pulled her pants down and started to rub the outside of her vagina with his hand for a period of some 10 minutes. As he was touching the victim, he had his other hand down the front of his pants, moving it back and forth on his penis. This offending involved skin on skin contact without penetration, and I accept the Crown submission that it was well below the mid-point of objective seriousness for an offence pursuant to s 61M(2) of the Crimes Act. In all of the circumstances of the offending, it fell in the middle of the low range for such an offence.
5. Count 4 occurred on an occasion when the victim RN was 10 years of age. She was staying at the offender's house and was in her sister's bedroom lying on the bottom bunk bed. When other occupants of the house had gone shopping, the offender entered the bedroom and threatened the victim by saying "if you ever tell anyone what I've done, I'll kill you, or I'll get someone to kill you or hurt you". He then held her down with his forearm on her chest, pulled her pants down and digitally penetrated her vagina for a period of over an hour. This was most serious offending and fell within the mid-range for an offence pursuant to s 66C(2) of the Crimes Act.
6. Count 5 concerned the incident when the offender's son TN was having a bath when he was aged five. It involved the offender entering the bathroom, closing the door and rubbing TN's penis. Whilst it constituted skin to skin contact, there was no evidence of the duration of the offending. Again, given the broad range of indecent sexual assaults covered by this section, the offending in Count 5 fell towards the lower end of the range of objective seriousness for such an offence.
7. Count 6 occurred when the offender's son TN was in year 6 at school. He was lying on his bed when the offender came into his bedroom and pulled the covers off him. He pushed TN's head into the pillow with his hand and held it there. He then removed TN's pyjama pants and put his penis into TN's anus and was moving it in and out, causing TN immediate pain. This offending fell within the mid-range for an offence pursuant to s 66C(2) of the Crimes Act.
8. Count 7 involved an occasion on Christmas Eve in 2012 when TN was in his bedroom listening to music. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the offence occurred when the victim was aged 15 years, 11 months and 2 days. The offender entered the room and punched TN on the side of the head, rolled him onto his stomach and held his arms above his head while he pulled his pants down. The offender then had penile/anal intercourse with the victim, and whilst that was occurring, he said to the victim that "he would murder TN if he told anyone".
9. The seven offences were not isolated incidents, but rather, were specific incidents that could be recalled by the victims in a pattern of ongoing offending over a period of many years.
10. I find that the offending in Counts 2, 4 6 and 7 were aggravated by either actual or threatened use of violence by the offender towards the victims, pursuant to s 21A(2)(c). A further aggravating feature in respect of Counts 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7, were that the offences were committed in the home of the victims, where they were entitled to feel safe and secure, pursuant to s 21A(2)(eb). A further aggravating factor was that, in respect of Counts 1, 2, 3 and 5, the offender breached a position of trust or authority in regards to the victims, pursuant to s 21A(2)(k). As the father of both victims, the breach of trust in all the offending was significant, however, I note that it was an element of the offences in Counts 4, 6 and 7 that the victim was under the authority of the offender, and I have been careful not to double count this as an aggravating factor on those counts. There are no mitigating factors or other matters which constitute a basis for discounting the sentence in this case.
11. I have had regard to the Victim Impact Statement of TN. It clearly sets out the physical and psychological effect that the offending conduct had on TN. The courts have long recognised the damage done by way of psychological trauma to children who are the subject of repeated sexual assaults by their parents. The courts have long accepted that such trauma may endure over a lifetime and impact all aspects of the victim's life. Pursuant to s 29 of the CSPA, the giving of a Victim Impact Statement is not mandatory, and pursuant to s 29(3), the absence of such a statement does not give rise to an inference that the offences had little or no impact on a victim. I therefore take into account the fact that the offending in respect of RN had a deleterious impact on her. There is no medical evidence supporting the Victim Impact Statement of TN, and whilst that does not diminish its significance in the sentencing process, I have not taken it into account so as to aggravate the offender's culpability.
12. Both general deterrence and specific deterrence are of great importance in sentencing for child sexual offences. A clear message must be sent to the community that the most vulnerable members of our community must be protected, and that Parliament has proscribed lengthy maximum prison sentences for such offending, and that the courts will impose lengthy prison sentences in appropriate cases. Specific deterrence is also important in that this offender offended over such a long period of time.
13. I have taken into account the following maximum penalties and Standard Non‑Parole Period, if relevant in respect of each of the offences as follows: Count 1 - s 61M(2) - maximum penalty 10 years imprisonment with a Standard Non-Parole Period of 5 years. Count 2 - s 66A(1) - maximum penalty 25 years imprisonment with a Standard Non-Parole Period of 15 years. Count 3 - s 61M(2) - maximum penalty 10 years imprisonment with a Standard Non-Parole Period of 8 years. Count 4 - s 66C(2) - maximum penalty 20 years imprisonment and no Standard Non-Parole Period. Count 5 - s 61M(2) - maximum penalty 10 years imprisonment and no Standard Non-Parole Period. Count 6 - s 66C(2) - maximum penalty 20 years imprisonment and no Standard Non-Parole Period. Count 7 - s 61J(1) - maximum penalty 20 years imprisonment and Standard Non-Parole Period of 10 years.
14. The maximum penalty in each case and the Standard Non-Parole Period proscribed in respect of Counts 1, 2, 3 and 7, are guideposts in the sentencing process.
15. I take into account that the offender has shown no remorse for his criminal conduct and continues to deny his involvement in the offences. The best that could be said for his prospects of rehabilitation is that there is a possibility that over time, in accordance with the opinion expressed by Mr Sheehan in Ex 1, he may have a change of heart in respect of his offending. I am unable to make a finding on the balance of probabilities that that will occur. I further accept the opinion of Mr Sheehan that the offender is to be assessed as a "medium to high, or above average, risk category for sexual reoffending when considered against actuarial factors".
16. Section 25AA of the CSPA provides as follows: "(1) A court must sentence an offender for a child sexual offence in accordance with the sentencing patterns and practices at the time of sentencing, and not at the time of the offence. (2) However, the Standard Non-Parole Period for a child sexual offence is the Standard Non-Parole Period (if any) that applied at the time of the offence, but not at the time of sentencing. (3) When sentencing an offender for a child sexual offence, the court must have regard to the trauma of sexual abuse on children as understood at the time of sentencing (which may include recent psychological research or the common experience of courts). (4) This section does not affect s 19. (5) In this section: 'Child sexual offence' means the following offences regardless of when the offence occurred but only if the person against whom the offence was committed was then under the age of 16 years: '(a) an offence under a provision of Division 10, 10A, 10B, 15 or 15A of Part 3 of the Crimes Act 1900, (b) an offence under a provision of that Act set out in column 1 of Schedule 1A to that Act, (c) an offence of attempting to commit any offence referred to in paragraphs (a) or (b), (d) an offence under a previous enactment that is substantially similar to an offence referred to in paragraphs (a) - (c)."
17. I accept the Crown's submission that pursuant to s 25AA, when sentencing for historical child sex offences, there is no need to consider the past pattern of sentences. Rather, the maximum penalty applicable at the time of the offending is relevant as a guidepost in the sentencing process and I am to disregard any increase in the maximum penalty for the offences as they currently appear in the Crimes Act 1900. I am then to assess the objective seriousness of the offending conduct, taking into account all of the relevant circumstances, and then have regard to any aggravating or mitigating factors, as well as any relevant subjective matters.
18. I have taken into account the offender's antecedent criminal history. It includes some offences for domestic violence, but otherwise does not entitle him to leniency in the sentencing process.
19. This is an appropriate case for an aggregate sentence pursuant to s 53A of the CSPA. Before proceeding to such a sentence, however, I am required to provide the indicative sentences in respect of each count for the purpose of transparency in the sentencing process. The indicative sentences are as follows: Count 1 - 2 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 18 months. Count 2 - 6 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 4 years and 6 months. Count 3 - 2 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 18 months. Count 4 - 6 years imprisonment. Count 5 - 2 years imprisonment. Count 6 - 8 years imprisonment. Count 7 - 10 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 7 years and 6 months.
20. Notwithstanding that the offending in respect of Counts 2 and 7 were assessed as being within the mid-range of objective seriousness for an offence pursuant to s 61J(1), the indicative non-parole period is less than the Standard Non‑Parole Period because of the nature of the offending, the time over which the offending took place, and the fact that an aggregate sentence is to be imposed.
21. It is clear that in aggregating the sentence, the principle of totality applies, and there must be some accumulation of sentences. Any aggregate sentence must be "just and appropriate" to the totality of the offending behaviour. In R v Van Ryn [2016] NSWCCA 1, the Court of Criminal Appeal had regard to the following summary of the correct approach to the assessment of sentence for multiple offences, with proper regard to the totality of the criminality involved: "[228] Street CJ described the principle of totality in sentencing in R v Holder; R v Johnstone (1983) 3 NSWLR 245 at 260 as follows: The principle of totality is a convenient phrase, descriptive of the significant practical consideration confronting a sentencing judge when sentencing for two or more offences. Not infrequently, a straightforward arithmetical addition of sentences appropriate for each individual offence considered separately will arrive at an ultimate aggregate that exceeds what is called for in the whole of the circumstances. In such a situation, a sentencing judge will evaluate, in a broad sense, the overall criminality involved in all of the offences and, having done so, will determine what, if any, downward adjustment is necessary, whether by telescoping or otherwise, in the aggregate sentences in order to achieve an appropriate relativity between the totality of the criminality and the totality of the sentences."
22. The Court went on to emphasise the need to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice when sentencing for multiple offences, and also referred to the judgment of Howie J in Cahyadi v R [2007] NSWCCA 1; 168 ACrimR 41 at [27]: "There is no general rule that determines whether sentences ought to be imposed concurrently or consecutively. The issue is determined by the application of the principle of totality of criminality: can the sentence for one offence comprehend and reflect criminality for the other offence? If it can, the sentences ought to be concurrent otherwise there is a risk that the combined sentences will exceed what is warranted to reflect the total criminality of the two offences. If not, the sentences should be at least partly cumulative, otherwise there is a risk that the total sentence will fail to reflect the total criminality of two offences. Similarly, where they are part of a single episode of criminality with common factors, it is more likely that the sentence for one of the offences will reflect the criminality of both."
23. In arriving at the aggregate sentence here, I have taken into account the objective seriousness of the offending, the aggravating factors set out above and the principles of totality and proportionality in the sentencing process. I am satisfied that the threshold contained in s 5 has been crossed and there is no alternative to imposing a sentence of imprisonment in this matter. In applying the principles of totality and proportionality to the offending conduct, which took place over an extended period of time and was part of an ongoing course of abuse towards his own son and daughter, I find that the offences should be subject to accumulation. I have had regard to the Judicial Commission statistics for comparable offences which are of limited utility because of the lack of detail behind the statistics, the historical nature of the offending, and the number of offences involved here.
24. Having regard to all of the circumstances, I intend to sentence the offender to a term of imprisonment of 14 years with a non-parole period of 10 years and 6 months, to commence on 31 August 2017.

Orders

1. I make the following orders: 1. You are convicted of the following offences: Count 1 - Pursuant to s 61M(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 - Between 22 March 2007 and 30 April 2007, at Deniliquin in the State of New South Wales, did assault RN, a person then under the age of 10 years, namely, 5 years of age and at the time of such assault did commit an act of indecency on the said RN. Count 2 - Pursuant to s 66A(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 - On or about 1 July 2010, in Deniliquin in the State of New South Wales, did have sexual intercourse with RN, who was at that time under the age of 10 years, namely, 7 years of age. Count 3 - Pursuant to s 61M(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 - On or about 3 September 2011, at Goulburn in the State of New South Wales, did assault RN, a person then under the age of 16 years, namely, 9 years of age and at the time of such assault did commit an act of indecency on the said RN. Count 4 - Pursuant to s 66C(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 - Between 2 February 2012 and 13 February 2012, in Deniliquin in the State of New South Wales, did have sexual intercourse with RN, the said RN being a person of the age of 10 years and under the age of 14 years, namely 10 years of age, in circumstances of aggravation, namely, at the time of the offence RN was under the authority of JRN. Count 5 - Pursuant to s 61M(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 - Between 22 January 2002 and 21 January 2003, at Mathoura in the State of New South Wales, did assault TN, a person then under the age of 10 years, namely, 5 years of age and at the time of such assault did commit an act of indecency on the said TN. Count 6 - Pursuant to s 66C(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 - Between 1 January 2008 and 31 December 2008, in Deniliquin in the State of New South Wales, did have sexual intercourse with TN, the said TN being a person above the age of 10 years and under the age of 14 years, namely, 10 or 11 years of age, in circumstances of aggravation, namely, the said TN was under the authority of JRN. Count 7 - Pursuant to s 61J(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 - On or about 24 December 2012, in Narromine in the State of New South Wales, did have sexual intercourse with TN without his consent, and knowing that he was not consenting to the sexual intercourse, in circumstances of aggravation, namely, that at the time of the offence TN was under the authority of JRN. 1. I sentence you to a non-parole period of 10 years and 6 months to commence on 31 August 2017 and to terminate on 29 February 2028. 2. The balance of term of sentence is 3 years and 6 months to commence on 1 March 2028 and terminate on 30 August 2031.

Indicative Sentences Count 1 - 2 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 18 months. Count 2 - 6 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 4 years and 6 months. Count 3 - 2 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 18 months. Count 4 - 6 years imprisonment. Count 5 - 2 years imprisonment. Count 6 - 8 years imprisonment. Count 7 - 10 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 7 years and 6 months.

DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 13 September 2019