FINAL CHARGES
112The offender was charged in relation to the conduct committed against the complainants BB, J, K, and L.
113It is necessary to note in respect of the facts that while the counts before the Court for sentence occurred over a period between 1 January 2009 and 13 October 2011, the facts in respect of other offences, including uncharged offences, indicate the commencement of sexual abuse of children at least no later than 2008.
114It is relevant to note in respect of the uncharged acts that they are before the Court in respect of the individual victims, to indicate that the counts that have been charged in respect of which he is to be sentenced and those contained on a Form 1 in respect of those victims are not isolated incidents in respect of that victim. However, the Court can only sentence the offender for those counts for which he is charged, also taking into account, if appropriate, any attached Form 1, and cannot sentence the offender in respect of uncharged acts.
115It is abundantly obvious from the overall facts that the offender has committed a significant number of offences over a significant period of time, which alone would indicate that his conduct of this nature is not "isolated" simply to the counts for which he is to be sentenced and those that are contained on a Form 1.
116As already indicated, no additional penalty or consideration of increased penalty can be given in respect of uncharged acts. It simply puts those acts which have been charged in perspective as not being isolated events.
117While there are individual differences in relation to the s61M(2) counts, there is an overall similarity of conduct.
118The offences involve, in general, the offender rubbing or touching the victim's penis, either directly or through clothing.
119There is also a significant similarity in relation to the age grouping of the victims. While the circumstance of aggravation referred to in Counts 1 to 9, 12 and 13 is that the victims were under 16 at the time, A, C, F, H and J were each aged eight years. B, D, G and BB were nine years. E was 10 years. Each of those ages is substantially less than the maximum age of 16, which applies in relation to offences under this section.
120In respect of K, he was six years of age at the time.
121While the offender's choice of victim in those matters tends in the main to be in relation to children between the ages of eight and 10, and that factor must be taken into account as being more significant than a child closer to the age of 16, it is of even greater significance that one of the children, K, was six years of age at the time.
122In respect of Counts 1 to 9, 12 and 13, the offender was also in breach of the trust placed in him either as a result of the position of trust because of his employment, or because he had been permitted by the parents of the individual victims to babysit them, or because of the parents' knowledge of his employment and relationship to the church, he had been trusted to be alone with their children.
123In respect of D, the offender committed the offence in the home of the victim, as he also did in respect of C and F.
124In terms of acts of indecency potentially covered by s 61M(2), the touching or rubbing of the child's penis is a serious form of the offence, although no doubt both more serious and less serious forms can be imagined. Each of the eleven offences for which the offender is to be sentenced pursuant to s 61M(2) must, in the Court's view, be regarded as significant and serious. As already referred to, in some cases, there are aggravating circumstances, involving a breach of trust or of the offence, occurring in the home of the victim.
125The relevant circumstances in respect of each individual offence as referred to in the facts must be taken into account by the Court in determining an appropriate sentence for the individual offence.
126In respect of the offences contrary to 61M(2), the seriousness with which the community regards them can be seen from the fact that the maximum sentence provided is one of ten years imprisonment, and that a standard non-parole period of eight years is also provided.
127In respect of the two offences contrary to s 66A(2) of the Crimes Act, being Counts 10 and 11, and each relating to the victim J, the seriousness of such offences is clearly indicated by the fact that the legislation provides for a maximum term of imprisonment for life, and also provides for a significant standard non-parole period of 15 years. Because the charge relates only to offences where the child is under ten, the age of the victim J is already taken into account by that element of the offence. It is therefore not an aggravating feature under s 21A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act. I note, however, that the age of J is still relevant when assessing the criminality involved in the offences that are the subject of each of the two Form 1 offences which attach respectively to Count 10 and Count 11 in respect of J.
128Section 66A(2), also as an element, takes account of the fact that J in respect of Counts 10 and 11 was at the time under the authority of the offender. Accordingly, that J was under authority is not a further aggravating circumstance, as it is already taken into account by the charge. However, again I note that in respect of the further offences contained on the respective Form 1's relating to J and Counts 10 and 11, the breach of trust in respect of those offences is a relevant factor that the Court must take into account.
129In respect of all of the offences before the Court for sentence, or before the Court to be taken into account by way of a Form 1, it is of note that with the exception of the offences relating to J, there is no suggestion that the offender at any time exposed his own genitals or was observed by any of the victims to be manipulating his penis or to be physically aroused by way of erection. There can be little doubt that the offender engaged in the activity - considering its extensive nature and period - as a result of deriving some sexual gratification from indulging himself in the conduct, but on the facts, it would appear to be without any physical sign.
130It was in respect of J that the offender sought to have J kiss or lick his penis - that is, the offender's penis - or that the offender licked or kissed the victim's penis. Even in those circumstances, there is no evidence before the Court that in the circumstances of the conduct the offender became erect, or that the conduct resulted in the offender reaching ejaculation.
131In respect of J and the offences contrary to s 66A(2), sexual intercourse is defined by s 61H(1) of the Crimes Act. Such conduct in relation to a male victim includes fellatio of the victim, or the victim performing fellatio on the offender. Sexual intercourse is otherwise defined to include, in respect of males, penile or digital penetration of the anus as well as the penetration of the anus by any object.
132The Crimes Act makes no distinction as to any of the defined acts of sexual intercourse as being more or less serious than any other act contained within the definition. In R v Hibberd [2009] NSWCCA 20, Tobias JA at [20-21] said that there could be no prima facie assumption or general proposition that any one form of sexual intercourse is less or more serious than any other form.
133Also in Hibberd, Price J at [55] referring to Ibbs (1987) 163 CLR 447; R v Allpass (1994) 72 A Crim R 561, said:
"The heinousness of the offending conduct depends on the facts of the case and not on the statute defining the offence."
134In considering the various forms of sexual intercourse as defined by s 61H in the circumstances of the offences committed in respect of J, the Court is prepared to find that the acts of fellatio are a less serious form of offence than would have been the case if the victim had been anally penetrated in any way, while also noting that, to the victim, being required to lick or kiss the penis of the offender is more likely to have, in the Court's view, a more substantially adverse effect than the offender kissing or licking the victim's penis. Each of Counts 10 and 11 in respect of J, however, involves serious sexual misconduct by the offender towards the victim.
135In respect of the twelve victims, the Court has been provided with six Victim Impact Statements. One of those consists of a drawing done by A, to which is attached an explanatory letter dated 10 October 2012, from a social worker, Ms Baxter, an employee of the Sydney Children's Hospital, explaining the drawing as explained to her by A. In addition, there are a further five Victim Impact Statements in respect of Victim 3, C, Victim 10, J and Victim 11, K. Each of the Victim Impact Statements was read to the Court by the mother of the victim. In respect of Victim 6, F, and Victim 8, H, the Victim Impact Statement was read to the Court by the father of the victim.
136The Victim Impact Statements are eloquent testimony as to the significant adverse effects that the commission of sexual offences against young children have not only on the children but on their families. I have this morning deliberately reread the Victim Impact Statements to ensure that, as the evidence was given some time ago, they are at the forefront of my mind, and I will take the Victim Impact Statements into account when sentencing for the individual offences against victims where there is a Victim Impact Statement.
137I note, however, that despite serious consequences for the children and the parents as outlined in those matters, there is nothing contained which takes the impact on the victims and the family beyond what could ordinarily be expected to arise from such serious offences of sexual abuse against children.
138The Court is also aware, even in respect of matters where no Victim Impact Statement has been provided to the Court, that the adverse effects on children of offences of this nature are highly likely to impact adversely on their psychology and personality and indeed their social relationships for many years into the future, if not for the balance of their lives. The serious impact on children of offences of this nature cannot be underestimated. However, again, I note that as I have said, there is nothing before the Court which takes the impact in respect of any particular victim beyond what might ordinarily be expected to arise.
139There is no Pre-Sentence Report before the Court, nor has any psychological or psychiatric report been tendered on behalf of the offender.
140The material before the Court in respect of the offender comes from oral evidence from his father, that is his natural father, Roger Lord, as well as from a number of affidavits and/or references, being part of Exhibit 2. They consist of an affidavit from his mother; an affidavit from his natural father who, as I said, did give evidence; an affidavit from the offender's stepfather, Charlie Yankos; an affidavit from the offender's older full brother, Bradley Lord; a reference from Danielle Beaufils, an older half sister of the offender; a reference from Lorraine Dunn, an aunt of the offender; a letter from the Reverend Thomas W Schmidt, a senior minister of the Baptist church in Cronulla and a person who over a period of 12 months prior to the date of his reference had visited the offender in custody on eight occasions, and who indicates that the offender expressed to him his contrition and remorse and concern for the victims and their families, which the Reverend accepted as genuine; a reference from John Knowles, a past employer of the offender and friend of the family; two pages of the Mental Health Transfer Discharge Summary relating to the offender being admitted at the Sutherland Hospital on 17 October 2011 with suicidal ideation, and his discharge on 24 October 2011; certificates indicating that while in custody the offender has completed a Salvation Army course referred to as "The Positive Lifestyle Program", and that he had completed Certificate I in "Information Technology" and Certificate II in "Visual Arts and Contemporary Craft". While the date of the certificates for some of those courses has not been recorded, it is reasonable to anticipate that he has in fact now completed them. In addition, there is a self-referral form which indicates that the offender has twice communicated to the prison authorities that he would like to participate when able to in the CUBIT course, a course specifically designed to treat sexual offenders. Lastly, there is a letter to the Court from the offender expressing his remorse and contrition, his acceptance of responsibility for his behaviour, and his apology to the victims and their families for his conduct and the impact he has had on them, as well as his willingness to attend and complete any appropriate programs that might assist him in rehabilitation and reform.
141Such letters to the Court can generally carry little weight in the absence of the offender giving evidence and the Court being able to judge for itself from the offender's oral evidence the genuineness of any claims made in a written document. In this matter, the offender did not give evidence on sentence. I will refer to that again later.
142What can be discerned from the material before the Court is that at the time of the first offending conduct in respect of which there is a charge that the offender must be sentenced for (Count 6), the offender was aged 22, that is, in 2009. The remaining twelve counts for which he is to be sentenced took place when he was about 24. He is now 26 years of age.
143He has, an older brother and a younger sister to his natural father. He has two stepsisters, both younger than him. According to his mother, as a child, he was always "a bit of a loner" who, while he did not excel in sports, did participate in lots of sports. In high school, he joined a band, and he continued to play in his senior years of high school, as well as later playing in a couple of local bands as well as a church band. His parents, Jill and Roger Lord, separated when he was ten years of age. His mother describes him as being a hard worker who delivered the local paper at the age of twelve, that he later, when old enough, obtained a job at the Coles checkouts and worked there during high school, as well as joining a local Pentecostal church and being involved in the associated youth group while at high school. He apparently drifted between a number of different Pentecostal churches over the years.
144According to his mother, he has had few close friendships. He completed his HSC but was never certain of what he wished to do when he left school. At first he commenced a music course at TAFE but dropped out during the first year. He then worked at installing electronic sliding doors, but after a period of six months he lost that job. He went on to commence employment in printing with Mr Knowles and started a traineeship, but he only lasted for approximately a year before losing interest and deciding it was not a career he wished to follow. He then tried his hand as an electrician, in respect of which he apparently lasted approximately 12 months. He took on some responsibility by buying a unit with his brother and was working a second job delivering pizzas, as well as continuing to attend church, group meetings, and band practice. In 2008 he quit his job, and a friend from church arranged for him to obtain work with the YMCA after school care program. He also did some casual work repairing waterfront jetties with an associate through the church. At the start of 2011, he commenced a design course while at the same time working in childcare.
145His mother indicates that she and her family continue to provide ongoing support, visiting him while he has been in custody, and that he has expressed his remorse to her in respect of his conduct and his concern in relation to the victims and their families.
146It is clear that the offender initially denied having committed any offences to his family. However, his stepfather, Charlie Yankos, indicates in his affidavit that he confronted his stepson about the allegations and that the offender, in effect, broke down and became very distraught. Later together with the offender's older brother, Brad, the offender was confronted by a demand to be told the truth, and he informed them that he had lied, and said that he was sick and needed help. At the time he apparently made reference to himself being molested at about five years of age on numerous occasions at a local surf lifesaving club. He expressed his shame and sorrow in respect of his conduct and the impact on the children and their families.
147It appears from the information before the Court that it is at this time that the offender was taken by relatives to the Sutherland Hospital and admitted with suicidal ideation. He was released from hospital on 24 October 2011, when he was again arrested and charged with further offences. It would appear that after that time, while in custody, he was further persuaded by relatives that he needed to make a clean breast of all matters of misconduct, and as a result requested the police to attend and interview him, at which time he disclosed the offences which were not yet known to the police regarding BB, L, K, and J.
148It appears that the offender had a stable and supportive family upbringing, and that the family, despite the commission of the offences, continues to regard him favourably and to be prepared to offer support in the future.
149During the course of what I have just referred to, I have referred to his informing Mr Yankos that he had been molested for some period of time from about the age of 5 years. I note that there is no direct evidence of any such sexual abuse of the offender before the Court. References are made in other material that has been tendered to a similar effect.
150In Dousha v R, 2008 NSWCCA 263, with Bell JA, Fullerton and Latham JJ agreeing, at [47], the court indicated that there must be direct evidence that any abuse suffered by an offender as a child had contributed to his offending as an adult, and that, in the absence of any evidence of any causal connection, it is irrelevant to the sentencing discretion.
151The onus is on the offender to demonstrate on the balance that any abuse suffered by him, if accepted, contributed to his offending conduct thereby reducing his moral culpability as indicated in Henry 2009 NSWCCA 69.
152There is no evidence in this matter that any alleged misconduct of a sexual nature against the offender as a child, if it occurred, has any causal relationship to his offending conduct in these matters.
153The Court accepts that the offender has expressed remorse and contrition to those persons who have referred to it in the material tendered on his behalf.
154While the Court would normally be very circumspect in respect of assertions of remorse and contrition in the absence of evidence from the offender, and where the only evidence of remorse from the offender is contained in a letter to the Court, the Court is prepared to accept that the offender has demonstrated genuine remorse and contrition. Although he did not initially admit any offences to the authorities, it is significant that he subsequently not only admitted all of the offences with which he had been charged, but also disclosed a significant number of additional victims and offences, when they were unknown.
155It may well be that while in custody the offender formed the view that additional victims or offences may be likely to emerge in the future, but he should be given the benefit of the doubt on that, and I accept that he accepted the advice provided to him by his relatives and his solicitor that he should adopt a course of full disclosure, and in those circumstances, the Court is prepared to accept that he is indeed remorseful and contrite, as well as being concerned for the impact that his conduct has had and will continue to have on the victims and their families. His pleas have relieved the victims of the stress of having to give evidence in a defended matter.
156The offender's criminal history is before the Court. He has never been previously convicted of any criminal offence of any sort and, in that sense, was a person of good character.
157However, s21A (5)(A) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act provides in respect of cases of child sexual offences that in determining the appropriate sentence for a child sexual offence, the good character or lack of previous convictions of an offender is not to be taken into account as a mitigating factor, if the Court is satisfied that fact was of assistance to the offender in the commission of the offence.
158The Crown has submitted that it was the offender's lack of antecedents and previous good character that allowed him to obtain employment as a child care worker and babysitter, from which positions he committed the offences and that, in those circumstances, his previous good character and lack of criminal offending should not be taken into account as a mitigating factor.
159Also of note in respect of whether his previous character should be permitted as a mitigating factor is the number of victims and the period of time over which these offences occurred, and the significant number of offences which, between those charged and those on a Form 1, total 29 offences.
160In those circumstances, the Court accepts that it would be inappropriate for the Court to take into account his good character or lack of previous convictions as it accepts that they were a significant factor in his obtaining work in child care with the YMCA, largely from which not only did the offences occur in respect of clients of that service, but he established a general reputation as being an appropriate person to engage in babysitting or child care.
161I have already referred to the matters that the offender voluntarily disclosed. The principles of sentencing in respect of voluntary disclosure are that where a conviction follows upon a plea of guilty that results from a voluntary disclosure, the Court should provide a further element of leniency.
162I cannot find that it was likely that his guilt would be discovered in relation to the additional matters, and I am prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt on that and, as a result, accept that a significant element of leniency should be extended to him in respect of the offences he voluntarily disclosed.
163In determining appropriate sentences in respect of these matters, the Court must have regard to whether, as a mitigating circumstance, there is a good prospect of rehabilitation, and whether it can be said that he is unlikely to re-offend.
164Mr Smith, of counsel, who appeared for the offender, conceded that it would be difficult for the Court to find that there was a good prospect of rehabilitation and that he was unlikely to re-offend, because of the nature of the offences and the period over which they occurred, and the number of individual offences.
165His submission was, essentially, that the Court would not be satisfied in that regard, but would find that if there was ever an offender in relation to sexual offences who might possibly turn around, it was likely to be this offender, because of his current age of 26, because of his genuine remorse and contrition, and because of his voluntary admissions of further misconduct and the support of his family network.
166The offender's conduct overall demonstrates that he can reasonably be regarded as a predatory paedophile who is obsessed with obtaining sexual gratification from prepubescent males.
167While the individual offences may, if considered separately, be seen as opportunistic offences, the Court is of the view that the offender deliberately obtained work with the YMCA, or at least having obtained work, thereafter continued with such employment because of the realisation of the opportunities that it would provide to him to engage his perverse sexual inclination to offend against prepubescent males. In that sense, the offences were essentially premeditated, although they only occurred when the specific circumstances provided the opportunity to indulge.
168The Court is also of the view that, considering the offences overall, that having succeeded in not being discovered in relation to a significant number of offences, the offender's indulgence in offences of this nature was becoming increasingly more serious, as indicated by the later offences involving J, and also as a result of his endeavouring to engage more than one child at a time. Fortunately for the community, his offending conduct was discovered and disclosed to the authorities.
169Sexual inclinations or orientations such as the offender's are generally difficult to treat. As I have indicated, there is no Pre-Sentence Report, psychological report or psychiatric report before the Court that could assist the Court in making a determination that there is a good prospect of rehabilitation, or that there is a low risk of re-offending. However, in light of having accepted that the offender is genuinely remorseful and contrite in respect of his conduct, the Court is prepared to accept that if he receives appropriate treatment while in prison and on subsequent release, and that he will spend a significant period of time in custody, will at least operate on him to the extent that there is at least a reasonable prospect that he will not re-offend, particularly taking into account the support of his family, and their knowledge of his conduct.
170While the Court cannot say that there is a good prospect of rehabilitation, that is not to say that there is no prospect of rehabilitation. Again, with appropriate treatment, there is a reasonable prospect of rehabilitation even in the absence of the material that I have previously referred to.
171Some reference has been made during submissions to the question of protection. I would accept from my knowledge of the prison system and of the attitudes of other prisoners that the offender, while in custody, is likely to become a protected prisoner either at his own request or simply as a result of a determination by Corrective Services as being appropriate. While Mr Smith referred to protection, I note there is no evidence before me as to what significance protective custody might have, and in any event in Clinton [2009] NSWCCA 276 it was stated:
"In any event, decisions about the significance of protective custody given before R v Durocher-Yvon [2003] NSWCCA 299; 58 NSWLR 581 should be read in the light of that decision and the different approach that was there taken to the relevance of the fact that a person was in protective custody. The change to the approach previously taken was as a result of information provided to the court that revealed that protection did not necessarily result in harsher prison conditions. The change in approach was continued in R v Mostyn [2004] NSWCCA 97; 145 A Crim R 304, was approved in R v Way [2004] NSWCCA 131; 60 NSWLR 268 at [177] and has been applied to cases where assistance has been given to authorities: R v Sukkar [2006] NSWCCA 92."
172Indeed, removal from the general prison population to protective custody may significantly decrease the amount of tension or stress for the individual prisoner. In any event, as I have previously indicated, no evidence has been placed before the Court that if the offender should go into protective custody - even though I find that likely - it would result in a harsher form of imprisonment for him. No doubt it would at least result in perhaps some time restrictions in terms of the time permitted out of cells.
173For the purposes of sentencing, the Court must have regard to s 3A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 and must take into account such of the aggravating factors and mitigating factors as referred to in s 21A(2) and (3) as are present and any other relevant factor. I have in these reasons on sentence already referred to the appropriate considerations. I note of course that in the instinctive synthesis of sentencing, the Court must have regard as a relevant factor the maximum sentence provided as well as the standard non-parole period. In sentencing an offender, the individual sentence must reflect the objective seriousness of the offence and ensure that any time the offender must spend in custody reflects all of the circumstances of the offence, including the objective seriousness, the need for general and specific deterrence, and meet the fundamental purpose of punishment, the protection of society. In this matter, the Court regards both general deterrence and specific deterrence as being important factors to take into account.
174I am satisfied pursuant to s 5 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act that no penalty other than imprisonment is appropriate, and no submission has been made on behalf of the offender that any sentence other than imprisonment is appropriate.
175The Court has first determined, by considering the individual offence, and its objective seriousness, taking into account the relevant factors as previously expressed, an appropriate sentence. The Court has done that in respect of each of the individual offences, also taking into account, where appropriate, any offences contained on a Form 1, the nature of those offences and the number of them. Having determined what the Court regards as appropriate sentences for the individual thirteen offences that the offender must be sentenced for, the Court has then given consideration, as required by Pearce v R [1998] 194 CLR 610 and, where appropriate, in relation to voluntarily disclosed offences, to what is referred to as an "Ellis discount", and as indicated at the outset of these reasons, that the offender is entitled to a 25% discount for the utility alone of the plea of guilty. Having established the individual sentences, the Court has given consideration to concurrence and accumulation, as well as to the principle of totality.
176For the benefit of the legal representatives, I will indicate the order in which I propose to deliver the individual sentences and a number of other relevant matters before expressing the individual sentences. I will deal with the sentences in the order of Counts 1 to 9, followed by Counts 13, 12, 10 and 11. In respect of the commencement date, it will of course be the date on which the offender first went into custody in relation to these matters: 24 October 2011. In respect of each subsequently imposed sentence, whatever be the total sentence imposed, there will be accumulation by three months in respect of each of the following counts. To assist with your calculations and determination as to whether my calculations are correct, I will now indicate the overall outcome of the sentences, taking into account the accumulation.
177The total sentence will be 10 years. The accumulated non-parole periods will total six years. Accordingly, when first eligible for parole, if released, the offender will be subject to parole for four years. I intend to find special circumstances, particularly in respect of the offender's age, and what the Court perceives as a need for a significant period of rehabilitation under supervision to assist him to rehabilitate, and not re-offend.
178In respect of each of the thirteen counts before the Court for sentence, the offender is convicted. The sentences are as follows.
179Count 1 - A - 61M(2), also taking into account a single offence contrary to the same section on a Form 1.
The sentence is four years, to date from 24 October 2011. Having found special circumstances which justifies the reduction of the non-parole period from the statutory relationship, the non-parole period is two years and, having commenced on 24 October 2011, the non-parole period expires on 23 October 2013. The balance is two years, commencing on 24 October 2013 and expiring on 23 October 2015. Accordingly, if that was the only offence that the offender was faced with, he would be eligible for parole on 23 October 2013. However, because of sentences yet to be imposed, he will not be in fact able to be released at that time.
180Count 2 - B - s 61M(2), also taking into account a single offence contrary to the same section on a Form 1.
The sentence imposed is a total term of imprisonment of four years. Again, special circumstances apply. The non-parole period is two years, commencing three months after the last imposed sentence. It will commence on 24 January 2012 and expire on 23 January 2014, when the offender, in the absence of serving any other sentence, would be eligible for parole. The balance of term is two years, commencing on 24 January 2014 and expiring on 23 January 2016.
181Count 3 - C - s 61M(2), also taking into account a single offence contrary to the same section contained on a Form 1.
The term of the sentence is four years. Again, having found special circumstances, there is a non-parole period of two years, commencing three months after the last imposed term of imprisonment. It will commence on 24 April 2012 and expire on 23 April 2014, when, absent any other sentence, he would be eligible for release on parole. The balance of term is two years, commencing on 24 April 2014 and expiring on 23 April 2016.
182Count 4 - D - s 61M(2).
The term of the sentence is three years and ten months. It will commence three months after the last imposed sentence. Again, having found special circumstances, the non-parole period will be 50% of the total term, that is, one year and eleven months, commencing on 24 July 2012, three months after the last imposed sentence, and expiring on 23 June 2014, when he would, in the absence of continuing to serve any other sentence, be eligible for release on parole. The balance of term is one year and eleven months, commencing on 24 June 2014 and expiring on 23 May 2016.
183Count 5 - E - s 61M(2), also taking into account two offences on a Form 1, being an offence contrary to s 61O(1) and a further offence contrary to s 61M(2).
The term of the sentence is four years and two months, with a non-parole period of 50% of that term, of two years and one month, having found special circumstances. The sentence again commences three months after the last imposed sentence - that is, 24 October 2012 - and the non-parole period will expire on 23 November 2014. The balance of term of two years and one month commences 24 November 2014 and expires 23 December 2016.
184Count 6 - F - s 61M(2).
The term of the sentence is three years and ten months. Special circumstances apply. The non-parole period will be 50% of the total term. It will commence three months after the last imposed sentence. It is accordingly a term of one year and eleven months, commencing on 24 January 2013 and expiring on 23 December 2014, when, in the absence of the offender continuing to serve time for other offences, he would be eligible for release on parole. The balance of term is one year and eleven months, commencing 24 December 2014 and expiring 23 November 2016.
185Count 7 - G - s 61M(2), also taking into account a single offence contrary to the same section contained on a Form 1.
The term of the sentence will be four years. It will commence three months after the last imposed sentence. The non-parole period, having found special circumstances, will be two years and will commence on 24 April 2013 and expire on 23 April 2015, when, absent other circumstances, he would be eligible for release on parole. The balance of term is two years, commencing on 24 April 2015 and expiring on 23 April 2017.
186Count 8 - H - s 61M(2).
The term of the sentence is three years ten months and will commence three months after the last imposed term, with a non-parole period of one year and eleven months, having found special circumstances. It will commence on 24 July 2013 and expire on 23 June 2015. The balance of one year and eleven months will commence on 24 June 2015 and expire on 23 May 2017.
187Count 9 - BB - s 61M(2), taking into account a single offence contrary to the same section contained on a Form 1, but also taking into account that this was voluntarily disclosed offending.
The term of the sentence is three years, with a non-parole period of one year and six months, having found special circumstances. It will commence three months after the last imposed term, 24 October 2013, and expire on 23 April 2015, when he would be eligible for parole in the absence of further sentences. The balance of term is one year and six months, commencing 24 April 2016 and expiring on 23 October 2016.
188Count 13 - L - s 61M(2), also taking into account a single offence contrary to s 61O(2) contained on a Form 1 and also taking into account that this was voluntarily disclosed offending.
The term of the sentence is three years, with a non-parole period of one year and six months, commencing three months after the commencement of the last imposed term. It will commence on 24 January 2014 and the non-parole period will expire on 23 July 2015, when, absent further sentences, he would be eligible to be released on parole. The balance of the term is one year and six months, commencing 24 July 2015 and expiring 23 January 2017.
189I have, in respect of each of the previously imposed sentences, taken into account the particular age of the victims, being in the range of eight to ten years at the time, as well as also taking into account in respect of Counts 3, 4 and 6, relating to the victims C, D and F, that those offences occurred in the homes of the victims.
190Count 12 - K Section 61M(2), also taking into account a further offence contrary to the same section contained on a Form 1.
In particular, I also note that the victim was six years of age and substantially less, to a greater degree than those that I have already referred to, in age to the maximum victim age of sixteen, as relevant to this section.
191I also take into account that it was voluntarily disclosed offending for which a further discount must be provided.
192Accordingly, the term of the sentence is four years, to commence three months after the last imposed term. Again, I find special circumstances. The non-parole period will be two years commencing on 24 April 2014 and will expire on 23 April 2016 when, absent any further term of imprisonment, he would be eligible for release on parole. The balance of term is two years, commencing on 24 April 2016 and expiring on 23 April 2018.
193Count 10 - J - Section 66A(2), also taking into account the Form 1 containing three separate offences, those being two offences contrary to s61O(2), and one offence contrary to s61M(2).
I take into account that this was voluntarily disclosed offending.
The term of the sentence is seven years. It will commence three months after the last imposed term. Having found special circumstances, the non-parole period includes a more substantial discount than has previously been provided to take account of the totality of the sentences imposed. The non-parole period is three years, commencing three months after the last imposed term. It commences on 24 July 2014, and expires on 23 July 2017 when, in the absence of any further sentence, the offender would be eligible for parole. The balance of term is four years, commencing on 24 July 2017, and expiring on 23 July 2021.
194The offences against J occurring on different occasions, I have determined that it is appropriate to accumulate the next imposed sentence by three months on the last imposed sentence in respect of J, to acknowledge the fact that they are entirely separate offences.
195Count 11 - J - Section 66A(2), also taking into account a further four offences on a Form 1, being two offences contrary to s61M(2) and two offences contrary to s61O(2). I take into account that this was voluntarily disclosed offending.
The term of the sentence will be seven years, commencing three months after the last imposed term. Having found special circumstances, the non-parole period is three years. It will commence on 24 October 2014, and expire on 23 October 2017, when the offender will, as a matter of practicality, first become eligible to be released on parole.
The balance of term is four years, commencing on 24 October 2017, and expiring on 23 October 2021.
196I recommend that when released on parole the offender be subject to the supervision of the Probation and Parole Service, with particular regard to assisting him in respect of psychological and/or psychiatric counselling and/or treatment in respect of sexual offending.
197I note that, in considering the principle of totality, I regard the accumulated non-parole period imposed in this matter as being the minimum that the offender should spend in full-time custody.
198I have allowed, as a result of special circumstances, and the accumulation of the sentences in respect of Counts 10 and 11, a greater reduction in the statutory relationship between the non-parole period and the balance of term than would otherwise have been the case, to provide for what the Court regards as a necessary substantial period of supervision on parole.
199Mr Lord, the effect is that, as I previously expressed to you, the accumulated sentence provides for a total term of imprisonment of ten years, commencing on 24 October 2011. Because of the accumulation of the non-parole periods, you will be first eligible for parole on 23 October 2017.
200If released on that date, you will be subject to a further balance of term, being what is referred to as a parole period of four years, commencing on 24 October 2017 and expiring on 23 October 2021.
201A significant matter in relation to whether you are released on parole when first eligible will be the extent to which Corrective Services and the Probation and Parole authority believe that you have made an endeavour to correct your sexual orientation as it relates to children, and that will, to a significant degree, depend on your participation during the time of your imprisonment in such rehabilitation programmes as are available.
202It is, accordingly, effectively in your hands as to whether you are released at the earliest opportunity on 23 October 2017.
203If you should commit any further offences or breach parole when you are released, you will, of course, be returned to custody for the balance of any unexpired parole period at that time.