//
[2025] NSWDC 458
General information, not legal advice.
District Court of NSW
2025-11-07
Newlinds SC DCJ
Original judgment source is linked above.
Zoe will write a short plain-English brief of this judgment and email it to you: what it was about, what the court decided and why. It can take up to a minute.
General information, not legal advice.
Or create a free account to save it and ask Zoe follow-up questions.
Source: NSW Caselaw (www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au). Converted to plain text by ZoeLaw. Not the official version.
Medium Neutral Citation: R v MA (a pseudonym) [2025] NSWDC 458
Hearing dates: 5 November 2025
Date of orders: 7 November 2025
Decision date: 07 November 2025
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Newlinds SC DCJ
Decision: (1) In relation to Count 1, after taking into account the 25% discount for the plea of guilty with some rounding in his favour, the Offender is sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 10 years commencing on 4 June 2025 and expiring 3 June 2035.
(2) There will be a minimum non-parole period of 6 years, expiring 3 June 2031, which is the first day the Offender will become eligible for parole.
Catchwords: CRIME — Break, enter and commit serious indictable offence — Offence being robbery
SENTENCING — Aggravating factors — $100,000 stolen — Elderly victim at home alone — Unnecessary and gratuitous violence — Significant planning and premeditation — Offender a serving New South Wales Police officer — Used information gained during execution of search warrant to commit offence — Breach of trust — General deterrence a weighty factor — Reaction of people on social media caused harm to victim over and above what ordinarily expected — Taken into account as aggravating facto under s 21A(2)(g)
SENTENCING — Subjective considerations on sentence — Special circumstances — Offender suffers serious mental issues — PTSD from trauma exposed to during career as police officer — Root cause of offending
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) s 112(2)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) s 5; s 21A(2)(g); s 28
Cases Cited: Chung v R [2017] NSWCCA 48
Harris v R [2013] NSWCCA 296
O’Grady v R [2013] NSWCCA 281
R v Brewster [1998] 1 Cr App R 220
R v Ponfield (1999) 48 NSWLR 327
Category: Sentence
Parties: Rex (Crown)
MA (Offender)
Representation: Counsel:
A Charleston (solicitor) (Crown)
S Howell (Offender)
Solicitors:
ODPP (Crown)
Morrisons Law (Offender)
File Number(s): 2024/395259
Publication restriction: (1) The Offender be referred by the pseudonym “MA”.
(2) The publication of any of the following information is prohibited: Anything tending to reveal the identity of MA, in connection with these reasons or the evidence given in there proceedings.
(3) Orders (1) and (2) are to remain in force for 20 years from 5 November 2025.
(4) The Victim be referred to by the pseudonym “the Victim”.
(5) The publication of any information that may reveal the identity of the Victim in connection with these proceedings is prohibited.
(6) Orders (4) and (5) are to remain in force for 20 years from 5 November 2025.
(7) These orders are to apply to all media, including but not limited to print, radio, television, electronic, internet and social media.
As at 3 October 2024, the Offender, who I will refer to by the pseudonym “MA,” had been for about 9 years, a serving police officer in the NSW Police Force.
In that capacity, he had, in 2020, been involved in the execution of a search warrant at the home of the Victim in far west NSW. Under the authority of that warrant, he and others searched the Victim's premises, during which there was located a safe, containing a large amount of cash. The money had nothing to do with the crime being investigated.
4 years later, armed with that knowledge, the Offender, with a co-offender, drove from Sydney to the same town for the express purpose of breaking into the Victim's property, and stealing whatever money was in the safe.
A considerable amount of planning went into this operation. A car was borrowed, jerry cans of fuel were filled so as to avoid the need of filling up with petrol on the long drive, mobile phones were left behind, and upon arrival at the Victim’s residence, the house was observed for some time.
As things turned out, petrol was purchased on the trip. However, cash was paid for those purchases.
The purpose of the borrowed car, jerry cans, the payment of cash, and the leaving of the phones behind was to avoid detection by police for the crime that was planned.
On the evening of 3 October 2024, the Offender disguised his face with a stocking or balaclava, and he and the Co-offender went into the house without permission. He knew the Victim was inside because he and the Co-offender had observed the house that day.
The Offender entered the house first. He broke in by pulling open the front door. The Victim, who was 78 years’ old, was alone in the kitchen. The Offender roughly forced the Victim face down on the floor and cable tied his hands behind his back.
The Co-offender then entered the kitchen having come into the house shortly after the Offender. He cable-tied the Victim’s feet together. One of the Offenders then tightened the cable ties, then used black tape to further tie the Victim’s hands. The Victim was in pain and undoubtedly terrified.
The Offender then went into the room where he knew the safe was and began ransacking the place looking for the key to the safe. Both men questioned the Victim about the location of the key to his safe. The Co-offender said, “Stop lying. If you don’t give us the key to the safe, we’ll chuck [you] in the car and take [you] out to the dam.” The Co-offender kicked the Victim in the head. The Victim eventually told them where the key was, and the Offender went and got it.. One of the Offenders told the Victim not to contact the police.
The Offender used the key to the safe to open it and stole approximately $100,000 in Australian currency. The two men then left the home with the Victim still tied up on the floor despite him asking that they untie him.
The Offender pleaded guilty at the Local Court to the offence of aggravated break, enter, and commit serious indictable offence – the serious indictable offence being robbery ($100,000), pursuant to s 112(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW).
This offence carries a maximum penalty of 20 years imprisonment and has a 5-year standard non-parole period.
The conduct of the Offender, as described in the Agreed Facts, which I have summarised, is, in my opinion, an extremely serious example of this type of offending.
The offence involved significant planning and serious attempts to avoid detection. On behalf of the Offender, it is submitted that it cannot be fairly said, as the Crown contends, that the offending was professionally planned, organised, or executed.
I do not accept that submission. Whilst the Offender, having no criminal record, cannot be described as a professional criminal, that does not mean that this crime was not well planned and organised in, what can reasonably be described as, a professional manner. Certainly, quite sophisticated and multiple attempts were made to avoid detection, both before and after the offending, all of which must have been planned over a considerable period of time of at least days. No doubt the Offender learned about these methods of avoiding detection from being a police officer.
The Crown has emphasised the following factors, which I accept. They all support my conclusion that the objective seriousness of the offending is very serious:
The Offender knew the Victim was an elderly man at home alone;
The Offender's time in the premises lasted about 30 minutes.
The threatened use of violence;
The actual use of violence;
The offence was committed in company;
The Offender engaged in ransacking the Victim's home;
The Victim felt scared, violated, and no longer feels safe in his own home;
The Victim suffered pain, impressions from the cable tie restraints, scattered bleeding and bruising, and abrasions on his knees; and
The value of property stolen was $100,000, which is a significant amount for offences of this kind.
There are the following aggravating factors pursuant to s 21A(2) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) (“Sentencing Procedure Act”):
The offence was committed in the home of the Victim: Chung v R [2017] NSWCCA 48 at [47];
In my opinion, the offence involved gratuitous cruelty. The Victim had his arms twisted behind his back and his hands and feet cable tied. His hands were further secured with black tape, before being placed on the ground. The Victim was kicked in the head. The Victim was then left tied up on the floor. He was an old man compared to the Offenders. None of this cruelty was necessary for the robbery to succeed. The Victim was an old man who could have easily been controlled by the two younger men;
The Offender abused a position of trust in relation to the Victim. The information in relation to the Victim's situation and safe contents came to the Offender through his role in the NSW Police Force. I will return to this aspect, which I consider significant;
The Victim was vulnerable. He was 78 years old and lived alone;
The offence was part of a planned or organised criminal activity. There was significant planning and premeditation for this offence. Further, both before and after the offence the Offender went to great lengths to avoid detection; and
The offence was committed for financial gain.
As Mr Howell, who appeared for the Offender, has quite rightly submitted, it is important that I do not double up between my consideration of the objective seriousness of the offending by taking into account, as I must, what actually happened and then again take some of those same factors into account when considering aggravation. For example, the fact that the offence happened in the Victim's home, that he was vulnerable, and was planned in the way I have described are all matters which I have taken into account when considering the objective seriousness of the offending. They are aggravating factors, but I must be careful not to double count them so as to arrive at a disproportionately high sentence.
As far as the offence being committed for financial gain, whilst this is a one of the statutory aggravating factors, it seems to me that in an offence of robbery, whilst it is not inevitable that the motive will be some sort of financial gain, it will be commonplace. I do not think it appropriate in the circumstances to take that into account as an aggravating factor, again for that reason, but also because I have already determined that the money being stolen was a significant part of the objective seriousness of the offending.
I have sought to be cautious and have been conscious to avoid such double counting in my approach and, where I have given significant weight to a factor for the purpose of determining objective seriousness, have sought to put to one side that same matter when considering aggravation.
At the time of the offence, the Offender was 36 years old. He was born in Albury and is the youngest of three boys. His father worked for a bank and his mother as an aged care nurse. He had a normal and happy childhood and was not exposed to any trauma. The Offender completed both primary and high school and was particularly interested in sport.
On leaving school, the Offender worked in security before he joined the police in 2014. He married and had two children who are now aged 10 and 7. He previously had a child with a former partner when he was 22. His first child is now 15.
In 2021, the Offender’s marriage broke down. At the time of the offence, he was living alone in an apartment south of Sydney.
The Offender worked as a police officer for about nine years. He was in general duties for between six and seven years before moving into a detective unit. The Offender’s goal was to ultimately become an Inspector. For several years, he was ambitious, driven, and aspired to advance in his career. During his career however, he was exposed to traumatic incidents, including homicides, suicides, fatal car accidents, the recovery of deceased people, victims of assaults including sexual assaults, and child abuse material.
Beginning in 2019, the Offender began conducting a large number of data extractions from mobile and computer devices containing images of sexual assault and child abuse. It was necessary, when assigned a matter of this nature, to view the material and classify it by severity to prepare briefs of evidence. By 2021, his mental state had started to deteriorate, his marriage had failed, and he was irritable, agitated, depressed, and uninterested in activities. He started trying to avoid certain types of jobs when at work. He was particularly affected by several cases, including the death of a baby, a near-fatal car accident where a female victim sustained serious physical injuries to her head and neck with lifelong consequences, and the death of a young adult whom he had previously met as the victim in another case. In September 2023, there was a workplace incident in which a probationary constable recklessly pointed her firearm at him in the police station. About five weeks later, the probationary officer did it again. Throughout his time as a serving police officer, he did not receive proactive psychological support in relation to his repeated exposure to trauma.
By October 2023, the Offender was showing many symptoms of a deteriorating mental state and was referred by his general practitioner to a psychologist Dr Olga Lavalle on a background of sleep difficulties, anxiety, and depressive symptoms. Dr Lavalle noted at the time that the Offender was experiencing a wide range of PTSD symptoms.
In early January 2024, the Offender became overwhelmed at work. He called in sick the day after and did not return to active duty. His last day at work was 5 January 2024, and he was referred to the transition unit for medical discharge from the police force.
“He explains that after stopping work, his symptoms worsened. At the time, he was experiencing both depressive and anxiety symptoms, as well as reliving traumatic events through nightmares and flashbacks. He also had sleep disturbances and difficulties with eating.
He explains that during this period, he began drinking alcohol as a way to cope, but this escalated over time. He also started gambling, which became another unhealthy coping mechanism. He describes this period as a downhill spiral, explaining that he had thoughts of self-harm and suicide. He tells me that he did not want to die, but also did not want to live, feeling lost and disconnected. He explains that everything felt like a blur.”
Dr Lavalle’s opinion is that, by January 2024, the Offender had developed a major depressive disorder, with a notable decline in his daily functioning and self-care, with continued disrupted sleep and recurring nightmares, marked decrease in appetite, increased disorganisation, panic attacks, frequent dissociative episodes, together with intense feelings of hopelessness, worthlessness, and shame.
In December 2024, he was admitted to a Private Mental Health Facility. On admission, his medications were changed. He identified his concerns at that time as poor sleep, nightmares, anxiety, rumination, low mood, irritability and emotional dysregulation. He reported having been sober for about a month but said that before that he had been drinking 20-25 standard drinks most nights of the week. In March this year, he was again admitted to that facility for further inpatient care.
A diagnosis of PTSD was confirmed by consultant psychiatrist Dr Abdul Khan in February this year and by Dr Nabil in March this year. In Dr Khan’s opinion, the Offender’s diagnosis of PTSD:
“first manifested around 2021, in the context of protracted work-related traumatic incidents that he endured in the course of his employment as a police officer with the New South Wales Police Force.”
“it is noted that prior to the index offending, he had been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder and major depressive disorder and had prior psychological and psychiatric treatment. Of relevance is that a large amount of information points to his experience of various traumatic events through his work with the police, to which mental health issues were attributed.
…
in my view, he has diagnoses of posttraumatic stress disorder and major depressive disorder. He continues to report sustained low mood and various symptoms seen in PTSD such as sleep disturbance, emotional dysregulation, hypervigilance, hyperarousal, avoidance phenomena, dissociation and being triggered by reminders of distress or trauma. Of relevance is that he was reporting problems with mental health issues and seeking psychological/psychiatric treatment prior to the index offending.
I formed the view that there is likely to be an association between an impaired mental state exacerbated by alcohol (used as a maladaptive coping mechanism), which impaired his judgment and consideration of the consequences of the offending. He had been deemed incapable of working as a result of mental health issues, suggesting significant impairment, and with the likely effect of not adequately considering the consequences of his behaviour.”
The Offender has retained the support of his family and friends. Dr Martin is of the opinion his prospects of rehabilitation are reasonable on the assumption he engages with psychological and psychiatric treatment, is appropriately medicated, and manages problematic coping mechanisms such as alcohol and gambling. He notes, however, that the Offender is at risk of ongoing symptoms of PTSD and major depression, which carry the potential for him to self-harm and are likely to have a detrimental impact on his future capacity.
I am satisfied that the Offender’s prospects of rehabilitation are good and the chances of him reoffending are low.
“Our first response on receiving the news of his arrest was that “This is not [the Offender], this is not something in his nature”.”
“… is deeply remorseful for the crime he has been involved in and for the impact this has had on the victim. These days, [the Offender] struggles to open up and talk about how he feels and his struggles. However, as his mum, I can hear in his voice and see in his eyes the pain he feels for what he did to the victim. The pain and fear he would have caused the victim has been weighing on [the Offender] each day since this all happened.”
“From the time of his arrest, his total humiliation, devastation and utter remorse have been clear to us. He has felt shame that his actions have caused grief, particularly to the victim, but also to his loved ones. I believe he will continue to reflect on this for some considerable time.”
His uncle gave similar evidence.
Dr Martin also notes that, upon assessment, the Offender:
“… expressed remorse in relation to the offending, stating ‘as soon as I did it, I felt bad’ and he said that leaving the victim tied up was harmful. He also expressed significant regrets in relation to the effect on his own children of the events in the expectation of receiving a lengthy prison sentence.”
I accept the above evidence. However, the Offender has not offered to repay the missing money, which I feel points in the other direction as far as insight is concerned. A person who steals someone’s money, with a full understanding of the lack of morality involved, would at least offer to pay it back.
That being said, I accept that he is deeply remorseful and ashamed of his conduct.
The Offender has been in custody for approximately five months. He has been detained at Parklea Correctional Centre in a Non-Association (or “NA”) pod. He is in a cell by himself and has little to no interaction with other inmates.
Dr Lavalle is of the opinion the Offender is vulnerable in custody. She notes the stress and isolation of custody has the potential to worsen his symptoms of PTSD and depression. She notes his risk of self-harm and suicide is real. Dr Martin is also of the opinion the Offender’s experience of custody will be onerous. I accept that evidence and take it into account in the Offender’s favour for the purpose of considering an appropriate sentence and also with considerably more weight on the question of the non-parole period.
The principles for this type of offending are explained in various cases, including the guideline judgment of R v Ponfield (1999) 48 NSWLR 327 at [48], R v Brewster [1998] 1 Cr App R 220 at 225, Harris v R [2013] NSWCCA 296 at [58], and O’Grady v R [2013] NSWCCA 281 (“O’Grady”) at [43].
In short, such offences are repeatedly described as very serious. To quote O'Grady:
"The invasion of people's homes and the plundering of their property is a social evil from which the community looks for protection to the law enforcement agencies and the criminal courts"
The stark and unusual fact here is that the Offender was a serving police officer at the time and the information he had concerning the Victim was obtained under compulsion of law in circumstances of trust where the State had sanctioned the Offender and others to go into the Victim's home and search through his personal and private affairs, for good reason. A search warrant is a State sanctioned invasion of privacy. Search warrants are an important tool for detecting crime, but the price is people’s otherwise private affairs are examined by strangers.
The notion that a serving police officer would then use information gained that way to plan a robbery of a person subjected to a search at a later date is one of the reasons I consider the seriousness of this offending to be very high. It wholly subverts the entire concept of the State sanctioned invasion of privacy by use of warrants. It is also important for another reason. Such conduct must be deterred. Use of private information gathered by the process of search warrants for anything other than proper purposes connected to the administration of justice is entirely unacceptable and must be deplored. Anyone considering that sort of conduct must understand that, if caught, they will be met with stern punishment.
I have already mentioned the injuries suffered by the Victim and the trauma involved in having his home invaded for the purpose of a robbery.
All of that is perhaps to be expected and is built into the significant penalties imposed by Parliament.
In this case, the Victim has provided an impact statement by letter which I accept. He has suffered in a way perhaps not contemplated by Parliament when imposing the penalties, which I will explain. The search where the Offender obtained the information about the safe resulted in the Victim being charged and convicted of a child sexual offence. Despite his conviction, he remains adamant that he is in fact innocent. I, however, proceed on the basis that he is guilty.
The robbery received attention in the local media, which resulted in many people on Facebook and other social media platforms commenting that they felt that the Offender was some sort of hero because he had assaulted and robbed a convicted paedophile. This culminated in many people, previously friendly to the Victim, shunning him. He feels he has lost many friends and acquaintances, not as a consequence of his conviction, but as a consequence of the conduct of the Offender.
On top of all this, he is understandably extremely aggrieved of the misuse by the Offender of information obtained on the search warrant.
I consider the consequences to the Victim to be extraordinary and over and above what might be considered usual or expected. The Victim had served his time for his crime and was entitled to be left alone to live his life without being bashed and robbed by a police officer involved in investigating his crime. Let alone, members of the public vilifying the Victim and praising the Offender.
Some time was spent debating the proper use of the evidence of the unusual consequences of this case. In some quarters, the Offender has been elevated into a hero status, whilst the Victim has been branded the villain. This is, not just wrongheaded, it is highly unusual, although will perhaps become more common as the cowardly use of social media allowing people to say outrageous things with impunity increases. Ordinarily, right-thinking members of the general public would feel sorry for the Victim and consider the Offender to be a serious criminal.
The impact to the Victim should be considered as victim impact for the purpose of s 28 of the Sentencing Procedure Act. If one limits the consequences to the Victim to pain, suffering, and trauma involved in not feeling safe in his home, without diminishing that impact, it is tolerably clear that those sort of direct physical and emotional consequences are expected in this sort of offending, and such consequences are built into the significant penalty prescribed by Parliament.
The question is whether, for the purpose of s 21A(2)(g) of the , should this indirect emotional harm caused by cruel and unthinking members of the public be taken into account as substantial harm?
It is common ground that the threshold imposed by s 5 has been passed and that no other sentence other than full-time imprisonment is appropriate.
On behalf of the Crown, it is submitted that a lengthy period of imprisonment is required.
On behalf of the Offender, the following submissions are made.
First, the offending cannot be understood without appreciating the material contribution that the Offender’s underlying mental condition made to his decision to participate in the offence. The Offender would not have committed the offence if his decision-making was not impaired because of his PTSD and major depression. His impairment contributed to his decision to participate in the offence in a material way. The Offender’s moral culpability is reduced. It is also submitted that he is a less appropriate person to use as an example to others and consequently general deterrence should carry less weight. His PTSD and major depression will also mean that the custodial sentence that must be imposed will weigh more heavily on him. This factor should reduce the length of the prison term, particularly having regard the conditions under which his non-parole period will be served.
Second, the Offender’s plea of guilty.
Third, the Offender’s genuine and deeply felt remorse.
Fourth, the fact he has no record of previous convictions and was a person of good character.
Fifth, that with appropriate treatment of his underlying mental conditions the Offender’s prospects for rehabilitation are good and he is unlikely to re-offend.
Each of these submissions is accepted, although I consider the connection between the PTSD and the offending to be tenuous and the significant premeditation involved reduces the weight I give to that matter. Nonetheless, I accept that, if not for his mental health issues, the Offender would not have offended.
I accept all of the matters put by the Offender and consider the Offender’s subjective case to have some weight. I think it highly unlikely that the Offender will reoffend and therefore subjective deterrence has little part to play in this exercise. That all being said, I cannot let the Offender’s subjective case overwhelm the very serious objective conduct. I consider very considerable weight must be given to general deterrence, that is deterrence that is not just directed to the community generally, but a message of real deterrence must be sent to all serving police officers and other people who, through the offices they hold, have access to personal and private information of citizens obtained under compulsion of law. The message is, that to misuse that information for the purpose of stealing from those people is wholly unacceptable, reprehensible, and will be met with very stern punishment.
In light of the facts that the Offender has never been in custody before, has no criminal record, is suffering from a series of mental health issues, and will suffer in custody greater than might otherwise be expected because of his former occupation, I make a finding of special circumstances. I propose to adjust the period before he becomes eligible for parole quite significantly in his favour.
The minimum period the Offender ought spend in custody will be 6 years.
The sentence will be backdated to 4 June 2025 to take into account the agreed period that the Offender has already been in custody referable only to this offending.
My orders are as follows:
In relation to Count 1, after taking into account the 25% discount for the plea of guilty with some rounding in his favour, the Offender is sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 10 years commencing on 4 June 2025 and expiring 3 June 2035.
There will be a minimum non-parole period of 6 years, expiring 3 June 2031, which is the first day the Offender will become eligible for parole.
With the consent of the parties, it is further ordered that:
Pursuant to s 219 of the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 (NSW), the cash in the approximate sum of $81,000 found on 23 December 2024 be delivered to the Victim.
Pursuant to s 97(1) of the Victim Rights and Support Act 2013 (NSW), the sum of $19,000 be paid out of the property of the Offender (MA) to the Victim by way of compensation for loss sustained through the offence for which the Offender has been convicted.
**********
R
MA
(1999) 48 NSWLR 327
About ten minutes after the Offenders left, the Victim was able to phone a neighbour for help. The neighbour arrived to find him restrained by the tape and cable ties. The cable ties had cut into his skin, causing him to bleed and his knees were grazed and bloodied from being forced to the ground.
The Victim suffered pain, impressions from the cable tie restraints, scattered bruising, and abrasions on his knees. He felt scared, violated, and no longer safe in his own home. I will return to the non-physical impact of this crime on the Victim.
After leaving the property, the Offenders drove to another town in western NSW. They took back roads from that point to avoid detection. They stopped and disposed of clothing, shoes, gloves, and torches, hiding these items in bushland about 20 metres from the road. They then drove through the night and arrived back in Sydney in the early hours of the following morning. The Co-offender returned the van to his friend. The Offender stored the cash.
The Offender was arrested and charged. He has pleaded guilty and is before the Court to be sentenced.
Approximately $80,000 of the $100,000 stolen was recovered. The police still have it. I will make an order for its return, but it is important to recognise that the Victim has been out of his money for more than a year. Even when returned, he will still be short $20,000.
The Offender was suffering from various mental health issues at the time, which I accept was partly causative of his offending. This reduces his moral culpability somewhat and I have taken it into account. The reason I say “somewhat” is that, notwithstanding the Offender has serious mental health issues, as a serving police officer, he must have known just how morally wrong his conduct was and as the offending was the result of significant planning, including a very long drive across NSW on the day, where he had plenty of time to change his mind, it is difficult to connect it directly to his mental health issues in a substantial way. That being said, I do accept that the Offender’s mental health issues were the root cause of the offending, although, the connection between PTSD and committing a planned robbery is, in my opinion, tenuous.
Following this, the Offender’s life spiralled out of control. He began to drink heavily and gamble, spending about $1,000 at a time and up to $40,000 in total. His mental state was generally poor, and he was self-destructive. He became reckless. His mental state in 2024 is summed up by psychiatrist Dr Nabil Malik:
Mr Howell has submitted that, effectively because the consequences are so unusual and would not have been reasonably foreseen by the Offender, or any other right-thinking person for that matter, there is effectively a break in the chain of causation and that the harm caused to the Victim by the public's unfair, illogical, and mean response is not something that ought properly be sheeted home to the Offender.
I disagree. Whilst I accept that this consequence was not foreseeable in the sense that concept is understood in other areas of the law and that there are other people involved in causing that harm beyond the Offender, the fact is there is a direct chain between the Offender’s conduct and the harm, in the sense that without the offending, it would not have occurred. The fact that the conduct of unthinking strangers forms part of the links in that chain of causation is, in my opinion, not relevant to a finding under s 21A(2)(g). I consider I should take it into account as significant harm over and above that which is assumed within the charge itself.
I accept that, because of the office he held, the Offender will suffer greatly whilst in custody. However, it must be observed that is but a natural consequence of him misusing his office in the way that he did. He was well aware of this potential consequence when he chose to do what he did. Having said that, the evidence of the Offender’s solicitor as to the conditions he is being held in at the present time is confronting. He is effectively in solitary confinement and will remain so.
The Crown has put before me a series of comparable cases which, consistent with the authorities I have referred to, demonstrate that crimes of this nature are met with significant punishment of lengthy periods in custody. Each case turns on its own facts and no two cases will ever be exactly comparable.
In all the circumstances, I consider a starting point is a term in custody of 13 years and 6 months imprisonment, from which there should be deducted 25% to take into account the early guilty plea.
That leaves a head sentence of 10 years, with some rounding in the Offender’s favour.