//
[2025] NSWDC 479
General information, not legal advice.
District Court of NSW
2025-11-20
Noman 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 Marsh [2025] NSWDC 479
Hearing dates: 7 October and 20 November 2025
Decision date: 20 November 2025
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Noman SC DCJ
Decision: Indicative sentences nominated: Count 1: 5 years with 3 years NPP; Count 2: 5 years with 3 years NPP; Count 3: 6 years with 3 years 8 months NPP; Count 4: 18 months; Count 5: 20 months; Count 6: 2 years 3 months; Count 8: 1 year; Count 9: 1 year; Count 10: 4 months; Count 11: 1 year; Count 12: 1 year; Count 13: 1 year; Count 14: 15 months; Count 15: 2 years with 1 year 3 months NPP; Count 16: 1 year; Count 17: 2 years; Count 18: 1 year; Count 19: 18 months; Count 20: 2 years. Aggregate sentence imposed is 9 year imprisonment with a non-parole period of 5 years and 6 months to date from 11 April 2025. Eligible for release to parole on 10 October 2030.
Catchwords: SENTENCING – sentence after trial – supply prohibited drugs – deal with proceeds of crime – manufacture prohibited drug – possess prohibited firearm - imprisonment
Legislation Cited: ss193B(3) and 193C(2) Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
ss24(1), 25(1) and 2 Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW)
S7(1) Firearms Act 1996 (NSW)
Category: Sentence
Parties: Rex;
Patrick Brian Marsh
Representation: Counsel:
Crown: S Drumgold SC
Defence: A Radojev; Dr T Hickie
Solicitors:
Crown: Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW)
Defence: Pearl Beaumont
File Number(s): 2024/49551; 2023/4757; 2022/386073; 2023/93990
The offender, Patrick Brian MARSH, was arrested on drug supply offences and related offences on various dates in 2022 and 2023.
Those matters came for trial, and the offender was arraigned before a jury on 26 June 2025 on an indictment containing 20 counts.
He entered pleas of not guilty to all counts. The jury returned verdicts of guilty, either unanimously [counts 1-6, 9, 11-14, 18 and 20] or by majority [counts 8,10,15-17 and 19] on 19 counts. They were unable to agree on count 7 and were discharged without returning a verdict. It is contemplated that there may be a determination that there be no further proceedings.
The offender was of interest to the police. He was under surveillance on 21 and 22 December 2022. The first arrest was on 22 December 2022, an occasion when the offender was stopped in his car. Drugs [count 6] and money [count 7] were located. The proceeds of crime offence listed in count 7 did not result in a verdict. Police then searched his home. At the time of the search Richard Roberts was present. Drugs, money and a firearm were located [counts 8-15].
Police accessed communication on the phone seized from the accused upon arrest. The subsequent analysis yielded drug related communications that supported other drug supply charges for dates in 2022 [counts 1-5].
The offender was again stopped by police in his car on 5 January 2023. Drugs and money were located [counts 16 and 17].
A further search warrant was executed on his Forest Lodge home on 22 March 2023. Drugs were located [counts 18 and 19]. Police returned and executed a further search warrant on 18 May 2023. Police located items in shelving behind a sliding door that were consistent with drug manufacture having occurred. This area had not previously been located. The items found and related expert evidence supported the drug manufacture charge [count 20]. Previous searches had located similar glassware within the house. As at the date of this search the offender was in custody and had been since his arrest on 22 March 2023. His arrest date informed the end date of the charge.
Most of the evidence centred on items located during the execution of search warrants at premises in Forest Lodge. This was a house leased by the offender from 2017. He was the sole lessee. In 2022 he allowed his friend, Richard Roberts, to reside in the lounge room. Mr Roberts gave evidence of when he resided there which was for a shorter period than the offender, and his partner Ainsley Allen, indicated in their evidence. It is unnecessary that this be determined.
During the offending period, and continuing at the time of the trial, the offender was in a relationship with Ainsley Allen. She was present in the car at the time of the first arrest. She was called as a witness in the defence case at trial. She was quite unimpressive as a witness. Given the verdicts, it is evident her evidence was not accepted by the jury.
The offender also gave evidence at trial. He was well prepared to give evidence. It was apparent during pre-trial arguments and during the jury trial that he had a thorough understanding of the prosecution brief. The manner in which he gave evidence reflected he was well prepared to provide exculpatory explanations for much of the evidence. He had sourced various documents to bolster his account. His thoroughness was impressive. His veracity was not evident. The jury verdicts reflect they did not accept the offender’s denials.
The indictment was amended on numerous occasions throughout the trial. This was done by consent and would not have occasioned any prejudice to the offender. It reflected a failure by the prosecution to vet the matter and a failure to screen the matter more thoroughly once the initial imprecision was detected. At the very least it should be expected that the drug type and weight nominated in an analyst’s certificate would be the drug type and weight nominated in the related count. That the jury ultimately detected a further error demonstrates the attention they brought to their role.
To assist the jury, the Crown tendered Exhibit AAU. All seizures, quantities and locations are listed in this exhibit. The seizures listed in green are those the offender admitted possession of in evidence in chief, and the seizures listed in red are those the offender admitted possession in cross examination. For some seizures such as the N,N-dimethyltryptamine seizure constituting part of count 13, the offender admitted possession in evidence in chief yet denied possession in cross-examination.
On 21 December 2022 at 2:30pm, police officers commenced surveillance proximate to the offender’s premises at Forest Lodge.
At 5:27pm, the offender sent a message to Roberts saying, “Can you pull 20k out for burwood pls”. Roberts responded from 5:27pm: “Okay mate”, and “Signal for such messages. Sent car stuff here for retention”. Signal is said to be a reference to the encrypted app.
At 11:15pm, the offender and Ms Allen left the premises at Forest Lodge, and both entered a Toyota Camry. The pair travelled to Camperdown and then to Burwood, where they stopped at multiple locations, with either the offender or both exiting the vehicle on some occasions.
At 12:10am on 22 December 2022, the vehicle travelled to Speedway Petrol Station at 273 Paramatta Road where it came to a stop adjacent to a petrol pump and the headlights were turned off. At 12:17am, the Camry left that service station and travelled down the road to Metro Petroleum at 163 Parramatta Road.
At 12:18am, the Camry left that service station and travelled down the road to 7-Eleven Haberfield at 25 Parramatta Road, where the vehicle came to a stop.
After the Camry pulled into the 7-Eleven, police made the decision to stop the vehicle.
As officers approached the Camry, the offender was on the outside of the vehicle near the front passenger side door and Ms Allen was in the driver’s seat. An officer directed the offender not to move and to put his hands on top of the vehicle, to which he complied.
Another officer approached the driver’s side door and directed Ms Allen to get out of the vehicle. Ms Allen commenced yelling at the officer and was manually removed from the vehicle by the officer. Whilst police were engaged with Ms Allen, the offender put his left hand down his pants and removed an envelope, which he then threw away from him. Police retrieved the envelope from where it was observed the offender threw it. Inside the envelope was a clear plastic resealable bag containing crystal shards. The contents of that envelope were later analysed and found to contain 139.8g of methylamphetamine.
Police then searched the offender, during which his mobile phone was located and seized. The offender was placed under arrest and conveyed to Burwood Police Station.
This conduct is reflected in count 6.
On 22 February 2023, the content of the offender’s phone which had been seized by police on 22 December 2022 was downloaded.
Police obtained messages on the encrypted Signal and Threema applications. Exhibits AA and AC provided calculations as to total drugs supplied. Based on an analysis of the messages, the offender supplied, agreed to supply or offered to supply, the various prohibited drugs in either simpliciter quantities or large commercial quantities.
This analysis supported the conduct reflected in counts 1 to 5.
Later in the morning on 22 December 2022, a search warrant was executed at the Forest Lodge premises. The warrant was executed over about 5 ½ hours. Mr Roberts was in the home for most of that time. He was arrested over drugs he accepted to be his and after arrest he was taken to a police station. He subsequently entered pleas of guilty and was sentenced. He gave evidence in the trial denying any other drugs were his.
As the warrant was executed, the relevant items were seized. The recordings captured different drugs to be located in various locations. The deeming provision had some application. The $53, 860 was found in a pencil case at the premises. The firearm was located in a vintage sewing machine. The offender did not hold a licence or permit to possess a prohibited firearm.
This conduct is reflected in counts 8-15.
On 5 January 2023, the offender was pulled over whilst driving in Rushcutters Bay. The offender was placed under arrest for a positive roadside drug test which indicated methylamphetamine was in his system.
Police officers then conducted a search of the offender’s Mercedes vehicle.
The relevant items, drugs and money located in the backpack in the car, and in the console of the car, were seized.
This conduct is reflected in counts 16 and 17.
On 22 March 2023 the offender was located and placed under arrest. Upon being searched, police located a clear resealable bag found to contain 0.45 grams of methylamphetamine (part of Count 18).
Police then conducted a second search of the Forest Lodge premises.
The search commenced at about 11:30am, during which the two different drugs were located in separate bags.
This conduct is reflected in counts 18 and 19.
On 18 May 2023, police executed a search warrant at the Forest Lodge premises. The offender was remanded after his arrest in March and was therefore not residing at the property. Another acquaintance of the offender was associated with the premises.
A searching officer lent against a timber wall which moved. Behind this sliding wall was a clandestine laboratory.
Chemical Operations processed the crime scene, locating and seizing numerous exhibits.
The offender’s fingerprints were found on some items, and photographs of a laboratory had previously been found on the offender’s phone.
Each of those three substances used to manufacture the illicit substance gamma butyrolactone were located at the Forest Lodge premises. Based on the amount of the chemical GABA that was present at the scene, a maximum of 176 grams of GBL could be produced.
This conduct is reflected in count 20.
The maximum penalty for an offence under s.25(2) Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act is life imprisonment and there is a standard non-parole period of 15 years. This applies to counts 1, 2 and 3.
The maximum penalty for an offence under s.25(1) Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act is 15 years imprisonment. This applies to counts 4 to 6, 8-13, 16, 18 and 19.
The maximum penalty for an offence under s.24(1) Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act is 15 years imprisonment. This applies to count 20.
The maximum penalty for an offence under s.193C(2) Crimes Act is 3 years imprisonment. This applies to count 14.
The maximum penalty for an offence under s.193B(3) Crimes Act is 15 years imprisonment. This applies to count 17.
The maximum penalty for an offence under s.7(1) Fi**rearms Act is 14 years imprisonment and there is a standard non-parole period of 4 years. This applies to count 15.
The maximum penalty, and where applicable a standard non-parole period, provides a guide as to the seriousness with which an offence is held by the legislature.
In assessing each count, I have taken into account the overall circumstances. The offender was involved in the drug business. He ‘supplied’ various drug types.
Some portions of the defence submissions invite disregarding the verdicts of the jury. Aspects appear to be a draft of the submissions on the foreshadowed conviction appeal. This renders those portions of little assistance and more of an unnecessary distraction. I have sought to distil the arguments. I have carefully considered the defence table identifying the challenge to the Crown’s case on the downloaded messages.
The offender was undoubtedly involved in the drug offending for profit. Given the presentation of his home, it does not reflect that he saved or retained that profit. Given the available evidence on sentence, it is likely he spent profits on his own drug use and on gambling. It was frittered away.
The most serious counts involve the offender knowingly taking part in the supply and an analysis of communications. Three counts involve not less than the large commercial quantity. Quantity is one of the many relevant factors. The drugs involved were said to be supplied or the subject of agreements to supply. There is no suggestion the offender did not intend to supply or that he was not in a position to follow through with what was discussed. Not all drugs were provably disseminated. Many other drug counts are reliant on the locating of the drugs and therefore those drugs were not disseminated. This fact means the community was not at risk, but it was not through the conduct of the offender that they did not infiltrate into the community.
The offender was a drug user involved to obtain profit. It was not entirely for greed.
This evidence well supports the offender was in the business of drug supply. He engaged in communications arranging supplies, he travelled to facilitate supplies, and he had drugs available in his home for supply. He was not a street level supplier and dealt in larger quantities. He may have been involved with others, but he was an organiser within his own business. Ms Allen was in the car whilst he was transporting drugs. He had discussed with Mr Roberts that he needed $20,000 to go to Burwood and that is where he travelled with Ms Allen. Mere presence does not suggest others were meaningfully involved.
Each count is assessed informed by these factors as well as the quantity compared to the range of the offence provision. Count 1 involved 1012.25 grams for an offence with a lower limit of 500 grams, count 2 involved 2965.6 grams for an offence with a lower limit of 1kg and count 3 involved 4131.2 grams for an offence with a lower limit of 500 grams. In the absence of the jury I invited both counsel to scrutinise the individual texts and the opinion evidence. I formed no concluded view as I was neither the tribunal of fact nor was I asked to do so. I observe for each of these counts the jury were instructed they did not need to be satisfied of each individual communication, as long as from those they were satisfied of, the amount was more than the large commercial quantity. The defence was not conducted on the basis of an examination or critique of individual representations not falling within the definition of ‘taking part in the supply’. The process of challenging individual entries is now advanced on sentence. It is suggested messages are mostly not within the extended definition of supply [AWS [17]]. A table nominating the scope of the challenge is tendered. This table is supported by detailed supplementary submissions on behalf of the offender. An analysis is provided, some of which is inconsistent with the verdicts. I accept the defence submission that the sentence should be on the basis of the extended definition of supply rather than actual supplies. Based on the conduct of the trial and the evidence therein, and the submissions on sentence, I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the total amount pleaded. I appreciate that there is limited evidence of actual supplies and a significant reliance upon the extended definition of supply. Therefore, it is not the case all communications resulted in supplies and related payments.
When considering count 14, I am mindful that it entails only that a person deals with property, and that there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the property is proceeds of crime. Count 17 is more serious as it is a money laundering offence and it involves that a person who deals with proceeds of crime being reckless as to whether it is proceeds of crime. In determining this sentence, I cannot determine the offender had actual knowledge as that is the state of mind for a more serious provision.
I have considered that the two counts are different in seriousness with different knowledge. I have considered the quantum. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that sentence should proceed upon the full amount nominated in the count.
The firearm is an item often affiliated with drug supply. I infer it was for protection rather than any other nefarious purpose. It was a gel blaster which sits at the lower level within the definition of firearm.
Count 20 involves the offender knowingly taking part in the manufacture. He had manufacture related photos on his phone and provided the premises. Whether anyone else was involved in unknown. Very little is otherwise known. There was no particular sophistication beyond the minimum required to manufacture.
I note the submissions on behalf of the parties as to the seriousness of offences.
I determine that counts 1, 2, 3, 6, 14 and 17 are moderately serious examples of the respective offence provisions. As counts 1 to 3 and count 15 are standard non-parole period offences I indicate that each is well below the mid-range of objective seriousness. The other offences are of less seriousness, although informed by no offence being isolated.
The offender relies upon his background of sexual abuse as a child including participating in The Australian Naval Cadets to support lessening his moral culpability. The offender made application under the National Redress Scheme which applied to persons who had experienced institutional child sexual abuse. His application resulted in a payment in January 2025 of $95,000.
The details supporting this claim are addressed in the hearsay account provided to Dr Furst, forensic psychiatrist. Dr Furst provided a report. Therein it is indicated that he had access to earlier psychiatric and psychological reports prepared for earlier court proceedings. This included his own report from 2014. Although there are medico-legal reports there are no reports supporting treatment occurred for any issues in the interim. There is reference to treatment from 2019 to 2023 with Dr Cassimatas, psychiatrist. No report is tendered. Dr Furst however was able to access these reports to obtain a longitudinal understanding.
The offender indicated his father was in the Navy and consequentially they moved often necessitating his attendance at many schools. The offender considered this disruptive and preventative of establishing friendships. He did not have a good relationship with his father. His father died after the index offending in 2023. Prior to his death he was recognised by receiving the honour of an OAM. His mother is indigenous, and the offender considered this excluded him from acceptance by his peers. The offender said for some reason he went to live for a period of time at the age of 7 with his aunt. The offender relies upon a letter of support written by his mother. She confirms a number of matters raised by the offender or contained in other material. I note she expresses her intention to continue to provide support.
The offender said a traumatising event was his older sister’s drug overdose when she was 16 and he was 13. He said his father’s responses to this event exacerbated his trauma.
The offender left home at 14 although he continued schooling. He ultimately completed the HSC and scored exceptionally well. This is all the more remarkable as his mother described the offender experiencing academic difficulties and being in special classes. It is opined by Dr Furst that the offender has no cognitive difficulties and is intelligent. That correlates with the background and also my observations of him during the course of the trial.
The offender advanced he was sexually abused by a female babysitter at the age of 6 or 7. He was later sexually abused through participation in Naval Cadets from the ages of 8 to 13 initially by an officer and then a fellow cadet. The offender indicated these experiences informed his low self-esteem as a child. He said he commenced using drugs to escape the emotional response.
Over the years he has abused different drugs to different extents. Some was recreational and others at the level of addiction. This background accords with his criminal record wherein his drug use and drug supply are recorded. I observe his evidence at trial was that he was still a user of drugs as at the time of offending although in the context that he operated his own successful business. The searches conducted at his home indicated various drugs in various amounts to be located throughout different rooms. The offender participated in the Remand Equips Addiction course in 2023 and was involved in the Smart Recovery program in 2025. He abused cocaine to such an elevated extent that he has suffered cardiac arrests in 2007. The offender also developed a gambling problem.
Consequent to his background, the offender remains anxious and subject to mood fluctuations and emotional lability. At times there was suicidal ideation. This history supports the opinion that the offender meets the criteria for poly substance use disorder, gambling disorder, ADHD and complex PTSD. It is not explained why the offender is not in remission for his drug use given the suggested abstinence.
The offender’s mental health and substance abuse are related to aspects of his background. The drug use informs his moving in the drug environment and his descent into drug supply over the years including the index periods in 2022 to 2023.
I determine that this history warrants lessening the offender’s moral culpability.
The offender first came before the court in 2004. Many of his offences relate to driving. Over the years he received various community-based orders escalating to an ICO and then a short term of imprisonment. His first offence for drug supply was in 2010. He received a suspended sentence. In 2015 he was sentenced for drug supplies that occurred in March 2012 and December 2012 and he received an aggregate sentence of imprisonment of 2 years with a non-parole period of 1 year.
This record, particularly the three previous drug supply sentences, disentitles him to leniency.
Dr Furst opined that the offender is emotionally vulnerable and prone to both depression and anxiety as a consequence of diagnosed mental disorders. It is opined his CPTSD makes him more vulnerable and render conditions more onerous. I accept this opinion.
The offender also provided versions of being assaulted twice during this remand and sexually assaulted on one of those occasions by different groups of offenders. These events have exacerbated his anxiety and distress. Corrective Services documents are tendered confirming an assault causing bruises and red marks to the face occurred on 15 August 2025.
Although unfortunately not unheard of, this treatment is beyond that tolerated in remanding a person into custody.
Each of these factors is of sufficient concern to ameliorate sentence.
The offender has entered into protective custody. This should enhance his security. If continued after sentence and classification, of which there is no certainty, it may but does not necessarily reflect harsher or more onerous conditions. There may be more restricted access to programs. Protective custody does not necessarily entail more onerous conditions.
On the day of sentence, the offender produced a spreadsheet he prepared with the assistance of Ms Allen. It has not been checked against gaol records by either party. It is prepared by two persons who gave unreliable evidence during the trial. There are obvious concerns about the document. However, I do accept that it is not unusual for prisoners to spend considerable periods of time in their cells. Limited periods out during the day are fairly standard and resource issues have increased the occasions of full day confinement. I do not regard this to be a suggestion of anything other than what any other prisoner would encounter. I do not regard the periods nominated in the document to warrant amelioration to sentence.
It is submitted that the trial could have been longer if there was additional cross-examination. I do not comprehend this submission. The evidence, if challenged, should have been challenged as necessary. That the cross-examination did not extend beyond that necessary is not worthy of benefit. That a witness who was not required was not called is also not warranting a benefit. I proceed on the basis that forensic decisions were made as to how to conduct a challenge to the prosecution evidence. Those decisions were informed by instructions and the facts in issue. If there was not cross-examination of witnesses, I assume this was because the evidence was not considered necessary to challenge.
I do favourably take into account the use of agreed facts.
[REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
It is Dr Furst’s opinion that the offender appears to be at the moderate risk of reoffending and to have reasonable prospects of being successfully rehabilitated. Dr Furst has made recommendations for treatment plans whilst the offender serves his sentence and then once he is released to parole. I infer the assessment about prospects is informed by adherence to the treatment plan. I note the offender was receiving psychiatric care for 4 years including throughout the period of offending. It is evident that given his background and the correlation with drug use, that his risk of reoffending can only be addressed by significant intervention and the offender’s determination. In addition to treatment, given his intelligence, the concern about the consequence of reoffending should bolster his resolve and therefore his prospects.
The offender is a recidivist when it comes to drug supply. He has considerable issues requiring that they be addressed as part of treatment. He has not accepted responsibility and has not advanced any insight or remorse. He was undergoing psychiatric treatment at the time of offending.
I consider his prospects of rehabilitation and of not reoffending to be guarded at the highest.
It follows personal deterrence has an important and continuing role to play.
In making this finding, I do not overlook the offender’s intrinsic potential should he address the deleterious issues in his life. He is evidently capable and industrious. He has demonstrated some business acumen in different fields over the years. He had and will have support in the community, and he has an opportunity to avail himself of treatment prior to his release into the community.
The offender’s partner Ms Allen has provided a letter of support. Therein she has exposed the difficulties encountered by both herself and the offender after his charging and the trial process and then her financial position and its impact after the offender entered custody upon verdict. Ms Allen remains unemployed after she developed PTSD which she attributes to the circumstances of the offender’s arrest on the first occasion. She previously held a relatively high-level government position. Despite her financial difficulties, which remain uncertain, she has indicated her preparedness to maintain her support for the offender.
Distressing though her impecunious situation is, it is the contemplated outcome from the loss of income when an offender enters custody. It is sadly all too common. I do acknowledge the change in circumstances. It does not cause me to ameliorate sentence.
I am assisted by the analysis by the defence of the sentencing statistics. They provide assistance as to previous outcomes for offences under the same offence provisions.
The Crown listed a number of decisions that were suggested to provide guidance. The cases provide assistance but are limited in not being truly comparable.
The offender was bail refused on:
22-23 December 2022 2 days
5-6 January 2023 2 days
21-25 January 2023 5 days
22 March- 30 June 2023 101 days
8 February 2024 1 day
8 April-31 May 2024 54 days
6 August 2025 -
I note the offender was serving a sentence from 7 April 2024 until 25 May 2024. This coincides with a period of remand, other than for six additional days. The period of 54 days should be 6 days. In total, there are 117 days on remand prior to entering custody after verdict on 6 August 2025. Sentence will be backdated to commence on 11 April 2025.
The offender is convicted on all offences for sentence.
I nominate the following indicative sentences:
Count 1: 5 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 3 years;
Count 2: 5 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 3 years;
Count 3: 6 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 3 years and 8 months;
Count 4: 18 months imprisonment;
Count 5: 20 months imprisonment;
Count 6: 2 years and 3 months imprisonment;
Count 8: 1 year imprisonment;
Count 9: 1 year imprisonment;
Count 10: 4 months imprisonment;
Count 11: 1 year imprisonment;
Count 12: 1 year imprisonment;
Count 13: 1 year imprisonment;
Count 14: 15 months imprisonment;
Count 15: 2 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 1 year and 3 months;
Count 16: 1 year imprisonment;
Count 17: 2 years imprisonment;
Count 18: 1 year imprisonment;
Count 19: 18 months imprisonment; and
Count 20: 2 years imprisonment.
The aggregate sentence imposed is one of 9 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 5 years and 6 months to date from 11 April 2025. The offender will be eligible to release to parole on 10 October 2030.
The variation of the statutory ratio to 61% reflects the finding of special circumstances.
I direct that a copy of the report of Dr Furst be forwarded to Justice Health.
**********
NB: The offender consented t**o references to child sexual abuse remaining in the published version of this judgment*.*
Formatting
R
Marsh [2025] NSWDC 479