R v Mould

Child Abuse Material

1. As I have stated, the offender has pleaded guilty to a number of offences concerning child abuse material. This is the legislative scheme. Section 91FA of the Crimes Act 1900 defines the word "child" to mean "a person who is under the age of 16 years". Section 91FB(1) provides a definition of "child abuse material". It is this: "child abuse material" means material that depicts or describes, in a way that reasonable persons would regard as being, in all the circumstances, offensives - (a) a person who is, appears to be or is implied to be, a child as a victim of torture, cruelty or physical abuse, or (b) a person who is, appears to be or is implied to be, a child engaged in or apparently engaged in a sexual pose or sexual activity (whether or not in the presence of other persons), or (c) a person who is, appears to be or is implied to be, a child in the presence of another person who is engaged or apparently engaged in a sexual pose or sexual activity, or (d) the private parts of a person who is, appears to be or is implied to be, a child." I do not need to quote the definition of "private parts". They are as any member of community would expect. Section 91H(2) provides that: "A person who produces, disseminates or possesses child abuse material is guilty of an offence." The maximum penalty for this offence is imprisonment for ten years.
2. Most offences against s 91H concern child pornography. This is not such a case. The films made by the offender of his conduct towards some of the boys are all of his physical abuse towards them. The motivation does not fall within pars (b) or (c) of the definition in s 91FB(1). The only child abuse materials held by the offender at the time of his arrest were video cassette recordings made by him of his abuse of some of the boys. Insofar as that abuse is the subject of an assault charge, the penalty for recording it ought not be particularly great unless it were done for dissemination to others, and the continued possession of it when not viewed and reviewed for some form of gratification ought not be particularly great, especially when an offender has obsessive or compulsive personality traits which can lead to a person being, to use the vernacular, a bower bird or hoarder. On the other hand, where the offending recorded is not otherwise punished, an appropriate penalty for the production of the offensive material should be at least equal to and somewhat greater than the penalty for the original offending. I have used these principles in dealing with the offences relating to the production and possession of the child abuse material.

Facts

1. The agreed facts occupy 50 and a half pages. I shall, I trust, not be criticised for seeking to shorten them. As earlier indicated, the offender was a baseball coach and sometimes a baseball team manager. During the 80s and up until August 2010 he was a coach or manager at a baseball club on the Northern Beaches of Sydney. He coached or managed teams for age groups between 11 and 16. I do not know how baseball is organised, but at a higher level he coached representative teams for under 12s and under 14s. As the history which I quoted earlier establishes, he also was a coach or manager of some teams at State level.
2. His offending interaction with the boys consisted of a number of different activities. I shall describe them as "torment". Some of them were given names. One of them is described as a "toer". Toers involved one of the boy's feet being placed in the offender's lap. The offender would then twist either a right toe or a left toe and in an outward, prolonged or forceful manner which caused pain. Toers were timed and a number of toers might be administered in any one particular session, depending on the perceived severity of the punishment required.
3. Another torment was described as either "lazos" or "bee stings". These involved two or more thick red elastic bands being wrapped around the boy's foot, which was usually placed in the offender's lap. The offender would hold the child's foot down and use his other hand to draw the elastic band back. The elastic band would hit the inner sole of the foot, causing pain and welts. "Bee stings" were given in blocks or numbers, which could go as high as 60. The punishment could persist for up to an hour.
4. A third torment was known as a "crusher". That involved the boy's foot being placed in the lap of the offender. He used one hand to hold the foot in place and used his other hand to fold the foot inward in a crushing motion. These were also timed and the number of them varied in any particular session.
5. Another torment was known as a "wrister". The boy would lay face down on the ground or floor with his legs folded back above him. The offender would lean on top of him whilst his legs were folded back and his arms were held out in a Y shape. The offender would then lean over the boy and twist his wrists, causing pain.
6. One of the torments involved twisting - that is, flexing, extending, laterally flexing and rotating toes. Another torment was repeated striking, especially of the palms of the hand, but sometimes the foot, with a wooden spoon. Sometimes the offender referred to the various torments as "scums".

Victim 1 - "Mike"

1. I shall describe the torments administered to Mike in some detail to explain the offender's modus operandi. One can assume that the torments administered to others were done in much the same way. Mike is currently 35 years old. When he was nine years old he was introduced to the offender. In 1994, when Mike was ten or 11 years old, he became member of the under 12s representative team and then had regular contact with the offender, who was part of the coaching staff. Mike's team trained with the offender twice a week. He also participated in private coaching sessions with the offender. The offender sometimes gave Mike lifts to and from baseball games as well as training sessions. The offender became close to Mike's family and sometimes had drinks with this parents.
2. Mike is unable to pinpoint the first time an assault occurred. However, sometime after 1994 during the individual training times he had alone with the offender, the offender would carry out punishments on Mike for alleged mistakes he made, or for being "cheeky". SEQUENCE 1 - COMMON ASSAULT
3. During the summer of 95/96 when Mike was 12 or 13 years old he was at his home with the offender. They were watching television, sitting in their shorts. It was during this time that the offender told Mike that he owed him a wrister. Mike got down on the ground, facedown, whilst the offender stood behind him. Mike lifted his legs and the offender pushed down on them, pinning them with his body weight. The offender grabbed hold of Mike's wrists and twisted them out to the sides, causing him pain. As this was occurring, the offender was rocking his body on Mike's legs. Mike's two brothers arrived home and walked into the room as this torment was occurring. The offender and Mike got up from the floor and the offender sat in a chair. Mike put his head in his arms to try to wipe away his tears. The offender told Mike's brothers that he was trying to help him stretch but had accidentally hurt him. SEQUENCE 2 - ASSAULT OCCASIONING ACTUAL BODILY HARM
4. In 1995 when Mike was 12 or 13 years old, he awoke one morning and could not walk properly on his right foot. That was after receiving toers the day before. Mike went to the doctor and X-rays confirmed that there was a fracture of one of his toes. The X-ray was performed on 19 April 1995, indicating that the offence occurred on or about 18 April 1995. Mike knows that his toe was fractured through a toer punishment because it did not damage his toe in any other way. There was no treatment for the fractured toe other than to tape it to other toes for a month. At the time, Mike lied about how he received his injury. He also did not tell the offender that he had fractured his toe. SEQUENCE 3 - COMMON ASSAULT ON A FORM 1, ATTACHED TO SEQUENCE 2
5. Between the years 1997 and 1998 when Mike was either 14 or 15 years old, one day after school he was with the offender on soccer fields practising baseball. They were working on fielding and Mike was picking up ground balls which the offender had hit towards him. For every ball that Mike missed, he was given a torment: a toer administered in the offender's vehicle. These caused Mike to cry. The offender said, "You can get through this, you're strong". When the torments were finished, the offender said to Mike, "You did well today, you're a tough kid". Mike did not tell anyone what happened to him, as he wanted training to become a better baseball player, and thought that these torments would make him tough and enable him to get through his training. SEQUENCE 4 - COMMON ASSAULT
6. Between 1998 and 1999 when Mike was 15 or 16 years old, he would workout with his friend Hal at Hal's house, lifting weights after school. The offender would pick Mike up from high school and take him to Hal's house. They would be alone for around 45 minutes to an hour before Hal arrived home. During this time, there were usually "punishments". The punishments were either inside the house, if the garage were open, or in the offender's van if the garage were locked.
7. On one particular occasion, the offender and Mike were in the offender's car, parked in the street near Hal's house. The punishments inflicted were bee stings. The offender made Mike hold onto the left passenger side handlebar and the other hand went around the driver's seat headrest. Mike's shoes were off and his right foot was in the lap of the offender. The offender put two rubber bands on Mike's right foot and commenced the bee stings. After a few, one of the bands snapped and the offender searched for another one, but he could not find one. As a result, Mike had to serve the rest of his "punishment" by way of a crusher. The offender kept his foot in the offender's lap and kept his eyes shut while that occurred. SEQUENCE 5 - COMMON ASSAULT
8. Also when Mike was 15 or 16 years old, he was picked up from school by the offender. Mike remembers it was at a time when his elective school sport was surfing. The offender took Mike to cricket nets at an oval in order that they could practise hitting with a baseball bat. After hitting practise, they went back to the offender's car, where Mike was told that he was to be punished for being cheeky, with bee stings. On this occasion, the offender inflicted about ten bee stings that caused Mike pain and left red marks on the sole of his foot. Whilst receiving these torments, Mike heard the sound of a video camera opening and filming. After about the eighth bee sting, whilst Mike was writhing in pain, he opened his eyes and saw the offender was holding a camera and filming him. During this incident, the offender said, "You're tough, you can deal with it, breathe and work through it".
9. As Mike grew older, the punishments became less. From the ages of 12 to 16, Mike estimates he was punished by the offender in one of these ways at least twice to four times each week. He estimates that in total he would have been punished at least 329 times on separate occasions. The film which the offender took of Mike is not film recovered by the police after the execution of the search warrant at the offender's home. It would appear that it has been destroyed.

Victim 2 - "Adam"

1. Adam is currently 35 years old and started playing baseball when he was about seven years old. He was 11 years old when he tried out for a district representative team. It was sometime after that that he met the offender. SEQUENCE 7 - COMMON ASSAULT
2. In 1996 when Adam was 13 years old, he was in the offender's van. Adam was seated in the front passenger seat and the offender was driving with one of Adam's feet in his lap. The offender was crushing Adam's toes together, causing him pain. The offender drove for about 15 minutes, all the time crushing Adam's foot. This was the only time that the offender assaulted Adam.

Victim 3 - "Tom"

1. Tom is currently 34 years old. When he was six years old, he started playing T-ball. When he was about 12 years old, he stopped playing T-Ball and switched to baseball. Whilst playing baseball, Tom met the offender. The offender sometimes picked Tom up in his van and would take him to baseball training and then home after training. When he did that, he would go into Tom's house and speak with his parents.
2. Tom is unable to recall the age he was when the offender first assaulted him, but he would have been around 12 years old. The assaults continued until Tom was 16 years old. The offender would administer bee stings to Tom, in his van, causing Tom pain. The offender would do the torments repetitively. The offender would also manipulate Tom's great toe, pointing it out to one side, causing Tom pain. The offender would stretch it out, and as he did that, would make Tom say things such as, "Do it more" or "Do it again". The offender would then tell Tom that it was mind over matter. He told Tom that these activities were called "toers".
3. Tom also describes how the offender would crush his entire foot with one hand, squeezing his toes down, and the offender told Tom that they were "crushers". Often, Tom would cry from the pain and could not guess how many times he suffered from the various torments administered by the offender, however, they happened often and always in the offender's motor vehicle. The offender alternated between toers and crushers and bee stings. On one occasion as that was occurring, the offender recorded Tom with his video camera. Again, no film of what the offender did to Tom has been found by the police. SEQUENCE 8 - COMMON ASSAULT
4. In 1997, when Tom was 13 years old, he was in year 7 at his high school. One day during a particular week, the offender met him on his way home from school. Tom entered the offender's vehicle and the offender proceeded to give him toers and crushers. Tom cried the whole time because of the pain. This is clearly a representative charge for what amounts to some four years of assaults.

Victim 4 - "Jonno"

1. The offender's fourth victim I have given the pseudonym "Jonnno". Jonno is currently 26 years old. In 2002, when he was nine, he was playing either T-ball or baseball. He was in the under 10s team and the offender was his coach. Jonno saw the offender at least twice a week for games or training. During 2002 and 2003, the offender inflicted toers and bee stings on Jonno. The offender also used his car key to scratch into Jonno's feet, presumably into his soles. SEQUENCE 9 - COMMON ASSAULT
2. During 2003 and 2004, Jonno was sitting in the back seat of the offender's green car. The offender was driving and two boys of about the same age as Jonno were also in the car. Jonno was sitting in the back left side of the vehicle and the offender told him to put his foot on the centre console. The offender then wrapped an elastic band around his foot and inflicted ten bee stings on Jonno, causing him pain. The offender also did the same to the other two boys in the car. After the bee stings, the offender stopped at a 7-Eleven and gave Jonno his credit card and the three boys went into the shop at the 7-Eleven and bought chocolate bars and drinks. SEQUENCE 10 - COMMON ASSAULT
3. During 2005 when Jonno was 11 years old, the offender started filming Jonno's reactions whilst he was assaulting him. The offender would tell him to close his eyes before the assaults and Jonno would hear the video camera being taken out of his its bag, as well as the sound of its starting up. Jonno would peek and see the offender with the camera pointed at his face when he was hurting his toe. The offender would also give Jonno a toer when he was filming him.
4. On an occasion during 2005, Jonno was sitting in the front seat of the offender's green car and the offender was giving Jonno a toer. Jonno had his eyes closed. He was in excruciating pain, and told the offender to stop, but the offender did not. Jonno opened his eyes and saw the offender filming him. The offender continued to assault Jonno and continued to film him as he did so. No film of what the offender did to Jonno in 2005 has been recovered by the police, however, they did recover other film taken by the offender of Jonno. SEQUENCE 48 - PRODUCE CHILD ABUSE MATERIAL
5. There is 11 minutes of film exposed on 17 March 2009. There is a further three minutes of film of Jonno exposed on 15 November 2009. In the film of 17 March 2009, Jonno is identified wearing his high school uniform. He has his eyes closed. The offender is talking to Jonno, asking about the pain that he is experiencing. One of the directions given by the offender is this: "Now you are going to sit there, mouth open, and do not move a muscle and don't make a sound. I can spoon if we bugger it up." To that, Jonno replied, "It feels like it's, it's broken". That is clearly a reference by Jonno to one of his feet or one particular toe of a foot. The offender then makes a comment which suggests that there may have been similar activity on the previous day. The film appears to be on Jonno's face, recording his reaction to pain being inflicted on him. One part of the film shows Jonno in excruciating pain, with tears welling in his eyes. While Jonno is crying with tears streaming down his face, the offender tells him to keep looking at the camera. The final piece of the film has been described in this fashion: "The offender says, 'Come back to me, don't you stare away. You know it's coming on again, it's going to drill, isn't it? I'm taking you to the line. I am doing it on purpose. You're fighting hard and there is not much left. I know it's killing. I'm going to wiggle it now and it's going to drill and you are going to cope.' The boy cries out in pain and the offender says, 'More,' and the child says, 'Yes,' whilst screaming and crying hysterically in pain. The offender tells Jonno to tell him to, 'Drill it'. By this stage, the boy is sweating, writhing around in agony, which the offender acknowledges but stays calm and makes jokes."
6. There are many similar films to which I shall later refer. I find it very difficult to accept that any adult human being could sit there and joke as a 15 year old boy was writhing in agony and crying hysterically. Such behaviour is totally repugnant and might be described as "inhuman". I shall have more to say about that later. The three minutes of film exposed on 15 November 2009 is of a similar calibre. It is unclear what torment was being inflicted, other than it had something to do with one of Jonno's feet or toes.
7. Jonno has provided a victim impact statement. It describes more graphically the effect of the offender's conduct on Jonno than can be gleaned from merely reading the facts. Jonno said this in his victim impact statement: "I am a 27 year old male and a victim of child abuse. The abuse occurred between the ages of 9 and 18 by Gus Mould, who was my baseball coach, maths tutor, learner driving instructor and family friend between 2003 and 2012. During this time, he would punish me for no reason. On trips to and from baseball practise and training he would bend my big toe, whip the soles of my feet with elastic bands and twist my wrists. He had names for these assaults such as 'bee strings' and 'toers'. The things he did to me impacted my childhood and still affect my self-confidence today. Gus would tell me that these punishments would make me a better baseball player and be mentally and physically tougher for my life ahead. He told me I would be able to handle difficult situations better than other people and that his abuse would make me a better person. When he would abuse me, it would hurt me so much that I would often end up crying and begging him to stop. However, he would proceed to hurt me and tell me I need to want this pain as it is helping me become a better person and a better baseball player. The abuse would mostly occur in his car on the way to and from baseball games and practice. He would often tell me to close my eyes and then he would record the punishments on a camcorder. My parents were not suspicious of him because he had groomed them to think he was a superior baseball coach and that if we did extra one-on-one training with him we would be great baseball players. Gus would always make out that I owed him a punishment because I didn't satisfy his standard of toughness and resilience to the previous punishments. Therefore on the days leading up to baseball games and training I would be nervous and scared. He would give me ultimatums such as getting 20 "bee stings" now or 30 "bee stings" next week. I would usually choose to delay the punishments, hoping he would forget. However, he would never forget and usually the punishments would be worse and more painful than he had initially told me they would be. I was confused because Gus was a friend to me and I thought I was lucky that he had chosen to train me into a good baseball player as he was a great coach. He had stories of how he trained Australian rep players and had connections with Baseball Australia to guarantee use that he was trustworthy. He would give me great gifts for my birthday and Christmas including baseball mitts, shoes, merchandise and cinema tickets. …I felt used and abused after every assault. My feet would hurt for the day after the abuse. It would happen one to two times a week. The abuse made me feel dirty and I would blame myself for the abuse. ………………………………………. Even though I knew what he was doing was wrong, I didn't want to upset him by telling my parents as I was scared of what he and they would think of me and I thought I was in the wrong for being abused by him. He was in a powerful position and I was scared I would not be able to play baseball any more. I was so confused that I decided to keep my mouth shut and not tell anyone about what he was doing to me. I was aware that he was doing similar things to my friends who were in the same team as me but we would rarely speak of what he did to us as we were so ashamed and embarrassed. Once I finished baseball Gus continued to be involved in my life in some way, such as helping me to learn to drive and tutoring me for maths. When he was around I was very anxious and uncomfortable. What he did often makes me question my judgment of character as I trusted him. However, he hurt me. I have trouble trusting people I am not familiar with."

Victim 5 - "Pete"

1. Pete is the younger brother of Jonno. He is currently 23 years old. When he was younger he would go to watch his older brother play T-ball. Pete started to play T-ball when he was about eight or nine years old. It was about that time that he first met the offender.
2. In the period between 2006 and 2008 Pete was ten to 12 years old. He would often be in the offender's van. At one time Jonno was sitting in the front passenger seat and the offender was in the driver's seat and Pete was in the back passenger side of the car. The offender told Pete to put his legs through the middle of the front seats so that his legs were on the centre console. Pete had his shoes and socks off as he was not allowed to wear shoes whilst inside the car. The offender inflicted a "toer" on Pete by bending his big toe out and away from the other toes causing pain. As that was the first time the offender assaulted Pete, the offender did a "toer" on his brother Jonno first to show him what it was all about. Pete and his brother were in the car for about half an hour whilst the offender gave each of them "toers." Afterwards Pete and his brother were dropped home. Pete was confused about what happened; however, he did not tell his parents what had occurred. SEQUENCE 14 COMMON ASSAULT
3. In 2008 when Pete was 12 years old he was at batting cages with the offender. The offender gave Pete extra training for free and trained him after school and on weekends. On this occasion the offender gave Pete "toers" as well as "bee stings." On this particular occasion the offender gave Pete about five to ten "bee stings" which caused him excruciating pain and raised red welts on the soles of his feet. CONTEXT EVIDENCE
4. The offender assaulted Pete in this way about two to three times per week. The offender would say that Pete owed him if Pete missed a couple of balls at training. In 2011 when Pete was around 15 years old the offender started filming him whilst the offender was assaulting him. He filmed Pete whilst giving him "toers," "bee stings," what were called "scrapes," tickle attacks and "rib attacks" on more occasions than Pete could count. On almost every occasion Pete was supposed to have his eyes closed while the offender was filming him and if Pete opened his eyes, the offender told Pete that he owed him more torments. SEQUENCE 16 COMMON ASSAULT
5. In 2011 when Pete was 14 or 15 years old the offender took him to an NRL match, the Roosters versus the Sea Eagles at Brookvale Oval, as it used to be called. The offender parked above the Freedom Motorcycle shop in Brookvale. Whilst parked there the offender assaulted Pete by giving him a five to ten-minute "toer" whilst they were sitting in the car. After that the offender gave Pete three "bee stings." SEQUENCE 17 COMMON ASSAULT ON A FORM 1 ATTACHED TO SEQUENCE 16
6. When they arrived at the game they sat in the Manly members stand. Pete was a Roosters supporter. When the Roosters came onto the field, the offender told Pete that he had better cheer the Roosters loudly. However, Pete did not. Just before the game's end Pete and the offender went back to the car and the offender again assaulted Pete by giving him a ten-minute "toer" and then ten "bee stings." The offender told Pete that was because he did not support the Roosters. After that the offender drove Pete home. His feet were in the offender's lap whilst he was driving. During the drive home the offender gave Pete intermittent "toers" when they were stopped at red lights. CONTEXT EVIDENCE
7. When Pete was between the ages of 14 and 16 the offender inflicted on Pete what are called "rib attacks." They involved the offender's pressing into Pete's ribs grinding his hand up and down Pete's rib cage. The offender then pushed into his armpits and applied pressure. These rib attacks left him with bruises on different occasions. After one rib attack the offender wanted to do another one on Pete a few days later but Pete pulled up his shirt and showed the bruising to the offender and said, "Look what you did." The offender did not persist with "rib attacks" then but did so again a week later. Pete recalls receiving countless rib attacks during the period between the ages of 14 and 16.
8. When Pete was aged between 14 and 21 years old the offender also inflicted what he called "tickle attacks" on Pete. They involved Pete taking his shirt off and standing in front of the offender with his hands on his head. The offender would use his hands to rub over Pete's ribs and dig his hands into Pete's armpits. This usually occurred at Pete's home when the offender was sitting on the couch with Pete standing in front of him. These attacks caused Pete pain and if he flinched the offender would threaten to administer a "toer." The offender gave Pete tickle attacks on countless occasions. SEQUENCE 19 COMMON ASSAULT
9. In 2017 when Pete was 20 years old he was at a house the offender was minding on the Northern Beaches. The offender told Pete that it would be the last time that there would be any "toers" or "bee stings." The offender said it was going to be ten "bee stings" and a 20-minute "toer" and several scrapes. Pete negotiated with the offender to reduce it to five "bee stings" and half an hour "toer" as well as scrapes and rib attacks. Pete only agreed because he did not know if he was going to be allowed to leave the house if he did not let the offender assault him. He felt that he was unable to say "No" to the offender in case the offender raised his voice. During this attack Pete cried and felt like a victim. The offender continued as Pete cried. During this time the offender said to him, "Tell me to do it harder" and "Tell me to do it more." Pete yelled out in pain the whole time. When it was over his feet and his ribs hurt. This was the last occasion on which the offender assaulted Pete.
10. On the evidence before me, Pete is the most severely affected of any of the offender's victims. He has provided a victim impact statement. That statement contains this matter: "My abuse by Gus took place over about 17 years, hundreds of times. Gus would often turn up at school or TAFE or my friend's house to drive me home - in other words, he stalked me. He always stopped on the way home for a torture session. By the time I was in my late teens and early 20s the torture sessions were extremely bad and long. They left me with physical injuries of large bruises and scratches; I was in pain for days and felt depressed. I felt trapped and thought this is never going to stop. Then a police detective phoned my brother Jonno and asked him did Gus ever hurt him. Mum and dad found out and my years of torture were over. I was 23 years old. I became paranoid and terrified that Gus would find out I had told and he would come and get me, and be very angry, he would hurt me badly. I was scared of being home alone. I cried a lot. Gus kept phoning me, so I blocked his number. I went to doctors and they put me on tablets for anxiety. I started seeing a psychologist and have been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder. The abuse I suffered from Gus has affected my life severely and this statement has been extremely hard for me to write. By writing about it I can feel the pain all over again; it physically hurts. I often have trouble sleeping. I am restless and sometimes can't get memories of Gus out of my head. I have nightmares of being tortured by Gus. I often feel unsafe and still worry that Gus is going to come and get me. My friends often go down the south coast on a weekend and even though I would love to go, I always make an excuse as I am scared of running into Gus there. Sometimes when I am driving along I go to change lanes and look in the rear view mirror and freak out because I think the man in the car behind me is Gus … I sweat and get really hot. I have a panic attack. I feel anxious and overwhelmed sometimes and this has affected my work if I have to do maths, as Gus tutored me in maths and if I got a sum wrong he would hurt me. I hate it when Gus's name is mentioned and just have to get out of the room. After what Gus has done to me I will never trust a coach or anyone with my children. This has upset my family very badly; my brother and my mother have both needed counselling. I hope that one day I will not think about Gus and the terrible pain he inflicted on me and my brother and our friends. I wish I could get it out of my head now."

Victim 6 - "Ben 1"

1. To the offender's sixth victim I have given the pseudonym Ben 1. Ben is currently 26 years old. In either 1999 or 2000 when Ben was six or seven years old he started playing T-ball. It was during that time that Ben met the offender. The offender was one of the coaches who became involved in his life and the life of his friends, taking them to games and training. The offender started to assault Ben during the season of 2004/2005 when Ben was 11 or 12 years old. The assault was by way of "toers" and "bee stings" and continued at least once per week until Ben made representative teams. SEQUENCE 20 COMMON ASSAULT
2. Between 2004 and 2005 Ben was 11 or 12 years old. After a baseball game the offender drove Ben and two other boys home in his car. During this trip he pulled over to the side of the road and used his index finger to poke Ben hard in the armpit. As he was doing that the offender was holding a handheld video camera and recorded Ben as he assaulted him. He also gave Ben a "bee sting" and a "toer" before Ben got in the back seat and one of the other boys sat in the front seat where the same thing happened to the other boy and then he was replaced by the third boy.
3. The agreed facts contain a short piece of context evidence. During the period between 2004 and 2005 Ben was given some form of torment at least three times per week, a "bee sting," a "toer" or a hurt in his armpit. Ben estimates that he was filmed at least six to a dozen times in total by the offender.
4. Ben has also provided a victim impact statement. Ben has required therapy and antidepressants to deal with his psychic pain which included suicidal ideation. His therapy enabled him to reach a conclusion that his psychiatric or psychological problems were caused by the abuse done to him by the offender and the effect of that abuse upon his psyche. His victim impact statement reiterates much of what was said by Jonno and Pete. SHORT ADJOURNMENT

Victim 7 - "Simmo"

1. Simmo is currently 34 years old. He started playing baseball when he was six years old and he joined the offender's baseball club in 1990 because that was where his brothers played. He met the offender when he was about ten years old. In 1996 Simmo joined the under-12 representative team for the local district and started playing baseball five times a week. At this time the offender was the manager at the club and he became familiar with Simmo's family. He was at their house a couple of times each week and drove Simmo and his brothers to games and to training.
2. The offender started assaulting Simmo when Simmo was about 11 years old. The assault was by way of "toers" and "crushers" which the offender told Simmo would make him mentally stronger. They were inflicted on Simmo about once a week over a two to three-year period. All the assaults happened in the offender's vehicle. SEQUENCE 22 COMMON ASSAULT
3. During 1998 when Simmo was in year 8 at school he was sitting in the front passenger seat of the offender's car parked outside his high school. It was 8.30am. Simmo went to get out of the car but the offender told him not to do so until he had "done ten minutes of mind over matter." Simmo then took his school shoes and socks off and put one of his feet in the offender's lap. The offender instructed Simmo to close his eyes and he did so. After some time Simmo said, "I'm getting out." The offender said, "No, first you have to do ten minutes of crushers. I am testing your threshold of pain. I'm going to crush your foot. You'll have to show me you can handle the pain. It's mind over matter." Simmo was eventually allowed out of the car and went to school. SEQUENCE 23 COMMON ASSAULT
4. The last occasion that Simmo can identify was during the year 1999. He was in the offender's car which was parked. On this occasion the offender had a video camera and told Simmo he was going to film him. The offender set up a handheld camcorder on the dashboard of his vehicle and Simmo closed his eyes and put his feet in the offender's lap. The offender inflicted "toers" and "crushers" and "twisters" on his foot for five to ten minutes. At the end, Simmo asked to see the recording but the offender said something to him such as "The recording didn't work." Simmo told his parents what happened and he was no longer allowed to be alone with the offender. That was the only time on which the offender filmed Simmo. Any film the offender made of Simmo has not been found by the police.

Victim 8 - "Cal"

1. Cal is currently 26 years old. Cal started playing T-ball when he was around six or seven years old as his older siblings were already playing baseball. He joined the offender's baseball club and started playing baseball when he was about 12 years old. It was at that time that Cal met the offender. In 2005 when Cal was 12 years old the offender started going to his family home when he had finished school and his parents were not there. Cal's younger brother Ken was often home at the time as well. On occasions the offender would take Cal to a nearby park to practise baseball drills. It was mostly during those times that the offender would assault Cal. SEQUENCE 24 COMMON ASSAULT
2. Between 2005 and 2006 when Cal was 12 or 13 years old, Cal and the offender had just finished drills at a nearby park. On the day in question Cal was sitting in the front passenger seat and the offender was in the driver's seat of the offender's vehicle. Cal had his right leg swung over the centre console with his foot resting in the offender's lap. Cal was not wearing shoes and the offender grabbed his great toe and forced it in the opposite direction against the knuckle which I assume means the tarsometatarsel joint. That caused Cal extreme pain. The offender told Cal it was a question of mind over matter. Cal had his eyes closed because of the pain. He was assaulted for about five minutes in this fashion. Cal had had enough of that by that time and he screamed out to the offender, "Piss off," got out of the car and walked home.

Victim 9 - "Ken"

1. Ken is currently 24 years old. He is the younger brother of Cal. He started playing baseball when he was four years old and played up until the age of about 17. He played at the same club as did his sibling. Ken first met the offender when he was eight or nine years old. He knew the offender as a coach at the club. The offender started to come over to his family home when Ken was in primary school. Ken and Cal would often come home from school together and the offender would be waiting in their street in his vehicle. The offender would let himself inside the house and make himself coffee and watch cartoons with Ken. It was during this time that he assaulted Ken.
2. The offender would make Ken take his shoes and socks off and tickle him all over his body. He would also bend his toes apart causing pain and would not stop even when Ken told him to stop. The offender assaulted Ken around ten to 20 times in this fashion. SEQUENCE 25 COMMON ASSAULT
3. In 2006 when Ken was 11 years old the offender was in Ken's room for about one hour. During that time the offender grabbed his great toes and pulled them apart causing pain. The offender told Ken that there was another person who could tolerate such pain for five minutes so Ken had to do so as well. On the same occasion the offender told him to lie on the floor on his back. The offender then used a video camera and straddled Ken by sitting on his chest facing him. The offender held the camera in his face and said, "Tell me you like it." Ken felt uncomfortable and wanted to get away. After that was over the offender left Ken's house.

Victim 10 - "Sean"

1. Sean is currently 37 years old. He commenced playing T-ball and baseball when he was in year 3 at school. In 1992 and 1993 when he was ten or 11 years old he joined a representative team and that is when he met the offender. SEQUENCE 26 COMMON ASSAULT
2. Between 2005 and 2006 when Sean was 13 or 14 years old the offender took him to a professional baseball game along with two other boys. The offender picked Sean up in his car and he and the other boys rotated positions around the car. Whoever was in the front passenger seat received a "toer." On this occasion at some stage on the way back from the baseball match, Sean received a toer when he was in the front seat of the offender's car. His foot was on the offender's lap when this happened and the toer went on for some ten minutes, causing Sean pain. Sean believes everyone in the car knew what was happening and that they received toers as well. Over the years that Sean knew the offender he estimates he was assaulted in this way between five and ten times.

Victim 11 - "Gaz"

1. Gaz is currently 25 years old. He started playing T-ball when he was in primary school and progressed to baseball. Gaz first met the offender when he was between the ages of eight and 12 years. He met him as the offender became a pitching coach for Gaz's team. The offender was a friend of Gaz's father. They had met through the baseball club. The offender used to go to Gaz's house for coffee. The offender became a family friend and would take Gaz to training and games. The offender picked Gaz up from school or the beach and would take him home in his vehicle. It was in the offender's vehicle that most of the assaults occurred. When Gaz was around 11 or 12 years old the offender commenced to assault him. SEQUENCE 27 - COMMON ASSAULT
2. During 2007 or 2008 when Gaz was 13 or 14 years old, on a weekend the offender asked Gaz and another boy, whom I shall describe as Jack S, to help clean out his garage. Jack S is not one of the complainants. Gaz and Jack attended the offender's residence and started cleaning out the garage. While that was occurring, the offender would take one of the boys upstairs into his apartment. The offender took Gaz into his apartment after Jack. Gaz sat on a lounge. The offender told Gaz to close his eyes, to take off his shirt, and he did so. No one else was in the house at the time. The offender then gave Gaz a toer for a period of up to 18 minutes. At the minimum, it was 10 minutes. The toer caused pain but Gaz acted as if it did not hurt him, as that was his understanding of what he was supposed to do. After this assault, Gaz's toe hurt for days and his toe always hurt after a toer. SEQUENCE 28 - COMMON ASSAULT
3. In the summer months of 2007/2008 when Gaz was 13 or 14 years old, the offender was housesitting someone's family home. The offender took Gaz to that house one day after training or after school. Gaz could not recall which. The offender had the house to himself and took Gaz to the upstairs living room and gave him a toer which lasted about 15 minutes, causing Gaz pain. The offender then gave Gaz a wrister on the floor which also caused pain.
4. During the peak of the assaults, Gaz was assaulted around two to three times per week for a period of three to four years. The assaults occurred when Gaz was picked up from school or surf or baseball training. Gaz remembers getting toers whilst he was still in his wetsuit in the offender's car on one occasion. SEQUENCE 29 - COMMON ASSAULT ON FORM 1 ATTACHED TO SEQUENCE 28
5. The last time Gaz was assaulted was in 2012 when he was 18 years old. The offender was waiting in his car. Gaz was doing a horticultural apprenticeship. Gaz got into the offender's car and they had a brief chat. At the time, Gaz was thinking that the offender would not assault him given that he was now 18 years old. However, the offender had another idea and told Gaz to swing his legs over, to take his shoes and socks off and to close his eyes. The offender then gave Gaz a toer. The offender also took film of Gaz. SEQUENCE 92 - PRODUCE CHILD ABUSE MATERIAL
6. On 11 March 2008, 20 minutes of film of Gaz was exposed. On 7 August 2009, 15 minutes of film of Gaz was exposed. The first film shows Gaz at the age of 13 or 14. He is a passenger in the front of a vehicle. He was shirtless and the car was stationary. The offender administered bee stings to Gaz. At one stage Gaz is shown writhing in agony, his face contorted with pain. He is then scolded by the offender for moving about. One part of the film is described in this fashion: "The offender calmly tells the boy that he wants to see the stress on his face and to keep his mouth open. After a number of these, the offender makes the boy hold his foot at the ankle, while he digs into his foot with a pen. He reprimands the boy for taking his foot away. The boy is very upset and crying and the offender says, 'Let me dig in'. The offender puts elastic bands back on the boy's foot and tells him what he wants to hear. The boy is in agony at this time. The offender says, 'It's starting to fucking really drill. It's caning like shit, isn't?' The offender uses a monotone, calm voice throughout. Straight after this, Gaz is holding onto the seat and his face has a look of terror. He is frightened and his chest is heaving. The offender tells the boy what sounds he wants the boy to make and appears to assault the boy by way of a toer. The boy's face is one of excruciating pain with his mouth open and his whole body writhing in agony". A later portion of this film shows the offender repeatedly striking the offender on the palm of one of his hands with a wooden spoon. Gaz is crying hysterically and is asking for bee stings instead of the punishment with the wooden spoon.
7. The film exposed on 7 August 2009 when Gaz was 14, shows Gaz standing in his underwear but wearing no shirt. He is standing with his hands above his head with his eyes closed. This conversation is recorded. The offender says, "It's going to be a bad one day, yes?" The boy says, "Yes". The offender says, "Depending on how good or bad, whether you're coming back for a second episode this weekend. Does that suck? Are you doing Sunday because you'll be coming back here?" As that conversation was occurring, the offender was stroking the side of the boy's body. He then picked up a wooden spoon and tapped the child's body with the wooden spoon. He then starts striking the wooden spoon on one of the boy's palms. He is repeatedly struck with the wooden spoon for most of the period of the film. Later, there is a bee sting applied to the boy's foot.

Victim 13 - "Ben 2"

1. Ben 2 is currently 36 years old. He first met the offender in 1993 when he was in a representative team. He was about ten years old at the time. The offender was the manager of the representative team and also coached the players as well as organising everything relating to the team and its training.
2. In 1994 the offender would drive Ben 2 to training sessions and take him home afterwards in his van. During 1994, after the first few pickups and drop offs, the offender asked Ben 2 to remove his shoes whilst sitting in his car. Ben 2 always sat in the front passenger seat. It was during those times that the offender would take hold of Ben 2's foot and squeeze his toes together with force. Ben 2 felt immediate pain and would cry out in pain and then start to weep. The offender would squeeze Ben 2's toes for 10 to 15 minutes at a time. The offender called that assault a "scum". He also inflicted bee stings. Ben estimates that he received these torments about once a month until 1996. He can distinguish some particular assaults. SEQUENCE 30 - COMMON ASSAULT
3. In February 1995 when Ben 2 was 11 years old, he was driven by the offender home from training. The offender pulled off the road and told Ben 2 to take off his shoes. He did so. The offender took hold of his right food. The offender squeezed his toes really hard and Ben 2 felt immediate pain and exclaimed out in pain and started to weep. The offender did not stop. The incident went on for about five minutes. After that, the offender took hold of Ben's great toe and tried to separate it from the other toe by bending it upwards and outward. Again, that caused Ben 2 extreme pain and he cried out. Ben 2 understood that this torment was called a "twister". It last for five minutes. The offender then administered several bee stings to Ben 2.
4. Ben 2 stopped playing baseball in 1997 and had no further interaction with the offender. Ben 2 has provided a victim impact statement. In it he points out that he gave up baseball simply to escape from any association with the offender, and that he replaced baseball with another sport. From then on he had difficulty relating to people. He commenced to suffer from depression and anxiety. His victim impact statement includes this: "As an adult, it has affected the way in interact with new people, family and even lifelong friends. This has also flowed into my professional career, especially in trust with both superiors and subordinates. I continue to have a need to demonstrate accountability with outcomes out of my control, again, generally at the detriment to my health and wellbeing. Depression and anxiety continue to play a part of my life and was diagnosed with this condition in 2018". Later he refers to having three weeks' rehabilitation at a private facility over a Christmas period when he was able to talk about his experiences as a child and how they played a part in his life ever since.

Victim 13 - "Lockie"

1. The offender's thirteenth victim I described as Lockie. Lockie is currently 24 years old. He started playing T-ball in 2002 when he was seven years old. It was about that time that he met the offender. In 2006, Lockie was 11 years old. He made a state team. At that time, the offender encouraged him to try out for the team as well as two other boys. Lockie made the team, which required training at Castle Hill or Baulkham Hills commencing at 7.30am. Initially, Lockie's parents took him to such training. However after a while the offender took Lockie and the two others to those training sessions.
2. In 2007 and 2008, when Lockie was 12 and 13 years old, the offender started assaulting his feet by way of toers and bee stings. They occurred in the offender's vehicle when it was parked. SEQUENCE 31 - COMMON ASSAULT
3. When Lockie was 12 years old he was waiting for a bus to get to school. It was about 8.15 in the morning and he was wearing summer clothes. Lockie was waiting to meet his mates on the bus as he did every day. Then, the offender pulled up at the bus stop and offered Lockie a lift to school. When Lockie declined the offer, the offender persisted and said that Lockie owed him ten bee stings. Lockie continued to refuse the lift, however, the offender became insistent. Eventually, Lockie got into the front passenger seat of the car. The offender told him to take off the shoe and sock of his left foot as Lockie was being driven. The offender pulled over to the side of the road in a secluded area. The offender said to Lockie, "If you make any noise or scream or cry, you'll get another one. If you open your eyes, you'll get another one". The offender commenced assaulting Lockie by way of bee stings which progressively became more painful.
4. As that was happening Lockie had his eyes closed. However, he took a peak and saw a camcorder set up and operating on the dashboard of the offender's vehicle. After the offender stopped assaulting Lockie, he drove Lockie to school. Lockie's foot was sore for the rest of the day, and when he thought about the camera recording what had happened, he felt abused. SEQUENCE 33 - COMMON ASSAULT
5. In 2008 when Lockie was 12 years old he was waiting for the bus to go to school. Again it was around 8.15am. Lockie was wearing his summer uniform. Some of his friends were already on the bus or waiting to catch the bus at bus stops further along the route. On this occasion the offender pulled up at Lockie's bus stop and was again extremely persistent. Eventually, Lockie got into the offender's car. The offender then drove to a nearby reserve and the offender told Lockie to take off his left shoe and sock. He told him to shut his eyes and said that if he screamed or opened his eyes or showed any pain, the torment would go on for longer or be repeated. The offender then started assaulting Lockie's great toe. He was rotating in its "socket", by which I assume is meant one of the joints of the great toe. The pain was so intense that Lockie thought his toe was going to be dislocated. He launched his body to the left side of the car and ground his teeth together. The offender then eased off by softly rotating the toe. Lockie then relaxed again, but saw the camcorder sitting on the dashboard again, recording what was occurring. That incident went on for about three minutes. During it, Lockie was crying after the first minute. When it stopped, Lockie opened his eyes but the camera had been put away. That assault caused Locky to start catching a different bus to school that would enable him to travel with his sister. SEQUENCE 32 - PRODUCE CHILD ABUSE MATERIAL
6. The offender filmed Lockie while he assaulted him in the events that are numbered sequence 31 and sequence 33. All told, Lockie estimates that he was assaulted on 10 to 15 occasions.

Victim 14 - "Hal"

1. Hal is currently 37 years old. In 1991, when he was nine years old, he met the offender through the baseball club. The offender was his coach at that time. Hal only played baseball for one year. However, the offender remained a close family friend even though Hal had left the club. The offender was in contact with Hal's family two or three times per week until Hal was 15 years old. Hal's mother and other family members had a strong relationship to the offender's family. The offender was present at milestones in the boy's life, at things such as Christmases, weddings, birthdays and important sporting events.
2. The offender used to pick Hal up from bus stops and they would do weight training and fitness training together. He would take him home and spend time with him in Hal's family home. Again, the agreed facts remark that Hal saw the offender two to three times each week.
3. Not long after Hal met the offender, the offender began to assault him and did so regularly. Most of the assaults occurred in the offender's motor vehicle. The assaults would be by way of toers or crushers or bee stings. Hal estimates that he would have been assaulted by the offender hundreds of times over the years. It became a regular occurrence for the offender to assault him. SEQUENCE 35 - COMMON ASSAULT
4. In 1991 when Hal was nine years of age he was walking home one day from school. He saw the offender's ute parked out the front of his home on a grassed area. Hal walked up to the car and said hello, and the offender told him to get into the car. He then told him to take off his shoe and put his foot up. He was then assaulted with a combination of crushers and toers on the right foot. The offender then also performed a torment called a "drop knee", which involved the offender crushing the boy's midfoot so his knuckles balled together. He then pushed the knuckles individually back down against each other, which caused Hal to startle. SEQUENCE 36 - COMMON ASSAULT - FORM 1 ATTACHED TO SEQUENCE 35
5. In 1992, when Hal was ten years old, the offender parked outside sporting fields with the offender prior to training. The offender and Hal were in the offender's vehicle. Hal was assaulted with a toer. SEQUENCE 37 - COMMON ASSAULT - FORM 1 ATTACHED TO SEQUENCE 35
6. In 1993, when Hal was 11 years old, he remembers one afternoon being in the offender's car prior to baseball. During that time, the offender again assaulted the offender's foot and pulled at his toes, causing pain. SEQUENCE 38 - COMMON ASSAULT
7. In 1994, when Hal was 12 years old, he was coming home from his high school at North Sydney. The offender pulled up and said to Hal to get in the car and he would drive him home so that he could get to the surf quicker. Hal entered the offender's car and was told to take off his shoes and put his feet up almost as soon as he got inside the car. Hal did as he was told and then the offender commenced a toer on him. That caused Hal to cry. The offender pulled into a reserve on route because by that time, Hal was hysterical and unable to breathe. Hal was gasping for breath and the offender pulled over to console him. During that, he stopped assaulting the boy's foot. He tried to hug Hal and told Hal, "It's all right". Even the offender must have perceived that he had gone too far. SEQUENCE 39 - COMMON ASSAULT
8. In 1997, when Hal was 15 years old, he was in a car with the offender as the offender was going to drop him home. However, the offender drove past the house and pulled up at the end of the street and then gave Hal a toer. Whilst doing that, he recorded it on a camcorder. That was the first time that Hal became aware of being filmed. SEQUENCE 40 - COMMON ASSAULT
9. In 1995, when Hal was 13 years old, he was living in a house that shared a driveway with another residence. Hal and the offender were inside the house in which Hal lived and they were on the lounge. The offender then started assaulting Hal's feet. Whilst that was occurring, a horn was sounding. Eventually, it was realised that the offender had parked his car in the common driveway and he had to move his car to allow the neighbour to gain access to the neighbouring property, and that way the assault was interrupted. That, probably more importantly, has fixed it in Hal's mind. SEQUENCE 41 - COMMON ASSAULT - FORM 1 ATTACHED TO SEQUENCE 35
10. Again in 1995, when Hal was 13 years old, at about 6pm one evening The Simpsons were being shown on television. The offender and Hal were watching that television show. The offender said to Hal, "Every time Homer says, 'D'oh', it will be a scum". According, every time homer said, "D'oh", during that television program, the offender administered a toer to Hal. SEQUENCE 42 - COMMON ASSAULT
11. Again in 1995, when Hal was 13 years old, he went up to the bedroom that he shared with his brother. The offender followed him and said to Hal, "If you can handle this for 40 minutes, then you'll get a holiday period and I won't do it for a certain amount of time". The offender then worked on Hal's great toe for 40 minutes. They were sitting on the bed together as that was happening. No one else was home at the time. SEQUENCE 43 - COMMON ASSAULT
12. In 1995, again when Hal was 13 years old, one afternoon after he finished school he arrived at the bus stop near his home. The offender was there and offered him a lift back to Hal's home. Before they reached Hal's home, the offender pulled to the side of the street and gave Hal a toer. SEQUENCE 44 - COMMON ASSAULT
13. In 1996, when Hal was 14 years old, he remembers being driven in the offender's vehicle and the offender giving him bee stings. The offender had pulled over near one of Hal's friend's homes. The bee stings had commenced while the offender was actually driving. They did not finish until after the offender had completed the bee stings parked outside Hal's friend's home. That was the first occasion on which the offender gave Hal bee stings. SEQUENCE 45 - COMMON ASSAULT - FORM 1 ATTACHED TO SEQUENCE 35
14. In 1996, when Hal was 14 years old, he was with his brother, whom I shall call Bill. They were in the offender's car, which was parked on the driveway of their house. Hal was sitting on the front seat while the offender gave him toers. He then had to swap with his brother and the offender then gave toers to Bill.
15. The following context evidence is then provided. Between 1994 and 1995, when Hal was 13 or 14 years old, the offender took him on holidays to the South Coast for a weekend while Hal's parents were moving house. Hal was accompanied by Bill. On this weekend they saw a movie, Dumb and Dumber. Hal was assaulted on numerous occasions on this weekend. The offender assaulted Hal's feet in the presence of his brother on a large number of occasions. Hal can recall the assaults being both in the bungalow in which they were staying and in the offender's car.
16. When Hal was 16 or 17 years old he told the offender that his father was aware of what the offender had been doing and that the offender's father wanted the assaults to stop. That statement was untrue, as Hal had not spoken to his father about what the offender was doing to Hal. However, from that point on the offender no longer assaulted Hal and the offender stopped visiting Hal's home.
17. Hal has provided a victim impact statement. In it he says this: "I've been asked to share how the abuse Gus inflicted on me has impact me. This reflection has filled me with anger, pity and relief. I am angry that I was taken advantage of at such a young age, where I couldn't even stand up for myself, just so that Gus could satisfy some sadistic urge to hurt young boys. I have been left with a recurring dream, whereby he attempts to abuse me, only this time as a grown man. I am now 6 foot 1 inch, 100 kilograms and an ex-professional rugby player, and in my dream I say, 'Try it now - I dare you'. I am relieved that my father is not around to know the abuse he inflicted on my brother and me. Both my mum and dad trusted him with the care of their children. He weaselled his way into our family, all to inflict pain on young children. Having three young kids myself, I know how angry I would be if it happened to my children. I pity Gus, and can't believe he had the audacity to collect children from school, sporting events, and often came out to dinner with our parents. He's a predator, lurking around, trying to pose as a trustworthy member of the community, when really he is the biggest threat to children's safety. I am getting close to the age he was when he was doing this to me. His behaviour is so far from how I would conduct myself with young kids in my care. He abused this privilege. Over the past six years he used to call me constantly, trying to cover his tracks and touch base. It is so obvious to me now that he was desperate and wanting to keep me close so that I wouldn't say anything. I never answered, but this struck me as odd behaviour. The older I am the angrier I have become, as I can now understand how inappropriate what he did to me was. Not to mention illegal. I think having children brought all of this up for me and forced me to deal with it and try to process it. I probably suppressed the anger for many years and didn't deal with it, which created its own set of issues. Who knows the spin off effect this abuse has, this abuse at this young age may have caused in other areas of my life? Whatever sentence Gus is given will bring closure to me and hopefully to the others impacted. I hope this gives Gus a chance to reflect and to think about the legacy he has left. Only one generation prior was his father remembered as a war hero, his mother for helping MI5 in London and then you have Gus, their son, known for abusing children. Shame on him - I hope he has to reflect on that for a long time to come".

Victim 15 - "Dan"

1. Dan is currently 43 years old. He started playing baseball when he was about ten years old. He was in the offender's baseball team and interacted with him formally about three times per week at baseball training. The offender became close to Dan's family, befriending his parents and would often pop over to Dan's home unannounced. He would sometimes stay for dinner. The offender would also come over to Dan's home after school. Sometimes Dan's parents were not home.
2. When Dan was aged about 12 years old, the assaults on him commenced. The offender assaulted Dan with toers, crushers, wristers and torments described as "Nipple cripples" and "Calf squeezers". They were given on a large number of occasions, "uncountable", between 1987 and 1991. SEQUENCE 47 - COMMON ASSAULT
3. In either 1987 or 1988, when Dan was 11 or 12 years old, he remembers a specific incident when the offender went to his home unannounced and wrestled with Dan. On that occasion the offender pinned Dan to the floor. He was on his hands and knees and the offender was behind him, trying to flip him over. The wrestling was unwanted and Dan made it clear to the offender that he wanted him to stop. The offender's hand came into contact with Dan's testicles. When that happened, Dan said, "Get off me, don't ever do that again". The offender desisted. Dan then said something along the lines of, "Do it again and you'll be dead". The offender tried to make light of what had occurred but Dan was very upset. The offender left shortly thereafter. It is unclear whether the contact made with Dan's testicles was deliberate or accidental in the course of the wrestling. There is no other account of any interference by the offender with any of the boys' genitalia.

Victim 16 - UB1 SEQUENCE 90

1. The agreed facts now largely concern the child abuse material. The first victim of the child abuse material where the victim is unknown is described as Unknown Boy 1. I shall refer to him as UB1. There are 13 different films of UB1. They cover the period from 24 January 2010 to 28 December 2013, roughly a period of four years. The total length of the films is one and a half hours. In the earliest of the films, UB1 is either 10 or 11 years old. In the last of the films he is either 14 or 15 years old.
2. I am not going to read the lengthy description of these films. I shall give a brief synopsis. Film exposed on 24 January 2010 lasts for seven minutes. What is depicted are unknown or indescribable torments of the victim's feet. Film exposed on 23 December 2012 is six minutes in duration and what is being administered are bee stings. Film exposed on the following day, Christmas Eve 2012, lasts for one minute and it shows a toer. Film exposed on 15 March 2013 lasts for four minutes and bee stings are being administered. Film exposed on 4 April 2013 lasts for three minutes and again shows bee stings. Film exposed on 26 April 2013 lasts for five minutes and again shows unknown torments of the feet. Film exposed on 15 July 2013 lasts for five minutes, and again, what occurred are unknown torments of the feet. Film exposed on 22 July 2013 lasts for three minutes, and whatever torments were being administered or unclear. However the boy is clearly in agony.
3. Film exposed on 15 September 2013 lasts one minute and shows bee stings. Film exposed on 4 November 2013 lasts for four minutes and shows a toer and bee stings. Film exposed on 19 December 2013 lasts for 34 minutes and shows bee stings, the gouging of ribs, various torments to the feet and the striking of the right palm of UB1's hand with a wooden spoon for three minutes. There are two lots of film exposed on 28 December 2013. The first is for five minutes and shows foot torments. A later 12 minutes of film shows bee stings. LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT

Victim 17 - "Noah" SEQUENCE 86

1. This sequence identifies the victim as "Noah". Whether that be the boy's real first name or not I do not know. I do not know how the name was chosen but it may have been how the film had been identified by the offender. There are three separate films concerning Noah. The first is of 21 minutes made on 7 March 2008. In that film a large number of bee stings are administered to the boy. The boy is then between nine and 12 years of age. There are a further nine minutes of film taken on the same day, that is, 7 March 2008 where Noah has been assaulted with unknown torments commencing about 40 minutes after the earlier film. The third film of Noah was made on 14 March 2008. Again, it is estimated that Noah was between nine and 12 years old. This portion of film is 14 minutes long and comprises bee stings, digitally digging into and scraping the welts on the boy's foot.

Victim 18 - "Jack" SEQUENCE 98

1. The next sequence is sequence 98 which is film of a boy known as "Jack". There are nine different films of Jack. The first was made on 18 March 2009 when the boy was between eight and 12 years old. Indeed, all the films have been made when Jack was of an age between eight and 12 years old. All of them were exposed in 2009. The first six minutes concerns toes. The second was on 25 July 2009 and goes for 13 minutes and comprises unknown torments to the boy's feet. The third film is of four minutes duration, exposed on 29 August 2009 and again shows unknown torments. The fourth film was exposed on 11 September 2009 and goes for five minutes and again shows unknown torments. Film recorded on 18 October 2009 is one minute in duration and concerns the submersion of the boy's foot in iced water. There is a further minute of film exposed on 19 October 2009 of one minute and that concerns crushing of the hand. There are six minutes of film, exposed on 22 October 2009 and that is repeated striking of the right hand with a wooden spoon. There is five minutes of film, exposed on 23 November 2009 and shows unknown torments of, I assume, the feet and striking the hand with a wooden spoon.
2. The last of the nine films was exposed on 30 November 2009 and is of seven minutes in duration and concerns the administration of "toers". The total length of the film is 48 minutes. I had intended to recite a description provided of the film in the agreed facts, however, time is short. The track on 23 November 2009 is described in this fashion: "This video opens with Jack about eight to 12 years of age sitting in the passenger seat of a car in his school uniform and is hit with a wooden spoon on his hand. The child is sweating and has a look of pain on his face. Straight after this, the child is leaning back in his seat writhing in pain. The camera does a close up of the child's toes and the child starts to cry and the offender says, 'Mouth open. Good boy. That would be drilling. I'm doing that hard.' The whole time the child has his eyes closed and is writhing around in agony. He is sweating profusely and crying and clearly in a large amount of pain as the offender makes light of the situation. After this, the offender is sitting up straight in the car, facing the camera with his palm up, and the offender hits the child repeatedly with a wooden spoon."

Victim 19 - UB2 SEQUENCE 116

1. There are three separate films of UB2, in total 11 minutes of film. The first two films, one of four minutes, exposed on 14 May 2009 and one minute of film, exposed on 1 October 2009 are of unidentified or unidentifiable torments. Six minutes of film, exposed on 22 October 2009 is of bee stings.

Victim 20 - UB3 SEQUENCE 122

1. UB3 is between 13 and 14 years old. The camera is focused on the child's face. The face is contorted and sweating and the boy is clearly in pain. It would appear that his feet are being assaulted. The first film lasts seven minutes. There is then two minutes of film, exposed on 20 November 2009. UB3 is aged 13 or 14 years old. Again, the torments being administered are unclear but the film describes tears rolling down the boy's face, he is breathing heavily and making noises of being in pain whilst the offender repeatedly tells the boy to "stare it down".

Victim 21 - "Jackson" SEQUENCE 126

1. UB4 is identified by name in the film as "Jackson". There are three films. In each of them the boy is about 15 years old. The first film was exposed on 23 March 2009 and shows bee stings. The second film was exposed on 8 April 2009 and is six minutes in duration. It also shows bee stings. The third film is again of six minutes duration and was exposed on 6 May 2009 and shows the striking of the boy's hand and foot with a wooden spoon.

Victim 22 - UB5 SEQUENCE 132

1. There is five minutes of film of a boy aged between 14 and 15 years exposed on 27 November 2007. The boy has his shirt pulled up to his shoulders, he is holding onto the handrails of a bed and his mouth is wide open. The film shows the offender appearing to give a toer to the boy. The boy makes noises of being in pain. The offender continually tells the boy that he is a "good boy". The offender says to the boy, "Let me see your face. I want to scum ya but not kill ya". After that the offender commenced tickling and stroking the boy's stomach. He then wraps an elastic band around the boy's foot and commences to administer bee stings.

Victim 23 - UB6 Sequence 134

1. The film is of two minutes duration exposed on 24 January 2010. The boy is aged between nine and 12 years and appears to have one of his feet being the subject to some form of torment. The boy appears to be in excruciating pain according to the agreed facts.
2. I should indicate at this time that at the sentencing hearing last Friday I asked to be able to watch at least one of the films but that was not possible because the DPP had not obtained the films from the police. The films remained in police custody and I was unable to view any of them. I am hampered by being confined to the descriptions provided in the agreed facts. SEQUENCES 47 and 87
3. The final offending concerns the possession of the films which I have described thus far. The possession is covered in sequence 47 and sequence 87. The agreed facts state this: "The individual video clips as detailed above have been edited, cut, and separated into categories like 'Boys' with the same boys grouped together video after video. Each of the video clips are time and date stamped. Each video is made by the offender and [one] can either hear his voice or visually see him in each video. The offender refers to himself in the third person throughout all the videos." Submissions have been made to me about the "sophistication" of the arrangement of the material. Even now obsolete technology, such as camcorders, contained a programme which automatically date and time stamped the film unless the function was turned off. That the films are date and time stamped merely indicates that the camera was performing its function. The only thing which the offender appears to have done is to put together the films of each separate boy and this is hardly any sophisticated process.

Arrest

1. At 8.30am on Wednesday 28 August 2019 police attached to the Northern Beaches Detectives and police from the South Coast attended the offender's address at Sanctuary Point and executed a search warrant that had been granted by the Local Court at Manly on the preceding day, 27 August 2019. The offender was at home when the search warrant was executed and he was arrested in relation to the offences against the 15 known victims. The offender was cautioned and introduced to the custody manager and was apprised of his rights under Part 9 of the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002.
2. During the search of the premises pursuant to the search warrant, three VHS video tapes were located in the offender's bedroom situated inside a blue bag in a cupboard. Those tapes were seized as an exhibit and those tapes contained the film which I have described thus far.

Personal Circumstances

1. The offender was born in Sydney on 19 April 1949. As I mentioned earlier, he is now 71 years old. His father joined the Royal Navy during World War II. He was an expert in either mine or bomb disposal. For his gallantry he was awarded a George Cross, the then second highest award for bravery in the Imperial Honours System. His father then served as a New South Wales government architect. The offender was the fruit of his father's second marriage. Unfortunately, the offender's father died in 1957 at the age of 40 of the complications of diverticulitis. At the time that his father died the offender was eight and a half years old. The offender had an older half-brother who died when the offender was ten and a half years old, probably in 1959. His older brother was 22 years old and either drowned or was taken by a shark while surfing at Dee Why. In the 1950s the offender lost each of his grandmothers, one dying in 1953 and the other in 1954. The offender's mother was depressed and withdrawn at a young age following the deaths that I have mentioned in 1953, 1954, 1957 and 1959. The offender's mother died in 1996 at the age of 84.
2. The offender has a younger sister who swore an affidavit on 31 July 2020. There is no history of trauma, abuse or domestic violence during the offender's childhood or adolescence. He was never punished at home. There is no family history of psychiatric or psychological disorder. The offender attended Mosman Public School and then Sydney Grammar School which had been attended both by his father and his paternal grandfather. The offender considered himself an average student but left in year 11 to commence work to help support his mother and his younger sister. As a school boy, the offender occasionally received the cane, a detention or was forced to sit for an hour with his hands behind his back. Being some two years younger than the offender, I can assure those listening to these reasons that such punishments were not at all uncommon in the 1950s and 1960s.
3. After leaving school, the offender worked for the CBC Bank for several years. The Commercial Banking Company of Sydney Ltd is now part of the Westpac Group. The offender then went overseas to visit relatives in the United Kingdom and tour Europe. He did that over a period of six months. On his return to Sydney he found work with Claude Fay Cellars where he worked for eight years. He then found work with Orlando Wines as a sales representative and then in the management of that wine company. In 2002 he took a job as an account manager for Express Office National at Chatswood where he worked until 2012. In that year he retired in order to move to the South Coast to live at Sanctuary Point with his sister. He was living there with his sister at the time of his arrest.
4. The offender has never married and has no children. He has never had a relationship with anybody. His next of kin is his sister. The offender has no prior criminal conviction, having lived in this State for 70 years. He comes before the Court as a man of prior good character. However, that carries less weight in a case of this nature. If he were not of good character he would not have been accepted by the baseball community and the parents of the boys with whom he interacted. His good character led to his being entrusted with the care of the boys, which trust he clearly abused.
5. A number of pieces of character evidence have been provided. Mr Peter Lepparde swore an affidavit on 25 July 2020. Mr Lepparde has known the offender for 55 years and I infer from the affidavit that he has known him well. In the affidavit Mr Lepparde said this: "8. I have always known Angus as a generous, warm, caring and above all giving person who had to assume the running of the Mould family in his early life as his father … had suddenly passed away in 1957 leaving only an unindexed Royal Navy pension to support the family. He left school at an intermediate year level and went straight to work to keep his family together and financed. He quickly became the patriarch, supporting his mother, his sister's education and ultimately his sister through a nasty divorce. This practise of giving still continues today, supporting his sister, Margiefam, and her family. 9. To say I was shocked at finding Angus being arrested and charged with a multiplicity of offences for abusing minors would be an understatement. I have since read the whole of the agreed facts statement which sets out the details of the offences. I know that Angus has pleaded guilty to these offences."
6. The next person to provide a reference was Mr David Pollard who provided a letter dated 21 July 2020. He states this: "I have known Mr Stuart Angus Mould (or Gus as I have always known him) since I was 12 years old in 1985. Stuart was my baseball coach then and became a close personal friend to not only my family and I, but to other members of our baseball team. I think back to those years as some of the fondest of my life. Mr Stuart Mould was not only an inspiring coach who had the ability to get the best out of his players on the field, but he also encouraged us to be the best version of ourselves in general. He treated us with respect and dignity, and in return we tried our best to get results, win championships and make him proud. He generously volunteered his spare time coaching and mentoring myself and my team for many years. Mr Stuart Mould did not treat us like children, he spoke to us like the young adults we were becoming. Gus gave us advice about bigger issues that we may have been too intimidated to approach our parents or teachers about. He gave us freedom to be ourselves whilst also setting boundaries to teach us control. Gus and I have maintained a friendship for 35 years since then and I was more than eager to provide a character reference for him. He had such a positive influence on my life during a vulnerable and pivotal stage. Even now, running my own businesses and being happily married with two children, I like to think that the decisions I made along the way to get to where I am now were defined and influenced by the advice Gus gave me all those years ago." Clearly, Mr Pollard was a man that the offender coached but did not abuse. No doubt many of the positive features that Mr Pollard perceived in the offender were also perceived by the boys who became the offender's victims. The offender's conduct could be seen as being something of a Dr Jekyll and a Mr Hyde. Furthermore, it should be clear that the offender did not abuse every boy with whom he came into contact.
7. Another reference has been provided by Mr Ian Kindred in a letter of 30 June 2020. The offender worked for Mr Kindred at Express Office National. He says this: "I am aware of the multiple common assault and other charges that have been brought against Angus Mould during his tenure as a baseball coach and I am advised that he has pleaded guilty to these charges and is awaiting sentence. I have been asked to provide a reference about what I know of him to be used in his sentencing proceedings. I have known Angus for 50 years ever since our school days at Sydney Grammar. During that time, we have sailed together on my father's 35 foot yacht from Middle Harbour Yacht Club, have enjoyed each other's company at many rugby league games and enjoyed social outings together. In 2002 I learnt that Angus was unemployed and struggling to find work. I then employed him as an Account Manager in our Office Products business. He was an absolute stickler for detail and routine, and his systematic planned approach to his work resulted in him achieving successful sales targets in what is a very competitive industry. After successfully carrying out his work commitments over ten years he retired … Angus has always been a strong bond of support for Margie and her family which has been illustrated many times over the years when kindness, consideration and generosity were provided to assist his sister in her marriage break-up and supporting his niece and nephew through a difficult time of growing up. The qualities which come to mind when asked about Angus are that he is a solid, absolutely reliable and a kind person, generous to a fault, but of limited interests. He has never to my knowledge had a romantic interest in anybody, so our communication was and remains almost all about sport, in particular rugby league. He has an encyclopaedic knowledge of rugby league and loves to talk about it and can be very funny and entertaining. From my association with him over many years both as a friend and as his employer I was shocked to hear of the charges he is facing and can only draw the conclusion that this sort of behaviour is totally out of character with the person I knew. When speaking with him about these incidents he has repeatedly stated that he very much regrets the actions he took in attempting to motivate the young boys in these baseball teams, to the extent that he would like to write a letter of apology to all those concerned. I have no doubt his remorse is genuine." I am happy to accept most of what Mr Kindred has said. However, I find it inappropriate to state that the offences were "out of character" when they persisted over some 30 years. Sequence 47 was committed in 1987, sequence 19 was committed in 2018.
8. Another reference has been provided by Mr Ronald Polkinghorne in an undated letter. Mr Polkinghorne has known the offender since he, Mr Polkinghorne, was a child. He remarks on the offender's loyalty and devotion to his family and friends and his generosity to others.
9. Consideration of the character evidence leads me to the medical evidence concerning the offender. It is postulated in this case by Dr Christopher Canaris, a consultant psychiatrist, that the offender was at all material times suffering from a high functioning Autism Spectrum Disorder Level 1, formerly known as Asperger's syndrome. That diagnosis is based in part on this history obtained by Dr Canaris: "He said, 'I don't know if he goes back to when I was a child - I was such a wimpy kid - painfully shy … dad passed away when I was seven … he was a mine disposal bloke in the Second World War - he got a gut disease and his gut exploded … my brother died when he was 11 - we don't know if he drowned or was taken by a shark … I remember the canteen woman at Mosman Primary saying, 'Was that your brother?' I went bright red … I was such a wimpy kid …'." A further piece of history is this: "He reiterated his painful shyness in childhood and his lack of self confidence. He seems not to have played with children of his parents' friends. He played with children in primary school but did not have any mates until high school. He said of high school, 'I have some really solid mates'. He had 'not many but a few' friends saying that his circle grew as he started to play football at Sydney Grammar. He did not do that well academically saying, 'I was still so shy … I was a battler … I left at year 11 and I joined a bank - my mum was paying for me to go to school and it wasn't working that well.' He was teased over his name ('A Mould') and 'over going bright red' though 'I wasn't picked out for teasing'."
10. Mr Sam Borenstein, a clinical psychologist, accepted the diagnosis made by Dr Canaris. Mr Borenstein took this history: "Mr Mould described himself as a painfully shy and anxious child. Mr Mould recalls when his mother had guests, 'I would hide in the cupboard'. Mr Mould stated that he was easily embarrassed and frequently blushed when meeting strangers even with people he knew."
11. I initially had concerns about the accuracy of those histories. Those concerns fell from par 7 of his sister's affidavit, paragraphs numbered 3 to 6 of Mr Lepparde's affidavit, the letter of Mr Kindred which I have already quoted and matter appearing on the first page of Mr Polkinghorne's letter. That evidence strongly suggests that the offender's high school days were fairly normal but there is little evidence about his early childhood days which are sometimes more important than teenage years for determining neurodevelopmental disorders one of which is Autism Spectrum Disorder.
12. The present case is typical of many that a sentencing judge faces. The defence qualifies psychiatrists and/or psychologists to provide supporting evidence for an offender and that evidence is often mitigating. The reports are tendered. The makers are not required for cross-examination by the Crown. The Crown qualifies no expert evidence. The medical opinions come before the Court uncontested. Sometimes it is open to the Court to check the medical evidence if the facts say that the histories provided are erroneous. However, in the present case I am unable to reject the opinion of Dr Canaris.
13. I say that for these reasons. The opinion is accepted by Mr Borenstein, a clinical psychologist. The diagnosis is also accepted by the offender's treating psychologist, Dr Mario Farina, who has been seeing the offender since 19 November 2019, that is, over the last ten months. It is also consistent with the undisputed fact that the offender has never had a relationship with anybody and indeed has never had sexual relations with anybody. It also consistent with an observation made by Mr Lepparde in par 5 of his affidavit: "As a friend, he was not one to engage you on emotional issues such as love and sadness. If anything, he shied away from this type of conversation." It is also consistent with observations made by Mr Kindred in the letter which I read, for example, his remarks which suggest obsessive compulsive personality traits, being "an absolute stickler for detail and routine" of the offender's being involved in "systematic planned approach to work". When one considers the diagnosis offered by Dr Canaris one can see that a person suffering from Autism Spectrum Disorder, or ASD, is often a person of limited interests as Mr Kindred points out.
14. What follows from my acceptance of Dr Canaris's opinion, that opinion says this: "Leaving aside the allegations against your client, the most striking aspects of his presentation include his extreme shyness, his social isolation, his depiction of himself as mathematical and logical, his very considerable reliance on order and routine, his limited range of interests, and what seems to be a manifest inability to recognise the emotional as opposed to physical distress of his victims. I think he most likely has a high-functioning autism spectrum disorder or Asperger's syndrome as it used to be called." Dr Canaris then sets out the DSM-5 criteria for that diagnosis and he continues in this fashion: "It is worth pointing out that some aspects of his presentation may not be immediately obvious as features of autism. For example, his repetitive use of various nicknames for the punishments he inflicted on boys such as 'crushers' or 'twisters' and the like is also an example of the use of idiosyncratic terms. Similarly, his filming, retention and categorisation of videos of the punishments (which, incidentally, he seems never to have subsequently watched) reflect a restricted and fixated pattern of interests and a capacity for hyperfocus. More generally, his way of relating to the boys he coached reflects his extremely limited capacity for social and emotional reciprocity. As a baseball coach, he had a structured setting in which to relate to a range of people including not just the boys but also their parents. His limited capacity for emotional reciprocity prevented him from seeing his behaviour as in fact quite distressing to many of the boys concerned. He saw himself as attempting to build in these boys the fortitude and confidence that he himself lacked. As best as I could tell, he was entirely genuine in his perception of himself. It is worth mentioning that he came from an era in which corporal punishment was all too common in schools and often seen as a rite of passage. Because of his autism spectrum disorder, he was a man who had considerable difficulty appreciating social nuances and hence would have completely overlooked the enormous attitudinal change during the last 40 years. He would also have failed to see the all too real distress of the boys for what it was. This failure would have been reinforced by the fact that at least some boys accepted this at face value and saw it as something positive. While there is only one victim statement to this effect, his behaviour would not have been tolerated for so long had this been an isolated case. He is a very sexually inhibited man who has never had intercourse. This also reflects his core deficit in social and emotional reciprocity with his inability to maintain and initiate social interactions. At the same time, there is no evidence of any paraphilia attractions or indeed of any sexual motivation to his behaviour. Your client's modus operandi in this instance is also quite at variance with what is usually seen in those who sexually abuse minors in that there seems to be no evidence of him ever having attempted to get any of the boys to keep secret what took place. There is no evidence from what he says of any pleasure derived from inflicting pain. I think he did derive some satisfaction from his perception that he was helping his charges to become more resilient and to develop the confidence and fortitude that he himself lacked. He also enjoyed the opportunities his coaching gave him to relate to their parents. There is no evidence of intellectual disability or of any other psychiatric condition to account for his behaviour."
15. On p 9 of his report Dr Canaris said this: "I note that Mr Mould's autism spectrum disorder would have very considerably diminished his awareness of the consequence of his actions. While he may have been aware that boys became physically distressed, he saw the purpose of his actions as improving distress tolerance which would have been beneficial to them in their baseball. He appears not to have had any realisation at the time that his actions were causing emotional distress with the potential of causing psychological damage."
16. Mr Borenstein uses this formulation: "As a result of Mr Mould suffering with ASD, his conception of the offending behaviours was interpreted as helpful and strengthening the young boys to prepare for the demands of tough competitive baseball. As commented in the body of this report, Mr Mould is now burdened by guilt, remorse and contrition and symptoms of depression for which he has sought treatment with Dr Mario Farina, now realising the impact such behaviour has had on the complainants. Those who suffer from ASD have a specific and, at times, skewed view of the world, as was the case for Mr Mould during the offending period. There is nothing in Mr Mould's personal or clinical history to predict he gained pleasure from the offending behaviours. He genuinely believed he was building the boys' resilience and physical strength which he perceived was necessary as part of his coaching regime. Those who suffer from ASD often have great difficulty appreciating the broader picture and are constricted emotionally."
17. Accepting that evidence leads to two legal consequences. Firstly, the offender's moral culpability for his crimes is attenuated to the extent that he did not appreciate the significance of what he was doing albeit he knew that what he was doing was not socially acceptable and was wrong as conceded by his Counsel. The second legal consequence is that general deterrence does not loom as large in this case as it otherwise ought. Others who do the same or similar things to young boys would probably not be suffering from Autism Spectrum Disorder.

Remorse

1. I accept that the offender is truly remorseful. There are a number of sources for me to so find. One of them is the offender's letter to me which is in these terms: "Since my arrest, I have had a lot of time to reflect and critically look at myself and recognise the consequences of my actions which have had such a terrible effect on young people that continued with many of them into their adult lives. I thought I was trying to help them with 'mind over matter.' I thought making them stronger would help them both in their baseball and in dealing with life generally. Now, reading their statements, I feel appalled by what I have done. My naivety horrifies me. Thinking I was helping them whilst actually hurting them, this is something I will have to live with for the rest of my life. The realisation has haunted and is haunting me, the sleeplessness, the stress, my mind constantly asking, 'Oh my goodness, what have I done?' I want to say sorry but cannot. It is difficult for me to find the words to express my shame and regret for the damage I know I have done. It is a nightmare with no answers. I don't know how I would have done without my psychologist Mr Farina. He has helped me face what I have done and to start dealing with coping with the now. If the Court is able to convey my deepest regret and remorse to the men whom I have damaged I would be so grateful. Over the years I saw nothing or had no inclination of what I now know were the boys' thoughts and feelings. To the contrary, many continued to ask for my help with a variety of things …" The offender then lists a number of activities in which he thought he was helping the victims other than by physically abusing them. He then refers to the victim impact statement made by the boy I have identified as Pete. He continues thus: "This young man has terrible and serious psychological symptoms which are all down to what I did to him. I now have such a sickening feeling. I have been wracked with guilt to the point that my body is now telling me with chest and shoulder pains, breathlessness without exercise and an inability to walk more than 60-70 metres without resting. I don't know if I can ever forgive myself for what I have done."
2. Other sources which show the offender's real remorse can be found in par 16 of his sister's affidavit and in the medical reports his remorse recorded by Dr Farina, Dr Canaris and Mr Borenstein.

Reoffending?

1. One of the matters which the Court must consider is the prospects of the offender again offending and its converse, the prospects of rehabilitation. I accept that the offender is unlikely to reoffend and therefore I accept its corollary that the prospects of rehabilitation are excellent. The reasons for this can be very shortly stated. They are firstly the offender's remorse; secondly, the fact that he now has insight into what he did and he would be unlikely to repeat it. The third is his age which now precludes his interaction with minors and the fourth is that he will never be permitted to interact with young people again because of our child protection legislation.

Seriousness

1. My job requires me to consider the seriousness of the offences. The seriousness of the common assaults varies depending on the number of torments inflicted at the time, the duration of the torments and the age of the victim at the time. Many of the offences if they were standalone offences would not warrant the imposition of a custodial sentence. Perhaps the best guide to my view of the seriousness of each particular offence is reflected in the indicative sentences which I shall soon publish.
2. There are of course the usual considerations of aggravating factors. The uncontroversial aggravating factors are that the offender abused a position of trust or authority over each of the victims both known and unknown. A corollary of that is that each of the victims was vulnerable because of his age. Another aggravating factor is that often the offences were committed in the home of one of the victims, a place where they should be free of any form of violence being visited upon them.
3. The Crown submits that a number of the offences involved the application of gratuitous violence. This is very much in dispute. In McCullough v R [2009] NSWCCA 94 commencing at [30] Howie J said this: "Gratuitous cruelty seems to me to suggest that the infliction of pain is an end in itself. It is needless yet intentional violence committed simply to make the victim suffer. It might be found, for example, where a robber inflicts pain upon an already compliant victim who was willing to part with the property demanded or in a case of a sexual offence where the victim is assaulted even though he or she is not resisting the offender. But in offences which are of their nature violent, such as wounding or the infliction of grievous bodily harm, where the purpose of the offence is to cause pain and suffering to the victim there needs to be something more for the factor to be present than merely that the offender had no justification for causing the victim pain." As Mr Givorshner, for the offender, put in his written submissions in reply: "In McCullough his Honour was at pains to show that the sentencing judge had erred in finding that this aggravation is satisfied if the violence is done without justification; to stress that the essence of gratuitous cruelty was the infliction of pain as an end in itself. It is needless yet intentional violence committed simply to make the victim suffer. His Honour distinguished acting with gratuitous violence from acting with gratuitous cruelty. The language of ends and means necessarily imports the need to prove intent to make the victim suffer for that reason alone." Accepting that the offender was motivated to toughen up the victims, this was not the infliction of gratuitous cruelty. It was the infliction of deliberate pain and suffering for a purpose, not merely to make each boy suffer. I reject the submission that these offences involved the infliction of gratuitous cruelty.
4. For the crime of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, the sequence 2 offence, the offence is well below the mid-range of objective seriousness in my view. Of course, it is difficult to know, but probably one could find on the balance of probabilities that it was never the intention of the offender to break the boy's toe, merely that was a consequence of the assault that was not intended.
5. As far as the produce child abuse material is concerned, I must say this. Of the possible and usual types of child abuse material, the material itself is at the bottom of the range. What calls for punishment is the abuse actually inflicted by the offender on boys which is not otherwise charged. I do not need to reiterate the remarks on that subject that were made toward the commencement of these reasons. The seriousness of the possess child abuse material is in my view at the rock bottom of the range of seriousness. The offender made the materials himself. He retained them. They were not disseminated to anybody. There is no evidence that he viewed it and reviewed it to provide himself with some perverse pleasure. The recording was on obsolete technology. The penalty ought be little more than nominal.
6. It has been admitted by the offender, very properly, through his Counsel, Mr Givorshner, that a full-time custodial sentence is called for. In his written submissions Mr Givorshner said this about the assaults: "It is submitted that while none of the individual acts which constitute the assaults is of high gravity, it is conceded that the offences are aggravated by the defendant's abuse of a position of trust; the vulnerability of the victims by virtue of their age; that the injury (and) emotional harm caused by the offence, at least in respect of the five victims from whom victim impact statements have been received, was substantial; the involvement of multiple victims, and the series of criminal acts. The essence of a finding of objective criminality resides above all in the large number of offences.
7. As far as the production of child abuse material is concerned, Mr Givorshner said this: "The fact that real children were used and that they were subjected to significant pain is obvious and is conceded. Most but not all of the same aggravating factors which apply to the assaults also apply to the child abuse material offences: abuse of a position of trust, the vulnerability of the victims by virtue of their age, the involvement of multiple victims, and a series of criminal acts."

Disposition

1. The substantial question before me then becomes this: how long should the full-time custodial sentence be? Considering the multitude of offences to which the offender has pleaded guilty and the number of further offences he asks me to take into consideration, the appropriate penalty is an aggregate sentence. I now publish a table of indicative sentences.

Indicative Sentences Sequence Date Victim Age (Yrs) Offence Sentence Comment 1 01/12/95 Mike 12-13 Common Assault 3 months wrister 01/03/96 2 18/04/95 Mike 12-13 AOABH 9 months toer leading to fractured toe 19/04/95 3 01/01/97 Mike 15-16 Common Assault Form 1 - 2 toers 01/01/98 4 01/01/98 Mike 15-16 Common Assault 3 months lazos or crusher 01/01/99 5 01/01/98 Mike 15-16 Common Assault 3 months about 10 lazos 01/01/99 7 01/01/96 Adam 13 Common Assault 3 months crushing toes 15 minutes 01/01/97 8 01/01/97 Tom 13 Common Assault 3 months toers and crushers 01/01/98 9 01/01/03 Jonno 9-10 Common Assault 6 months about 10 beestings 01/01/04 10 01/01/05 Jonno 11 Common Assault 3 months toer 01/01/06 14 01/01/08 Pete 12 Common Assault 6 months toers, 5 to 10 beestings 01/01/09 16 01/01/11 Pete 14-15 Common Assault 6 months 10 min toer 3 bee stings 01/01/12 17 01/01/11 Pete 14-15 Common Assault Form 1 - 16 toers, 2 bee stings 01/01/12 19 01/01/17 Pete 20 Common Assault 6 months 20 min toer 10 bee stings 01/01/18 20 01/01/04 Ben1 11-12 Common Assault 6 months poke in armpit beesting; toers 01/01/05 22 01/01/98 Simmo 14-15 Common Assault 3 months foot crushers, toers, crushers, twisters 01/01/99 23 01/01/99 Simmo 15-16 Common Assault 3 months 5 min toer 01/01/00 24 01/01/05 Cal 12-13 Common Assault 3 months 5 min toer 01/01/06 25 01/01/06 Ken 11 Common Assault 3 months toers; straddling chest 01/01/07 26 01/01/05 Sean 13-14 Common Assault 3 months 10 minute toer 01/01/06 27 01/01/07 Gaz 13-14 Common Assault 3 months 10 to 18 minute toer 01/01/08 28 01/01/07 Gaz 13-14 Common Assault 4 months wrister 01/01/08 29 01/01/12 Gaz 18 Common Assault Form 1- 28 toer 01/01/13 30 01/01/95 Ben2 11 Common Assault 9 months toe squeezes; toe twister; bee stings 01/01/96 31 01/01/08 Lockie 12 Common Assault 6 months 10 bee stings 01/01/09 32 01/01/08 Lockie 12 Produce child abuse material 3 months recording of 31 and 33 01/01/09 33 01/01/08 Lockie 12 Common Assault 6 months twisting of great toe 01/02/08 35 01/01/91 Hal 9 Common Assault 10 months crushers; toers; "drop knee" 01/12/91 36 01/01/92 Hal 10 Common Assault Form 1 - 35 pulling of great toe 01/12/92 37 01/01/93 Hal 11 Common Assault Form 1 - 35 pulling of great toe 01/12/93 38 01/01/94 Hal 12 Common Assault 4 months toer 01/12/94 39 01/01/97 Hal 15 Common Assault 3 months toer 40 01/12/97 Hal 13 Common Assault 1 months pulling of great toe 41 01/01/95 Hal 13 Common Assault Form 1 - 35 pulling of great toe multiple times 01/12/95 42 01/01/95 Hal 13 Common Assault 6 months pulling great toe for 40 minutes 01/12/95 43 01/01/95 Hal 13 Common Assault 3 months toer 01/12/95 44 01/01/96 Hal 14 Common Assault 3 months lazos 01/12/96 45 01/01/96 Hal 14 Common Assault Form 1 - 35 toers 01/12/96 47 01/01/87 Dan 11-12 Common Assault 9 months wrestling episode 01/01/88 48 17/03/09 Jonno 15 Produce child abuse material 6 months 14 minutes of torments 15/11/09 49 28/08/19 Possess child abuse material 6 months in addition to all production offences possession of films produced by offender described in other counts 60 24/01/10 Unknown Boy (UB)1 10/11 14/15 Produce child abuse material 3 years 13 Films of various lengths over a period from 24/01/10 to 28/12/13, total duration of 1.5 hours. 10/11 to 14/15 years. 28/12/13 86 07/03/08 "Noah" 9-12 Produce child abuse material 1 years 2 films on 07/03/08 totalling 30 minutes of bee stings nd other foot torments. 14 minutes on 14/03/08 of bee stings and digital digging into and scraping of welts on foot. 14/03/08 87 26/11/07 Produce child abuse material Form 1 - 49 01/01/09 92 11/03/08 Gaz 13-14 Produce child abuse material 9 months 2 films - 20 minutes on 11/03/08 15 minutes on 07/08/09 bee stings & striking with wooden spoon. 07/08/09 98 08/03/09 "Jack" 8-12 Produce child abuse material 1 year 9 films total of 48 minutes of carious foot torments, hand crushing and striking of hand with wooden spoon. 30/11/09 116 14/05/09 UB2 13-14 Produce child abuse material 6 months 3 films of 11 minutes total duration - feet torments. 20/11/09 122 07/05/09 UB3 13-14 Produce child abuse material 3 months 2 films of 9 minutes total duration - unknown torments. 20/11/09 126 23/03/09 UB4 ("Jackson") ≡ 15 Produce child abuse material 6 months 3 films of 17 minutes total duration - bee stings & striking of hand and foot with wooden spoon. 06/05/09 132 27/11/09 UB5 14-16 Produce child abuse material 3 months 1 film 5 minutes duration - toer, bee stings, stroking of abdomen. 134 24/01/10 UB6 9-12 Produce child abuse material 3 months 1 film 2 minutes duration - unknown foot torment.

NOTE: All above indicative sentences are head sentences without 25% discount for guilty plea.

1. To make it clear, the first column gives the sequence number, that is, the number of the charge. The second column gives the date over which the charge is made. The third column identifies the victim by the pseudonym I have given to him. When a name is in inverted commas that means the name of the victim is actually unknown. The fourth column gives the age in years of the victim at the time of each offence. The fifth column lists the offence. The sixth column gives the indicative sentence and the final column is a short description of what the offence involved.
2. I would point out that the maximum penalty for common assault is imprisonment for two years. The maximum penalty for assault occasioning actual bodily harm is imprisonment for five years and as I have already stated, the maximum penalty for the production of child abuse material and the maximum penalty for possession of child abuse material is ten years. There is no standard non-parole period. Because of the multiplicity of charges the only practical way to approach the matter is the production of a table of that nature. An important thing to bear in mind is what is stated at the foot of the final page of the table that all of the indicative sentences are head sentences without any reduction for the offender's pleas of guilty.
3. It is common ground between the offender and the Crown that the offender is entitled to a discount of 25% for his early pleas of guilty to each of the charges in question. The offender was entitled to such a discount both at common law and by virtue now of statute law. The discount is given for the utilitarian value of the plea. The utilitarian value of the plea is great. None of the 15 known victims is required to attend court to give evidence before a judge and jury of what he experienced at the offender's hands. Such recitation of what happened to a victim often causes him or her to relive his or her experiences and is extremely upsetting. To spare the victims having to give evidence is of great utilitarian value. Each of the indicative sentences set out on that table is to be reduced by 25%.
4. The total of the indicative sentences before discount is 20 years and 10 months. After the 25% discount the total of the indicative sentences is 15 years and seven months. Fortuitously, 15 years and seven months represents the offender's life expectancy according to the life expectancy tables that judges use when assessing damages. The life expectancy tables for a 71-year-old man show an average life expectancy of 15.71 years.
5. The advantage of an aggregate sentence is that it makes it easier to apply the principle of totality. The Crown's submissions include this: "It is imperative that the offender's subjective considerations do not cause inadequate weight to be given to the objective circumstances of a case: R v Rushby (1977) 1 NSWLR 594; R v Dodd (1991) 57 A Crim R 349." That submission is correct. However, to sentence the offender in effect to life imprisonment is in my view uncalled for in this case. Such a sentence would be crushing and infringe the totality principle. Furthermore, there has been some extra-curial punishment suffered by the offender. In his sister's affidavit is this: "12. After Angus was arrested in August 2019 and some of the details of his case were published in both local and state newspapers, the community at Sanctuary Point, where we had lived quietly and happily for about eight years, turned on us. When I went out to the shops people would abuse me, calling me 'the paedo's sister,' and saying things like 'You can't imagine what we do to paedos in this town,' and 'Don't leave him alone or he will be a dead paedo.' There were also hateful posts on social media accusing him of being a 'paedo' and criticising me for staying with him. While we have always lived fairly private and quiet lives, before the arrest people would occasionally drop in at our home for coffee and a chat. Afterwards, no one came over. Because of this hostility I drove him to the police station three times a week for his bail reporting and to anything that he needed to go out for including all his medical appointments."
6. In par 13 of her affidavit the offender's sister described their life prior to the offender's arrest. In par 14 of her affidavit she deposes to her daughter bringing her children - that is, the sister's grandchildren - to visit them but she would not bring the grandchildren to visit their grandmother because of the grandmother's 'paedo brother.' Ultimately the offender and his sister sold their premises at Sanctuary Point and had to move elsewhere. Before they did that the offender was essentially locked up in his home for the best part of six months. This is referred to in par 7.2 of Mr Givorshner's written submissions and I do not have time to quote it further. However, I agree with his submission in that regard.
7. Doing the best I can, bearing in mind all the considerations that I must bear in mind, I have reached the view that the appropriate head sentence is imprisonment for seven years and six months. The question that then arises is then what length of the non-parole period? Here there are special circumstances. The first is the age of the offender. The second is his ill health. These are relevant to the length of the non-parole period because age and illness generally make an offender's experience of imprisonment more onerous than it would normally be, especially when one realises the majority of those in prison are in their early 20s.
8. The offender has hypertension. The offender suffers from diverticulitis, the condition which caused his father's death at the age of 40. It has required a number of hospitalisations. The most recent hospital treatment was at Ryde Hospital for 13 days in August 2019. The offender also suffers from prostatitis that recently called for hospital treatment in March this year at the Shoalhaven Hospital. The offender also suffers from depression for which he is receiving treatment from Dr Mario Farina. The depression arises directly from the offender's realisation of the harm that he has done to his victims and the current predicament in which he finds himself about to be sent to prison at the age of 71.
9. The next consideration for special circumstances is what falls from Dr Canaris on p 9 of his report. Dr Canaris says this: "In relation to potential custodial options, I have the following observations. As an older man going into prison for the first time, he would naturally be vulnerable. As an older man with an autism spectrum disorder, he would be extremely vulnerable. Survival in prison requires a good understanding of social nuances and cues (being street-smart if you like) which your client lacks. He would be at considerable risk of being set up and/or falling foul of the many antisocial and manipulative people in this setting. As one who respects rules and authority, he would be at risk of becoming perceived as an informer or 'dog.' He would also be at risk from other prisoners because his offending behaviour has been directed towards children and young people. Should any of this happen, he would need to be secluded from the general prison population to ensure his safety. All of this would make incarceration substantially more onerous than might otherwise be the case." Over the years I myself have visited many gaols and have some familiarity with what goes on in them. In my view the observations of Dr Canaris are valid.
10. The final matter to be considered under special circumstances is the fact that COVID-19 is still making incarceration more onerous because it currently prevents contact visits. One might think that that is of reducing importance but at the moment that remains the regime and it is unknown when Corrective Services may be in a position to relax the precautions that they have taken against COVID-19 entering the prison population. One must point out, however, that the gaols are crowded and if there was an outbreak it would spread rapidly through a gaol. At the offender's age he would be extremely vulnerable should there be an outbreak of COVID-19.
11. I have reached the view that the appropriate non-parole period is half of the head sentence, that is, a period of three years and nine months. The sentence will commence last Friday to account for the seven days that the offender spent in custody immediately following his arrest. The non-parole period will expire on 24 June 2024 and on that day the offender will be eligible to be considered for release by the Parole Board. That decision will be made by the Parole Board.
12. Finally, I should say that I have had my Associate photocopy the medical reports that are before me. They have been placed in an envelope to be handed to the Corrective Services officers present in this court so that they can take those reports with the offender to his place of reception in the custodial system, to facilitate Corrective Services making appropriate arrangements for the offender's management and classification. I shall arrange for my remarks on sentence to be forwarded to Corrective Services as soon as they have been transcribed. That will assist in their making suitable arrangements for the offender's accommodation and classification.
13. Further, finally, I wish to thank both Mr Walkowiak and Mr Givorshner for the very full, able, learned and helpful submissions which have made my task much easier. I apologise if I have not given them adequate consideration but time is of the utmost importance at the current time.
14. Stuart Angus Mould, on each of the charges to which you have pleaded guilty, you are convicted. I sentence you to imprisonment. I set a non-parole period of three years and nine months commencing on 25 September 2020 and expiring on 24 June 2024. I impose a further period of imprisonment of three years and nine months to commence upon the expiration of the non-parole period and expiring on 24 March 2028. The total sentence is therefore seven years and six months comprising the non-parole period and the balance of the sentence. I have found special circumstances. You are eligible to be considered for release to parole at the expiration of the non-parole period. I have taken into account in passing that sentence the matters on the Form 1. The indicative sentences are those indicated in the table of indicative sentences that I published earlier today.
15. GIVORSHNER: Nothing from me, your Honour. HIS HONOUR: Anything? WALKOWIAK: Yes, your Honour, just a destruction order in relation to those three VHS tapes that were seized by police. HIS HONOUR: The police may wish to keep some of them in the event that they can identify any of the other persons depicted on the film whose identity is currently unknown or have they stopped their inquiries? WALKOWIAK: I can make that inquiry but if your Honour allows them to destroy them if their investigations are complete that might be the safest way of dealing with it, your Honour. HIS HONOUR: Yes, all right. I direct that as soon as the police have no further use for the child abuse material referred to in this sentencing hearing, that those tapes be destroyed. The Court extends to any of the victims who are present today its concern and sympathy for their welfare. The Court will adjourn.

DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 05 November 2020