R v MR

File Number(s): 2024/0063529

Publication restriction: There must be no publication of the name of any of the victims or anything might tend to identify them. There must be no publication of the name of the offender or anything that might identify him because he was a juvenile for some of the offending and there is a familial relationship between him and two of the victims.

JUDGMENT

I note these reasons are prepared overnight having heard the matter on the morning of 1 May 2025 before resuming the hearing of a Judge-alone trial.

The offender appeared before a Magistrate at the Wagga Wagga Local Court on 15 January 2025 and pleaded guilty to a total of ten counts, namely:

H97863880

Sequence 6: Intentionally Sexually Touch Child Aged between 10 and 16 years, contrary to s 66DB(a) of the Crimes Act, 1900

Sequence 7: Intentionally Sexually Touch Child aged between 10 and 16 years, contrary to s 66DB(a) of the Crimes Act

Sequence 8: Sexually Touch another Person Without Consent, contrary to s 61KC(a) of the Crimes Act

Sequence 9: Sexually Touch another Person Without Consent, contrary to s 61KC(a) of the Crimes Act

Sequence 10: Indecent Assault On Person Under 16 years of Age, contrary to s 61M(2) of the Crimes Act

Sequence 12: Aggravated Indecent Assault, contrary to s 61M(1) of the Crimes Act

Sequence 13: Aggravated Indecent Assault, contrary to s 61M(1) of the Crimes Act

Sequence 14: Aggravated Indecent Assault, contrary to s 61M(1) of the Crimes Act

Sequence 16: Aggravated Indecent Assault, contrary to s 61M(1) of the Crimes Act; and

Sequence 18: Assault with Act of Indecency, contrary to s 61L of the Crimes Act.

The pleas of guilty were adhered to at the sentence hearing at the Wagga Wagga District Court on 1 May 2025 and accordingly the offender is entitled to the full 25% discount for the utilitarian value of the pleas of guilty.

Sequences 12, 13, 14, 16 and 18 relate to the victim AR. Sequences 8 and 9 relate to the victim EJ and sequences 6, 7 and 10 relate to the victim THB.

The maximum penalty for the offences of Intentionally Sexually Touch a Child aged between 10 and 16 years is 10 years imprisonment. The maximum penalty for the offence of Sexually Touch Another Person without Consent is 5 years imprisonment. The maximum penalty for the offence of Indecent Assault on Person under 16 contrary to s 61M(2) of the Crimes Act (as the legislation then was) is 10 years imprisonment. Parliament had specified a standard non-prole period of 8 years in respect of that offence. The maximum penalty for the offences of Aggravated Indecent Assault was 7 years imprisonment with a standard non-parole period of 5 years. However, one of the many complications in this matter is that the standard non-parole period cannot apply to the offences within sequences 12 and 13 as the offender was a juvenile. The maximum penalty for the offence of Assault with Act of Indecency contrary to s 61L of the Crimes Act, (as it then was) is 5 years imprisonment with no standard non-parole period.

Facts

Given the multiplicity of matters, I will deal with the objective seriousness of the matters at the conclusion of reciting the facts in respect of each matter. Another complication is the manner in which the facts are set out. I will initially deal with the matters within sequences 12, 13, 14, 16 and 18 relating to AR, who is the biological and younger sister of the offender.

The facts are before the court by way of a set of statement of agreed facts. Those agreed facts recite that the offender attended boarding school and would return home on school holidays and weekends. The victim’s parents were “quite absent in her upbringing”. The victim AR was about 12 years of age when her parents separated after which she went to live in a unit in Kooringal with her mother and younger brother. The offender eventually left boarding school and moved into the unit at Kooringal. The offender was about 16 or 17 years of age.

Going to sequence 12, when AR was about 12 to 13 years of age she and the offender were sitting on the lounge at the unit at Kooringal. The victim was playing games on a Nintendo 64 console. The offender was sitting next to her. The victim had the controller in her hands focusing on the game at which time the offender put his hand down her pants under her underwear and rubbed her vagina skin on skin. The offender said to the victim “this seems to make you play better”. AR froze and continued playing the computer game.

The offender was 16 or 17 at the time; the victim was 12 or 13. Accordingly there is an age difference of approximately four years. The touching was skin on skin on the victim’s genitals. The clear inference is that the offending did not last for a great length of time. In all of the circumstances the matter is at the low end of the mid-range.

In respect of sequence 13, the facts recite that when AR was about 13 or 14 years of age she and the offender were both at the unit. The victim was sitting on the lounge wearing a dress. The offender was sitting next to her. The offender pushed her legs open, she tried to close her legs but he was stronger than her. The offender put his hand under her underwear and touched her bare vagina.

Again there is an age difference of approximately four years, also noting the offender would have been 17 or 18 years of age. The touching was skin on skin on the complainant’s genital area. There was some degree of force used. The matter is within the mid-range and is slightly more serious than the matter contained within sequence 12.

In respect of sequence 14, the facts recite that when AR was about 15 years old the offender was giving her a back massage while he was sitting on top of her whilst she lay on her stomach. The offender pulled down the victim’s underpants across her buttocks, made a comment about a freckle on her bottom and then touched her vagina.

So far as the seriousness of this matter is concerned, again it did not occur over a lengthy period of time, the touching was skin on skin and there is the age difference again of about four years. In all circumstances the matter is at the low end of the mid-range.

Going to sequence 16, when AR was about 15 years of age she and the offender were both at the unit at Kooringal. The offender was sitting down with his erect penis exposed. The offender took hold of AR’s hand and placed it on his penis and moved the victim’s hand up and down the shaft of his penis.

The touching was skin on skin and I infer from the description of the conduct that the touching occurred for a longer period of time than the touching in the previous matters. There is the age difference and the offender’s erect penis was exposed. In all circumstances this matter is well within the mid-range.

The offender and his partner purchased a property in Glenfield Park suburb of Wagga Wagga. The offender’s siblings including the victim AR would regularly visit that property. The offender owned an Xbox gaming console while he lived at the Glenfield Park property.

Going to sequence 18, when AR was about 17 years of age she visited the offender’s home. AR and her brother SR were both on the bed and one of the bedrooms with blankets over them playing a game on the Xbox console. The offender was also sitting on the bed under the blankets to the right side of the victim. The victim had the controller in her hand as it was her turn to play she felt the offender’s hand move under the blankets, he unbuttoned her jeans put his hand under her underwear and touched her bare vagina with his fingers. AR froze when this happened.

Again, the touching was skin on skin and there is the age difference. The offender also undid the victim’s clothing. In all the circumstances this matter is within the mid-range.

At paragraph 12 of the agreed facts it is set out that the offender would touch the victim’s vagina at opportune moments from when she was 12 until she was about 19 years of age. Accordingly, the offender is to be dealt with on the basis that the five discrete matters are not isolated instances of the offending.

I turn now to the matters involving THB. She was the stepdaughter of the offender. She first met the offender when she was about eight or nine years of age and she saw the offender as her father, as her biological father was not in her life. When the victim finished year six the family moved to a farm in Boggabri.

Going to sequence 6, when THB was about 12 or 13 years of age she and the offender went for a swim at a river close to the farm. The offender asked THB to give him a hug and she did so. The offender kept hugging THB and then “pecked” her on the lips with his lips. THB pulled away but the offender pulled her back and began kissing her on the lips. THB kissed him back. The offender continued to kiss THB on the lips and inserted his tongue in her mouth. His tongue went in and out of her mouth in a circular motion. The offender continued a rotation of pecking THB on the lips, kissing her on the lips and inserting his tongue in her mouth. The offender pecked her on the lips around 10 or 12 times and inserted his tongue in her mouth about four times.

The offender was 32 to 34 years of age and therefore very significantly older than the victim who was 12 or 13. The offender was also in a position of trust as he was her stepfather. The offending continued for some time, noting the description of the conduct. However, the conduct is kissing and placing his tongue in the victim’s mouth; whilst certainly this is sexual touching it is towards the lower end of the range of seriousness the matters of this type that come before the court.

In respect of sequence 10 there was an occasion while they were living at the farm where the victim’s mother was out in the garden mowing the lawn. The offender asked THB if she wanted to watch a movie; she agreed and they began to watch the Star Wars series on Disney Plus. The offender said “give us a hug” and THB went to the couch and they ended up laying down together. The offender was laying behind THB and held his hand on her breast for a “long duration” the offender removed his hand temporarily when the victim received a call from her grandmother. A little later the offender moved his hand on the victim’s vagina over her clothing but the offender did not hold his hand over the vagina for too long.

There was some degree of persistence in this conduct. Again there is the abuse of position of trust and the significant age difference. The touching was over clothing on both the breast and the vaginal area. The matter is slightly below mid-range.

So far as sequence 7 is concerned, in 2020 THB commenced working at her local IGA supermarket. On one occasion the offender picked THB up from her work and they went to another location to fix a tractor on a share farm. THB had started wearing more clothing to cover-up. They arrived at the share farm in the offender’s utility. When they exited the vehicle the offender hugged THB. This is described as a long hug. The offender placed his hands down the victim’s work pants placed them over the cheeks of her buttocks. He then started slapping her buttocks and hugged her again.

Yet again there is the abuse of trust and the significant age difference between the victim and the offender. I infer - and noting the description I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt – that the touching was skin on skin. The offending it would seem did not continue for a significant period of time but nor was it momentary. Be that as it may, this matter is below mid-range.

Further, in respect of THB at paragraph 32 of the agreed facts it is out that it was common for the offender and the victim to lie down together to watch television. During such occasions the offender would spoon THB with his hand over her breast area over her clothes and he would also place his hand over her vaginal area over her clothing. As with AR, the offender is to be dealt with on the basis that the three sequences are not isolated incidents.

Sequences 8 and 9 relate to the victim EJ. The accused and the victim met in 2023 while they were both members of a Wakeboard and Waterski Club. It was common for the offender and the victim to message each other on Facebook about events. Once each semester the club would host an event for members. Members would attend the Tweed River and stay on houseboats from Friday morning until Sunday afternoon. The first semester trip was between 19 May 2023 and 21 May 2023. On the Saturday night there was a dress-up theme party.

Going to sequence 8, during the evening the offender and EJ crossed paths in the hallway. They were going in opposite directions. EJ turned so that her back was against the wall. As they crossed one another the offender put one hand on the left side of EJ’s waist and the other hand on her right breast. The victim felt pressure on her breast and the offender’s hand lingered and squeezed over her right breast. There were chains and bells on her costume which pressed into her breast which caused some pain.

The offender’s conduct was brazen and sleazy. The conduct relates to placing his hand on the breast on the outside of clothing and lingering with that conduct some time. The touching was over clothing. In the circumstances I am satisfied the offending was opportunistic. The offending is below mid-range.

Sequence 9 occurred later in the evening. The offender was sitting on a couch which was in an L shape. EJ was standing near the couches and the offender pulled her left wrist and pulled her onto the couch beside him. He apologised for making her feel uncomfortable but as he said that he put his hand on the inside of her left thigh, under her skirt. He placed his hand directly on her skin and moved his hand in an up-and-down motion rubbing the inside of her thigh. He moved his fingers within 2 inches of the victim’s vagina. His had his right arm around her shoulder and held her tightly. The victim froze and agreed with what the offender was saying in the hope that the conversation would end. This lasted for some 5 to 10 minutes.

Again, the conduct was brazen and sleazy and the conduct within sequence 9 is more serious than that to which sequence 8 relates. The touching was skin on skin on the upper thigh and going very close to the victim’s genital area. In all the circumstances the matter is below mid-range but not to a significant extent.

Victim impact statement.

The victim THB read a victim impact statement to the court. That statement eloquently set out, as this Court has often found that victim impact statements do, the short- and long-term harm this type of conduct has on people and the victim’s position. One can only hope that the offender was listening carefully when the victim read out his statement.

I did not understand, however, the Crown to submit that the content of the statement grounds the finding of any factor of aggravation. In that regard I note and have regard to the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal in R v Tuala [2015] NSWCCA 8.

Be that as it may, the harm to the victim is taken into account by virtue of s 3A(g) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act, 1999.

Criminal History

The offender was born on 30 July 1985 and is currently 39 years of age. The Crown helpfully prepared a table. The offender was a juvenile at the time he committed the offences within sequences 12 and 13. He was 18 or 19 at the time he committed the offences contained within sequences 14 and 16 and was 20 or 21 at the time of the offence within sequence 18. In respect of the offending against THB he was aged between 32 and 35 and in respect of the offending against EJ he was 37 years of age.

On 7 September 2023 the offender was convicted of child sexual assault offences in the District Court of Queensland at Toowoomba and sentenced to imprisonment for 18 months to be suspended for 2 years after serving 6 months. Mr Keller, counsel for the offender, has provided documents to indicate that the offender was extradited from Queensland to New South Wales and has been in continuous custody since 7 September 2023.

Other than the offending relating to sequences 8 and 9, that is the offending relating to EJ, the offending was committed prior to the offending for which he was sentenced in Queensland.

The offender receives some limited degree of consideration for his limited record. Given the period of time over which the offending occurred, the offender is certainly not a person of good character.

Subjective Case

No oral evidence was called from or on behalf of the offender, however, a volume of documents were tendered without objection which became Exhibit 1 on sentence. The principal document is a psychological report prepared by Ms Julie Dombrowski. Ms Dombrowski noted at paragraph 8 that the offender spoke with a relatively unsophisticated vocabulary and his mood was anxious and depressed. There were no indicators of intoxication or psychosis. Likewise, there was nothing to raise concerns about his cognitive functioning.

The offender completed year 12 at school and he also completed six months of a Bachelor of Science degree at University before commencing an apprenticeship as an electrician. The offender was unable (or unwilling) to explain why he committed the offences against his sister. However, he expressed regret for harming her and her family and said to the author of the report “I was older, I should have known better… I pleaded guilty because I didn’t want to put everyone through the trauma of a trial… I didn’t want to cause any more harm than was already done”.

Mr Keller, counsel for the offender, submits correctly that this entitles the offender to a finding that he is remorseful.

Returning to the report, at paragraph 10 the author sets out that during the time of the offending against THB the offender was living on a farm, working part-time as an electrical instrument technician and running a large broad acre farm. He and his partner were experiencing significant emotional and financial strain associated with the operating the farm through drought, floods, the pandemic lockdowns and a mouse plague. He was using alcohol to manage negative thoughts. The offender also expressed remorse relating to the victim THB. There are further expressions of remorse set out at paragraph 12 of the report.

The offender grew up in a rural property near Wagga Wagga, New South Wales. The offender described his father to be a violent and frightening man who physically abused the offender and his siblings. His mother was an emotionally detached parent who showed no affection or nurturance in the home. He went to boarding school where he also was physically, emotionally and sexually abused. At the age of 16 he returned home but experienced regular conflict with his mother. He was evicted from the home at the age of 18 and for a number of years stayed temporarily with friends and experienced periods of homelessness. The relationships between the offender and his parents have since improved. His siblings have largely disowned him since he was arrested for the offending for which he now appears for sentence.

Greater detail of the emotional and sexual abuse at boarding school is set out at paragraph 17 of the report. Further, greater detail is given of the physical and emotional abuse that occurred at the school, including bullying by older students which was apparently ignored by staff.

Given the exposure to violence, emotional and sexual abuse, I am satisfied that the principles enunciated by the High Court of Australia in Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37 are enlivened to a meaningful extent reducing the moral culpability of the offender.

The offender gave Ms Dombrowski a history of his GP diagnosing him with depression and anxiety during late adolescence. The offender told the author of the report that he avoids talking about his childhood experiences of abuse and uses substances to avoid negative thoughts. He also engaged in reckless behaviour to alleviate feeling emotionally numb. He has attempted suicide twice.

Under the heading “Psychometric Assessment”, Ms Dombrowski sets out that a degree of debasement was also evident in the offender’s response style. There was evidence of severe personality pathology with borderline features. She went on to say that individuals with this personality pathology are extremely erratic in their thoughts and feelings and behaviours. She goes on to comment (paragraph 26) a secondary depressive-masochistic personality style was also evident in his profile. Individuals with this personality style tend to view themselves, their experiences and the future in negative terms. Further, she sets out that current difficulties with major depression, anxiety and psychological trauma and a history of alcohol dependency were evident in the offender’s profile.

Ms Dombrowski also made an assessment as to the likelihood of recidivism. The offender is assessed at being an average risk of reoffending. A similar finding is made in the structured case note annexed to the Sentence Assessment Report. In these circumstances I am not prepared to find on balance that the offender is unlikely to reoffend. However, as I observed at the sentence hearing this is essentially neutral finding.

Later in the report giving opinion and recommendations, Ms Dombrowski sets out that the experiences of the offender have disrupted his primary attachments to caregivers and given rise to long-standing symptoms consistent with post-traumatic stress disorder associated with his experience of childhood physical, emotional and sexual abuse. While the author of the report sets out that there are long-standing symptoms consistent with post traumatic stress disorder, I do not understand the report writer to go so far as to give a definite diagnosis that the offender suffers from that condition. Nevertheless, I am prepared to accept that the offender does have a mental health condition which is all part of the subjective mix. In this regard I did not understand counsel for the offender to submit that the principles enunciated by McClellan CJ at CL in DPP (Cth) De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1 at [177]-[178] are enlivened.

Further, Ms Dombrowski sets out that the erratic behaviour and instability of people with cluster B personality disorders increases the risk of falling foul of the law. She goes on to opine that the offender’s unstable personality structure makes him vulnerable to anxiety and depression and the psychometric assessment indicates the offender is currently experiencing difficulties with major depression and anxiety. Again, these issues are mental condition suffered by the offender and are again part of the subjective mix.

Ms Dombrowski recommends a period of professional monitoring and supervision such as that offered by Community Corrections. She also recommends support so far as accessing treatment in the community post-release will also be important to monitor the mental health of the offender. These matters justify a finding a special circumstances. Further, noting the offender’s age it occurs to me that he will require some assistance in reintegration into the community. Although the offender has been in custody either in Queensland or New South Wales since September 2023 this is his first time in custody.

A comprehensive Sentence Assessment Report has been prepared. Essentially much of what is in Ms Dombrowski’s report is repeated within the SAR, however the report notes that the offender has maintained steady employment within custody and is employed in the industry section at the Clarence Correctional Centre.

The SAR also noted the offender demonstrated a “moderate degree of regret for his offending and appeared remorseful for his actions”. This fortifies me in the finding already made that the offender is entitled to a finding that he is remorseful. However, I note the report also sets out that the offender appears to have limited insight into the impact of his offending and he did not appreciate the power imbalance he held over his younger victims. The report helpfully sets out a plan for supervision. That fortifies my finding that a finding of special circumstances is justified in this matter.

The offender has an offer of employment upon release and he has been employed while in custody. There are some very positive signs so far as rehabilitation is concerned. At this point in time, I assess the offender’s prospect of rehabilitation to be very reasonable.

General remarks

The offending to which sequences 12 and 13 occurred while the offender was a juvenile. Accordingly, the principles enunciated by McClellan CJ at CL in KT v R [2008] NSWCCA 51 at [21]-[26] are enlivened. Had these matter been reported while the offender was still a juvenile these matters would have been amenable to final disposition in the Children’s Court. I also note and have regard to the decision of BP v R (2010) 201 A Crim R 379.

Further, the offending to which sequences 14, 16 and 18 relate occurred while the offender was youthful, and indeed sequences 14 and 16 occurred when the offender was barely an adult. In those circumstances the principles enunciated in decisions such as Hearne v R (2001) 124 A Crim R 451 and Locke v R (2010) 207 A Crim R 34 at [41]-[49] per Hulme J are enlivened. Youth is taken into account in determining the total sentence and the non-parole period.

In respect of all of the offending there is an issue of general deterrence to be addressed, but this issue does not achieve the same weight so far as sequences 12 and 13 are concerned and it does not achieve the same weight so far as sequences 14, 16 and 18 are concerned as it does in respect of the other offending for which the offender appears for sentence.

In passing sentence I will need to give proper regard and effect to the provisions of s 3A and 5(1) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act. Section 3A sets out the purposes of punishment, namely:

to ensure that the offender is adequately punished for the offence,

to prevent crime by deterring the offender and other persons from committing similar offences,

to protect the community from the offender,

to promote the rehabilitation of the offender,

to make the offender accountable for his or her actions,

to denounce the conduct of the offender, and

to recognise the harm done to the victim of the crime and the community.

Section 5 provides in effect that a court should not impose a sentence of imprisonment unless having considered all possible alternatives that no other sentence is appropriate.

At the sentence hearing I indicated a preliminary view I had formed to the effect that the offending contained within sequences 6, 8 and 9 did not cross the threshold within s 5(1) of the Sentencing Act. I understood Mr Keller to submit that my preliminary view was correct. I was also my understanding was that the Crown did not raise any particular or at least any strong resistance to such findings. In all of the circumstances I maintain my preliminary view that the matters within sequences 6, 8 and 9 do not cross that threshold and accordingly, I will deal with those matters by way of Community Correction Order.

I observe, perhaps at the risk of repetition, if sequences 12 and 13 had been reported while the offender was a juvenile, a lengthy probation order or suspended control order would have been within the appropriate sentencing range.

However, other than the offending contained within sequences 6, 8 and 9, all other matters cross the threshold and realistically no other sentence other than imprisonment is appropriate. However, again, at the risk of repetition, appropriate allowance will need to be made for the offender’s youth so far as the offending against AR is concerned.

There is also an issue of totality. The offender has been in continuous custody since 7 September 2023. I indicated at the sentence hearing I would commence the sentence from 17 January 2024. However, it occurs to me that the date should be the 7 January 2024 as that is four months after the offender was originally taken into custody.

This is an appropriate matter for an aggregate sentence. I set out in tabular form the sentences that would have been imposed had separate sentences been imposed. If separate sentences were imposed there would need to be some degree of partial accumulation to recognise the different offending and the different victims.

H97863880

Re: THB (step daughter)

| Seq | Offence | Description | Max penalty | Indicative | | 6 | Intentionally sexually touch child between 10 – 16 years s 66DB(a) Crimes Act | When victim 12 – 13 years old. Pecking/kissing on lips – tongue being inserted into victim’s mouth about 4 times | 10 years imprisonment | s 5 not crossed. CCO | | 7 | As above | At share farm. Victim and offender exited utility – offender puts hands down victim’s work pants, over her buttocks under clothing – slapping buttocks and hugging | As above | 9 months indicating a starting point of 12 months | | 10 | Indecent Assault on Person Under 16 years – s 61M(1) Crimes Act | When living at Boggabri – mother mowing lawn – offender asks for hug – watch movie – offender laying behind victim – held hand on breast for “long duration” – touch vaginal area on outside of clothing | 10 years SNPP 8 years | 12 months (s/p 16 months) |

Re: EJ (acquainted through Waterski Club)

| 8 | Sexually Touch Another Person Without Consent – s 61KC(a) Crimes Act | On night of Fancy Dress Party – paths of victim and offender crossed in hallway, offender put hand on victim’s breast, hand lingered, squeezed right breast – offender continued to follow victim during the night | 5 years imprisonment | s 5 not crossed. CCO | | 9 | Sexually Touch another Person without consent – s 61KC(a) Crimes Act | Same night as sequence 8 – on couch – offender puts hand up victim’s skirt rubbing inside of thigh – within 2 inches of victim’s vagina – offender had right arm tightly around victim | 5 years imprisonment | As above |

Re: AR (biological sister)

| 12 | Indecent Assault Person Under 16 – s 61M(1) Crimes Act | Victim 12 or 13 years old. Offender and victim living in unit at Kooringal – while playing game on Nintendo offender put hand down victim’s pants and underwear and rubbed vagina skin on skin | 7 years, SNPP 5years (but noting that SNPP does not apply as offender was a juvenile at the time | 9 months s/p 12 months | | 13 | As above | Victim 13 or 14 years old. Offender sitting next to victim on lounge – offender pushes victim’s legs open, she resisted, offender puts hand down underwear and touched bare vagina | As above | 10.5 months (s/p 14 months) | | 14 | As above | When victim was about 15. Offender sitting on top of victim giving her a back massage. Pulls underpants down across her buttocks, comment about freckle on buttocks and touches vagina | As above but SNPP does apply | NPP 6 months, balance of term 4.5 months, total 10.5 months (s/o 14 months) | | 16 | As Above | Victim was 15 years of age. Offender sitting with erect penis exposed. Took hold of victim’s hand, placed it on his penis and moved her hand up and down. | As above | NPP 7 months, b.o.t 5 months total sentence 12 months (s/p 16 months) | | 18 | Assault with Act of Indecency – s 61L Crimes Act | Victim was about 17, therefore offender was an adult. At offender’s house at Glenfield Park – playing game on x box under blanket in one of the bedrooms – offender unbuttons victim’s jeans and hand under underwear touching bare vagina. | 5 years | Total sentence 9 months |

Orders

In respect of each of the matters to which the offender has pleaded guilty he is convicted.

In respect of sequences 6 and 8 the offender is released on a Community Correction Order for a period of 2 years 6 months (30 months) conditioned that he:

1. Not commit any further offences;
2. Appear for sentence in respect of any breach within the said period; and
3. Accept the supervision of the Department of Corrective Services and obey all reasonable directions of that service relating to ongoing treatment and counselling.

In respect of sequence 9 the offender is released on a Community Correction Order for 3 years. The terms and conditions of that order are the same as for the order imposed in respect of sequences 6 and 8.

In respect of sequences 7, 10, 12, 13, 14, 16, and 18 the offender is sentenced to an aggregate sentence of 3 years (36 months) with a non-parole period of 1 year 9 months (21 months).

The non-parole period will date from 7 January 2024 and will expire on 6 October 2025.

The balance of term on parole of 1 year 3 months will date from 7 October 2025 and will expire on 6 January 2027.

The offender is to be released to statutory parole and the expiration of the non-parole period. I recommend that any release to parole be conditioned that he be supervised by the Department of Community Corrections.

The sentence indicates a finding of special circumstances, the reasons for which have been given earlier in these reasons but include the need for an extended period of supervision, assistance with reintegration into the community and partial accumulation on a sentence imposed in Queensland. The non-parole period is approximately 58% of the total sentence

The total effective period in custody dates from 7 September 2023 to 6 January 2027 which is a period of 3 years and 4 months or 40 months. The period in actual custody dates from 7 September 2023 to 6 October 2025 which is 2 years and 1 month (25 months). The ratio of the period in actual custody to the total effective period in custody is 62.5%.

**********