R v SC

Structure of these reasons

1. I will firstly identify each charged matter and the Form 1 matter(s) attaching to that charge separately and discuss, by reference to my summary of the agreed facts, my analysis of the objective seriousness of each offence (taking into account the relevant matters in the Form 1) and identify any aggravating and/or mitigating factors relevant to that offending. To the extent that process starts to fall into a pattern, I will try not to repeat myself. Before doing that, and so as to reduce repetition, I will try and identify and deal with a series of common features that are relevant to most, if not all, of the charges.
2. Thereafter I will seek to identify the offender's subjective case, deal with the discount mandated for by the pleas, acknowledge that I am sentencing the offender by today's standards and that the significant trauma suffered to the victims of this type of offending is now understood to be much more pronounced than was perhaps understood in earlier times. Again, I will try not to repeat myself as the factors fall into a pattern.
3. I will then identify indicative sentences for each charged matter and finally, seek to synthesise all of the factors I have taken into account to come to a total aggregate sentence, which I think is the minimum required to address the overall criminality taking into account the factors identified: s 3A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 ("CSPA"), as explained in cases such as Muldrock v R (2011) 244 CLR 120 at [20]. The sentence, which as I have said, must be a significant term of imprisonment will be backdated so as to commence on 16 December 2021, which is the date from which the offender has been in custody referable only to these matters.
4. Finally, I will then deal with whether I can identify any "special circumstances" to determine whether the minimum non-parole period ratio to the head sentence ought be adjusted.

The charges

1. The offender is being sentenced for the following eight counts with 10 matters being taken into account on a Form 1. The parties agree that the following table set out correctly the offences and penalties: Count Offence Maximum Penalty Standard non-parole period s 61E(1) Crimes Act 1900; 1 Assault with act of indecency person under 16 6 years NA Victim: WL Form 1 s 61E(1) Crimes Act 1900; H321658296/38 Assault with act of indecency person under 16 6 years NA Victim: WL Form 1 s 61E(1) Crimes Act 1900; H321658296/20 Assault with act of indecency person under 16 6 years NA Victim: WL s 61E(1) Crimes Act 1900; 2 Assault with act of indecency person under 16 6 years NA Victim: WL Form 1 s 61E(1) Crimes Act 1900; H321658296/40 Assault with act of indecency person under 16 6 years NA Victim: WL Form 1 s 61E(1) Crimes Act 1900; H321658296/22 Assault with act of indecency person under 16 6 years NA Victim: WL s 61E(1A) Crimes Act 1900; 3 Assault with act of indecency person under 16 and under authority 4 years 5 years Victim: WL 7 years s 61M(1) penalty does not apply s 61E(1A) Crimes Act 1900; Form 1 Assault with act of indecency person under 16 and under authority 4 years 5 years Ex-officio indictment Victim: WL 7 years s 61M(1) penalty does not apply s 61D(1) Crimes Act 1900 4 Sexual assault without consent person under 16 10 years NA Victim: LS Form 1 s 61E(1) Crimes Act 1900; H321658296/25 Assault with act of indecency person under 16 6 years NA Victim: LS Form 1 s 61E(1) Crimes Act 1900; H400350394/1 Assault with act of indecency person under 16 6 years NA Victim: LS s 61E(1A) Crimes Act 1900; 5 Assault with act of indecency person under 16 and under authority 6 years 5 years Victim: RJ 7 years s 61M(1) penalty does not apply s 61E(1A) Crimes Act 1900; 6 Assault with act of indecency person under 16 and under authority 6 years 5 years Victim: RJ 7 years s 61M(1) penalty does not apply s 66A(2) Crimes Act 1900; 7 Sexual intercourse child under 10 and under authority Life 15 years Victim: TS Form 1 s 61M(2) Crimes Act 1900; H321658296/47 Aggravated indecent assault person under 16 10 years 8 years Victim: TS s 66A(2) Crimes Act 1900; 8 Sexual intercourse child under 10 and under authority Life 15 years Victim: TS Form 1 s 61M(2) Crimes Act 1900; H321658296/48 Aggravated indecent assault person under 16 10 years 8 years Victim: TS

Agreed facts

1. There is a comprehensive statement of agreed facts signed on behalf of the Crown, by the Crown Prosecutor and by the offender and his solicitor on 17 November 2023. I find those facts beyond reasonable doubt for the purpose of sentencing. The details in the facts are distressing. I do not think it helpful or necessary to set out those details.
2. Instead, I will summarise as briefly as I can the salient facts as I deal with each charge and related Form 1 matter.

Form 1 matters

1. I will also consider the objective seriousness of the Form 1 matters, noting that I should assess the objective seriousness of the primary offence separately before taking into account any matter on a Form 1.
2. I will take the Form 1 matters into account and have regard to those offences with a view to increasing the penalty that would otherwise be appropriate for the primary offence: Nguyen v R [2016] NSWCCA 209 at [58] and [64]. However, a Form 1 offence does not act as an aggravating factor to the principal offence: Van Ryn v R [2016] NSWCCA 1 at [212].

Common features

1. Before I deal with each of the counts, there are a number of common features which are relevant to many if not all of the counts. I will deal with them now so as to avoid repetition.

The plea

1. The first is that the offender is entitled to a 5% discount for the pleas of guilty.
2. He is also entitled to some further leniency because of the objective fact that in pleading, albeit very late, he did spare the victims and other witnesses from what would have been an extremely traumatic experience in giving evidence in this matter.
3. However, for reasons I have explained, I do not think the pleas themselves support a strong finding of remorse and or contrition in favour of the offender.

Opportunistic or predatory

1. There is an overarching theme addressed by both the Crown and the offender as to whether the offending can be properly described as "opportunistic" or "predatory". I think where the parties are in contest turns on a question of language, in particular the meaning of "opportunistic".
2. The offender's point is that there is no evidence to suggest that the offender went out of his way to "groom" or get himself into situations of trust with young children so that he could take advantage of that position. In this regard, it does seem reasonable to conclude from the evidence that the offender when he found himself in a position to take advantage of the situation, did just that but he did not go out of his way to engineer those situations. So it can be seen that when he lived in a house which gave him access to young, vulnerable children in the 1980s, he took advantage of that situation repeatedly, and at least in relation to his daughter, almost systematically. There is then a long break in the offending where he was not in close proximity to children, where he appears not to offend but that when he had access to another child, some decades later, he again took advantage of that situation.
3. Against those facts, in a very limited sense, I accept that the offending can be described as opportunistic. But only in the sense that "grooming" was not involved. I do not accept that the offending was a one-off (or series of) aberration(s) so that it could be said to be out of character. Indeed, as far as I can tell, the offending actually became almost a habit and therefore forms very much part of the offender's character. I do not think it is helpful to engage with the debate as to whether the conduct can be described as "predatory" or not. I think it more useful to focus on the actual conduct which I think speaks for itself.

Criminal record

1. This brings me to another thematic matter, that is the question of the offender's criminal record. As I have already recorded, he does not have one. Ordinarily that can be seen to be a mitigating factor under s 21A(3) of the CSPA.
2. In this case, I do not regard this as a mitigating factor in the sense that it shows he is a person otherwise of good character. That is because it is a fact that the offender engaged in a course of conduct over a period of many years amounted to serious sexual offending. It is accepted that the charges to which he has pleaded guilty are representative of similar sexual assaults occurring over the years, which to my mind can only be explained as occurring for the offender's perverted sexual gratification. I am not sentencing him for those non-charged matters but they do disentitle him to leniency, whilst not elevating the objective seriousness of the charged offences: AK v R [2016] NSWCCA 238 at [76]. Accordingly, and notwithstanding the fact the offender has no previous record of convictions, I give that apparent good character of the offender no weight. The harsh reality is that from the time of the second offence he was not a first offender: R v Smith [2000] NSWCCA 140 at [21]-[22]. To describe his character as anything other than profoundly flawed would be an error.

Prospects of rehabilitation

1. Turning then to the last thematic matter, that being the important question of the offender's prospects of rehabilitation and/or the likelihood of him re‑offending (ss 21A(3)(g) and (h) of the CSPA), I have already discussed this elsewhere in these reasons and have concluded, but only because of the offender's advancing age and ill health - which inevitably will be more advanced and worse at the time he is released from custody - there is little chance of the offender re-offending. That does not mean that he has any prospect of being rehabilitated. If he was a younger and fitter man, in my judgment, he would continue to be a serious danger to the community and any children he interacts with. However, I have taken his age and poor health into account in my assessment as to his prospects of re-offending and therefore the limited need for the community to be protected from him in the future, as well as a limited need for specific deterrence, which are important considerations in the sentencing process.

The individual counts - objective seriousness, aggravating / mitigating factors

Count 1 - indecent assault person under 16 years of age

Summary of facts

1. WL was the first cousin of the offender's deceased wife.
2. WL had a close relationship with the offender's deceased wife and would visit her and the offender regularly, sometimes staying overnight with them.
3. In or around 1981, the offender put his hand down the pants of WL and inserting his fingers inside her vagina when she was aged 7 or 8.

Objective seriousness of Count 1

1. When viewed in isolation, this offence appears to be opportunistic with no planning, however, it follows earlier offending with WL (a Form 1 matter) and decades of subsequent offending. As I have explained, regular "opportunistic" behaviour cannot be said to be a mitigating factor. As I have said already, due to the frequency and number of victims, I think it likely that the offender was on the "look out" for and when presented with an opportunity he took advantage of the situation. As I have explained, I do accept that no form of grooming seems to have been involved. I have explained why I accept the conduct was opportunistic but only in that very limited sense.
2. The Crown submits that the objective seriousness of the offending in respect of Count 1 is well above the mid-range and towards the high level of objective seriousness for the following reasons: 1. The young age of the victim, being 7 or 8 years (being well below the essential element of 16 years); 2. The victim was touched under clothing ("skin on skin"); 3. The area concerned was the vagina; 4. There was penetration, consistent with "sexual intercourse" as defined; 5. This places the "act" of the most serious kind of this type of offence; and 6. The offender was in a position of trust.
3. On the other hand, on behalf of the offender it is submitted that the act of indecency involved the touching of the vagina was short-lived and opportunistic and does not appear to have involved any pre-planning nor were there any threats or violence involved.
4. The offender submits that when taking into account the matters on the Form 1 attached to Count 1, being acts of indecency, the rubbing of the vagina outside of the victim's pyjamas and the pushing of the offender's erect penis against the victim's lower back and buttocks on the outside of her pyjamas, that I should assess the objective seriousness as "below the mid-range", noting in particular the nature and duration of the offending. It is also submitted that the Form 1 offences would not result in a material increase in sentence. I do not agree.
5. I generally accept the Crown submissions. In my judgment, the objective seriousness falls well above the mid-range and towards the high level of objective seriousness for these types of offences. Moreover, I think the Form 1 offences are such as to justify a material increase in what would otherwise be the sentence.
6. As to whether the fact that the offending took place in circumstances where the offender was in a position of trust, so as to be a statutory aggravating feature, I am not sure I can go that far, however I have taken into account the relative ages and circumstances of the offender and the victim when coming to my assessment of the objective seriousness of the offence.
7. As to mitigating factors, I have taken into account my conclusions as to the plea of guilty, together with my findings as to the likelihood of the offender re‑offending, his advanced age and ill health. I have given some but limited weight to his expression of remorse and contrition.

Count 2 - indecent assault person under 16 years of age

Summary of facts

1. The victim again is WL.
2. In 1983, the offender placed his penis against WL's vagina and rubbing it back and forth for a few minutes when WL was aged 9 or 10.

Objective seriousness of Count 2

1. The Crown submits that the objective seriousness of the offending in respect of Count 2 is above the mid-range level of objective seriousness for the following reasons: 1. The victim was touched under clothing ("skin on skin"); 2. The area concerned was the vagina; 3. By the offender's penis; and 4. The offender was in a position of trust.
2. On the other hand, the offender submits that Count 2 would be assessed as "below the mid-range" of objective seriousness, noting in particular, the nature and duration of the offending. The offender submits that the Form 1 offences would not result in a material increase in sentence.
3. Again, I accept the Crown submissions as to objective seriousness. I find that the offending was above what I would consider the mid-range level of objective seriousness.
4. I also think that the Form 1 offences are such so that I should take them into account so as to materially increase the sentence which I would otherwise have imposed.
5. As to mitigating factors, I have taken into account the matters I have mentioned at [45].

Count 3 - indecent assault person under 16 years of age and under authority

Summary of facts

1. The victim again is WL.
2. In or around 1984, the offender rubbed the vagina and breasts of WL when she was in her early teenage years, in his bathroom when she was naked.

Objective seriousness of Count 3

1. The Crown submits that the objective seriousness of the offending in respect of Count 3 is below the mid-range level of objective seriousness for the following reasons: 1. The victim was touched "skin on skin"; 2. The area concerned includes the vagina.
2. The offender submits in relation to Count 3 that the acts of indecency involved the touching of the vagina and rubbing of breasts of a child in her early teens and that it is open for me to find the victim was closer to the age of 15, rather than 10, which it is said somewhat lessens the objective seriousness that would attach to the victim being of a very young age: R v KNL [2005] NSWCCA 260.
3. The offender focuses on the conduct being short-lived and opportunistic, it does not appear to have involved any pre-planning nor were there any threats.
4. It is submitted that the offence attached to Count 3 on a Form 1, being the act of indecency of putting the offender's hand down the victim's pants and rubbing her vagina for a short period, ought not increase what would otherwise be the sentence.
5. The offender seeks a finding that the offending constituting Count 3 falls towards the "lower range".
6. I do not think the parties are very far apart, but I prefer the Crown's assessment, that is that although the offending is below the mid-range of objective seriousness for these types of offences, it is closer to the middle of the range than the lower end of the range and I accept the Crown's submissions in that regard. I really do not think the question of whether the victim was aged 10 or 15 is very material. I will however give the offender the benefit of the doubt and will assume the victim was closer to 15 than 10. The same mitigating factors relevant to Count 1 as outlined at [45] are also relevant here.

Count 4 - sexual assault without consent under 16 years of age

Summary of facts

1. The victim is LS.
2. LS is the younger sister of WL and also a cousin of the offender's deceased wife. She was babysitting at the time.
3. In about 1982 or 1983, the offender inserted his fingers into the vagina of LS for what she thought to be 20 to 30 seconds when she was 12 or 13 years of age, when LS was asleep in the spare room of the offender's premises. The victim yelled out to the offender to "stop", which he did.

Objective seriousness of Count 4

1. The Crown submits that the objective seriousness of the offending in respect of Count 4 is below the mid-range level of objective seriousness factoring the age of the victim, the nature and duration of the penetration. The conduct is not at the lower end due to the offender being in a position of trust and the victim being asleep at his home to babysit the offender's daughter. Again, there is an aspect of vulnerability relied on by the Crown.
2. On the other hand, the offender submits that I should find that Count 4 is in the lower range of objective seriousness and again, that the Form 1 matter, which involved rubbing the victim's vagina and breasts for only a few seconds while she was in the shower, ought not add to any penalty.
3. The offender emphasises the short duration (20-30 seconds) of the offending and that it ceased when the victim requested it to cease. Again, it is emphasised that there were no threats and no violence.
4. I prefer the characterisation of the Crown. I do not think, in the context, the short duration of the offending is a mitigating or an indeed even a relevant factor. Nor do I think that the fact the offender stopped when asked to do so ought be given any weight. After all, he must have known that what he was doing was wrong and that he had no place doing what he was doing and that the victim's consent was in fact irrelevant. He did not need to be told to stop. He should not have started.
5. The observation I have already made as the mitigating factors at [45] are also applicable.

Count 5 - indecent assault person under 16 years of age and under authority

Summary of facts

1. The victim is RJ.
2. She is the biological daughter of the offender.
3. The offending in respect of RJ are somewhat representative counts. The agreed facts referred to uncharged offending by the offender that do not aggravate either Count 5 or Count 6, but rather indicate that it cannot be said by the offender that his conduct in respect of RJ was isolated, let alone opportunistic. In my judgment, this conduct appears to have become almost routine after RJ had a shower and before bedtime in the evening.
4. Some time between 1989 and 1991, the offender placed RJ's hand on his penis when it was erect. She was aged between 7 and 9.
5. The Crown submits the facts that identify uncharged offending are available to be used in the following context: 1. The conduct is not an aberration; 2. The offender should not be afforded any leniency; 3. The conduct is not isolated; 4. Findings as to the offender's state of mind or motive; or 5. The vulnerability of the victim: LN v R [2020] NSWCCA 131, Hamill J at [151] and also Basten JA at [54]. See also Ragg v R [2022] NSWCCA 150 from [38].

Objective seriousness of Count 5

1. The Crown submits that the objective seriousness of the offending in respect of Count 5 is below the mid-range level of objective seriousness (but not at the lower end), for the following reasons: 1. The age of the victim (significantly below 16); 2. There was "skin on skin" contact; 3. The offender's penis was erect; 4. The relationship between the two (although "under authority" is an essential element, the victim being a biological daughter makes the facts of a significant kind for that element); and 5. The offending is in a background of manipulation regarding the victim keeping the conduct a secret (by the offender saying, "no one will believe you").
2. The offender submits that Count 5 was short-lived and opportunistic, did not involve any pre-planning, there were no threats and no violence. The offender, whilst accepting that the acts were part of a course of other similar conduct, says that those acts must nonetheless be assessed as proportionate to the objective seriousness of the conduct itself, which is I am reminded, a fundamental and immutable principle of sentencing: R v Scott [2005] NSWCCA 151 at [15].
3. The offender seeks to characterise the objective seriousness of Count 5 as in the "lower range".
4. I do not think the parties are very far apart but I tend to accept the Crown's submissions where they are in conflict with the offender's. That is, I find the objective seriousness to be a little below the mid-range. I have explained already that whilst I accept the offending was, in a very limited sense, opportunistic, it appears to me that offending of the type in Count 5 had become almost routine or habitual.
5. The mitigating factors I mentioned at [45] are again relevant.

Count 6 - indecent assault person under 16 years of age and under authority

Summary of facts

1. Again, the victim is RJ.
2. Some time between 1989 and 1991,the offender had RJ lick his penis. The offender ejaculated onto her face (the offence took place between when she was 7 years to 9 or 10 years old).

Objective seriousness of Count 6

1. The Crown submits that the objective seriousness of the offending in respect of Count 6 is well above the mid-range level of objective seriousness for the following reasons: 1. The age of the victim (significantly below 16); 2. There was "skin on skin" contact; 3. The offender's penis was licked (being an indecent assault, although almost approaching a type of sexual intercourse, being fellatio); 4. There was ejaculation on the face of the victim; 5. The relationship between the two (although "under authority" is an essential element, the victim being a biological daughter makes the facts of a significant kind for that element); and 6. The offending was in a background of manipulation regarding the victim keeping the conduct a secret (by the offender saying, "no one will believe you"). 7. This offence also occurred in the home of the victim.
2. The offender again submits that the offending conduct was relatively short-lived and opportunistic, does not appear to have involved any pre-planning and there were no threats and no violence.
3. The offender accepts that Count 6 ought be seen to be in the mid-range of objective seriousness.
4. Again, I prefer the Crown's assessment that the offending falls well above the mid-range of objective seriousness. I place particular emphasis on the degradation caused, if not intended, by the ejaculation.
5. The same mitigating factors I have identified at [45] are relevant.

Count 7 - sexual assault person under 10 years of age and under authority

Summary of facts

1. The victim is TS.
2. TS is the step-granddaughter of the offender. The victim lived with the offender and her grandmother.
3. In about 2010, the offender performed cunnilingus on TS when she was 6 or 7 years of age.
4. Again, the offending in respect of TS are somewhat representative counts. The agreed facts refer to uncharged offending by the offender. This does not aggravate either Count 7 or Count 8, but indicates to me that it cannot be said by the offender that his conduct in respect of TS was isolated or opportunistic.

Objective seriousness of Count 7

1. The Crown submits that the objective seriousness of the offending in respect of Count 7 is below the mid-range level of objective seriousness factoring the nature and duration of the penetration.
2. The Crown also submits that the conduct is not at the lower end due to the offence having occurred in the victim's home. There is an aspect of vulnerability here with the victim's mother having been deceased and her father away for work.
3. On behalf of the offender, it is pointed out that whilst the sexual intercourse involved cunnilingus performed near the opening of the vagina of a child who was between the age of 6 or 7, there was no penetration of the vagina or any other body part nor any ejaculation that would cause both pain and risk of injury.
4. It is submitted that the Form 1 offence which involves an act of indecency, being the offender rubbing his penis against the victim's backside while she was sitting on his lap, both fully clothed, would not result in a material increase in sentence.
5. Whilst I accept the last point made by the offender, I do not accept in the circumstances of the agreed facts there was no penetration of the vagina. Having regard to the age of the victim and all of the circumstances outlined in the agreed facts, I think that the Crown's assessment, that the conduct is below the mid-range level of objective seriousness, is generous to the offender but I will proceed upon that basis.
6. Again, I take into account the mitigating factors outlined at [45].

Count 8 - sexual assault person under 10 years of age and under authority

Summary of facts

1. The victim is TS.
2. This is an act of fellatio with TS when she was 7 years of age. It took place in about 2010.

Objective seriousness of Count 8

1. The Crown submits that the objective seriousness of the offending in respect of Count 8 is below the mid-range level of objective seriousness factoring the nature and circumstances of the penetration.
2. The Crown submits that the conduct is not at the lower end due to the offence having occurred in the victim's home. There is an aspect of vulnerability emphasised with the victim's mother having been deceased and her father away for work.
3. On behalf of the offender it is said that, notwithstanding that the sexual intercourse which did involve the offender putting his penis into the victim's mouth, the victim being 7 years of age, which then went on for some time and resulted in the offender ejaculating into some tissues, it can be properly described as short-lived and opportunistic.
4. I do not accept that this event can be characterised as short-lived, and nor do I accept, if it was, that would be relevant. For reasons I have already explained, it was only opportunistic in a limited sense, otherwise it was yet another example of a pattern of offending which involved the offender taking advantage of situations in which he found himself.
5. As far as the Form 1 offence is concerned, this involved the offender masturbating himself while rubbing the victim's thighs and kissing her neck before ejaculating onto a towel.
6. The offender's ultimate submission is that the offending ought be found to be somewhere below the mid-range of objective seriousness which really is the same analysis as the Crown's. I will proceed on that basis. I also note the mitigating factors I have set out at [45].

Timing of the plea and discount

1. As I have said, the offender is entitled to a 5% discount from what would otherwise be the sentence for each of the charged matters, pursuant to s 25D(2)(c) of the CSPA.

Victim Impact Statements / sentencing principles for historic offences

1. I have already mentioned the three Victim Impact Statements.
2. It is very important for the Court and the community to be reminded and understand that it is now well accepted that crimes of this nature are not just horrible at the time they are committed, they also do have extremely adverse consequences on the victims and those impacts can be expected to be continuing and long-lasting.
3. The Victim Impact Statements which I have read are consistent with that understanding.
4. I am required by s 25AA of the CSPA to adopt principles of sentencing referable to today and not to principles that may have applied at the time of the offending itself.
5. In saying that, I do not want there to be any suggestion that I accept that conduct of the kind before me was any more acceptable to the community at the time of offending than it is today. It was never considered anything other than depraved, abhorrent, appalling and entirely unacceptable behaviour.
6. Rather, the position is that it is now more accepted that such conduct will almost certainly have ongoing adverse, traumatic impact on the victims.

Sentence assessment report

1. I have considered the opinion of the author of a sentencing assessment report which is before me to the effect that the offender is being assessed at a medium-low risk of re-offending.
2. I really do not understand how such an assessment is reached. As I have said, for my part, because and only because of the advanced age and ill health of the offender, I think his chances of re-offending are low.
3. Moreover, he is now separated from his family, will be on the Sex Offender Register, and it is quite unlikely that he will have an opportunity to reoffend.

Offender's state of health

1. The offender is 64 years old. He suffers multiple medical co‑morbidities. He is a diabetic on insulin, he has chronic back pain, knee issues, hypertension and high cholesterol. He walks with a stick; he is unsteady on his feet; he has lost a dramatic amount of weight whilst in custody; his legs give way from time to time; he is a fall-risk; from time to time he suffers from dizziness and weakness in his upper limbs, together with blurred vision. He is on a cocktail of medications.

Onerous time in custody

1. The offender has given evidence before me that his time in custody has been particularly onerous, not just because of his age and health, and I accept that it is very likely that his further time in custody will also be more onerous than it would have been for a younger and fitter man.

Offender's subjective case

1. I have already dealt with this throughout this judgment. His case boils down to his plea, his expressions of remorse, his age and ill health, his otherwise clean criminal record and his limited prospects of reoffending. I have taken these matters (with the exception of his criminal record) into account in his favour to varying degrees.

Comparable cases

1. I have been taken to a series of what are said to be comparable cases which were annexure "A" to the Crown's submissions.
2. They have given me an opportunity to consider similar crimes on both an indicative basis and aggregate basis.
3. Obviously enough, these types of crimes involve a wide range of different conduct and therefore such cases can only be used as a guide.
4. It is clear, however, from a review of those cases that both the indicative sentences and the aggregate sentence must be significant to amount to an appropriate sentence, taking into account the serious nature of the crimes and such as he has one, the offender's subjective case.

Totality

1. As I have said, the offending does fall into a pattern. However, the offending covers a broad period of time and each count represents a separate, individual act of serious criminality.
2. In this case, by reference to the matters set out in s 3A of the CSPA, I am of the opinion that general deterrence requires significant weight. The community must understand that crimes involving sexual interference of vulnerable children will be met with stern punishment. I also think that public condemnation and denunciation of the offending together with an acknowledgment of the harm done to the victims is important. I give some but limited weight to the offender's expressions of remorse. I give no weight to his apparent good character. As I have said, because of his age and ill health, I am of the view that rehabilitation, protection of the community and specific deterrence have very limited parts to play here.
3. Whilst I do propose to accumulate the sentences somewhat, I do think that ultimately an overall aggregate sentence needs to be significant so as to be appropriate. I have taken into account all of the matters identified in s 3A of the CSPA in coming to my overall conclusion. I have endeavoured to temper my reasoning to avoid a crushing or disproportionate sentence: Cahyadi v R [2007] NSWCCA 1 at [27]. On the other hand, public confidence in the administration of justice requires that there is no perception that there is available some sort of discount for multiple offending. I have tried to evaluate the overall criminality involved, including by reference to the Form 1 matters and the agreed fact, so as to find an appropriate relativity between that total criminality and the total sentence: R v Holder [1983] 3 NSWLR 245.
4. Taking all the matters I have mentioned into account, I have concluded that an appropriate aggregate head sentence is 20 years imprisonment.

Special circumstances

1. This is the offender's first time in custody and as I have said, he is in particularly poor health. I think those factors alone are sufficient to justify a finding of special circumstances and I propose to adjust what would otherwise be the minimum non-parole period, slightly in favour of the offender.

Time in custody

1. As I have said, the offender has been in custody solely relating to the matters before me from 16 December 2021.
2. I have determined that it is appropriate for his sentence to commence on that day.

Orders

1. In relation to the eight matters before me, taking into account the matters on the various Forms 1 and after deduction of 5% for the guilty pleas, I impose an aggregate term of imprisonment of 20 years to commence on 16 December 2021 and to expire on 15 December 2041.
2. I impose a non-parole period of 14 years to commence on 16 December 2021 and to expire on 15 December 2035.
3. The indicative sentences for each of the counts, after the 5% discount for the guilty pleas, are as follows: Count 1, 4 years. Count 2, 4 years. Count 3, 3 years. Count 4, 6 years. Count 5, 5 years. Count 6, 5 years. Count 7, 6 years with a non-parole period of 4 years 6 months. Count 8, 8 years with a non-parole period of 6 years.

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: 10 May 2024