R v Vaughan Mark Hildebrand

NB: Sentences quashed by CCA following appeal by offender (see Hildebrand v R [2021] NSWCCA 9). Remitted to District Court for Resentence by Tupman, DCJ. Resentenced by Tupman, DCJ on 3 February 2022 (see R v Hildebrand (No. 2) [2022] NSWDC - full medium neutral citation to be added). JUDGMENT 1 HER HONOUR: This is the sentence judgment in the matter of Vaughan Hildebrand. The offender has been committed to this Court from the Local Court for sentence, after pleading guilty in the Local Court to numerous Commonwealth and New South Wales offences. There are 26 separate charges for substantive sentence, and 18 additional offences to be taken into account, on 10 individual additional offence documents, either Form 1 documents pursuant to s 23 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), or s 16BA of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth). There are 15 separate victims involved in these sentences, and some other offences for which there is no individual victim. So far as the individual victims are concerned, there is a no publication order in relation to each of them, and some others, and each of these specific victims has been given identifying initials for the purpose of this judgment and any reporting of it. The legend explaining to whom each set of initials relates is part of the Crown bundle. 2 The 26 substantive charges comprise the following: In relation to the Commonwealth offences, there are 10 charges contrary to s 474.17(1) of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth), of using a carriage service to menace or harass a person. These 10 charges are sequences 3, 11, 12, 23, 24, 30, 31, 32, 33 and 34. They each relate to a separate victim, so therefore there are 10 victims covered by these 10 Commonwealth offences. Offences under this section each carry a maximum penalty of 3 years' imprisonment. There is one further Commonwealth offence of using a carriage service to solicit child pornography material, brought contrary to s 474.19(1) of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth). This is sequence 18, and brought pursuant to that section, it carries a maximum penalty of 15 years imprisonment. 3 There is then a series of charges contrary to New South Wales criminal law provisions. There are 11 charges of sexual intercourse without consent, pursuant to s 61I of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). They are sequences 57, 67, 55, 60, 37, 39, 41, 42, 62, 65 and 27. These offences cover 4 individual victims and the maximum penalty for each of these offences is 14 years imprisonment, with a standard non-parole period of 7 years. 4 There is a further charge of wilful misconduct in public office, which is sequence 1. It is a common law offence, and the penalty is therefore at large. 5 There are two further State offences of dealing with identity information with the intention of committing an indictable offence pursuant to s 192J of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), each of which carries a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment. These are sequences 20 and 21. 6 There is one remaining offence of possessing a prohibited weapon without authority, pursuant to s 7(1) of the Weapons Prohibition Act 1998 (NSW). The maximum penalty for this offence is 14 years imprisonment, with a standard non-parole period of 5 years. It is sequence 15. 7 When sentencing for these substantive offences, I must take into account a number of additional offences, either pursuant to s 23 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), or s 16BA of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth). There are 10 such forms which cover 18 additional offences. I will identify these 18 additional offences when sentencing for each of the relevant substantive matters. 8 This is an extremely lengthy and complex sentencing task. The fact that there are substantive offences, 26 in all, and then 10 separate individual additional offence forms comprising 10 additional offences to take into account, is amongst the reason for this complexity. In my view, it is difficult in some cases to see why this course was adopted. In some cases, either the additional offence is equally as serious as the substantive offence and could more properly, at least in my view, have been charged as a substantive offence, or at the other end, is a very minor offence, in one case, in a way that it is almost impossible to ascertain exactly what it is alleged that occurred, and in my view, for that offence, ought to have been withdrawn. That is only one reason for the complexity. 9 The offending also deals with at least 11 identified victims of a series of different offences. The offences are a combination of New South Wales and Commonwealth offences, where the sentencing regimes are different. The nature of the offending is very different, ranging from sending threatening messages in an unsuccessful attempt to elicit sexualised photos from a victim, right through to anal rape. The maximum penalties range from a maximum of 3 years to 15 years, and one, the common law offence, has no specified maximum penalty. Some offences have no standard non-parole period, and some have a standard non-parole period as high as 7 years. Six of the victims have provided, or in some cases read out, victim impact statements in Court, and for those who have not provided a victim impact statement, there is nothing, apart from the facts to which the offender has agreed, to indicate the impact on them or their current situation. 10 Perhaps the most difficult aspect of this sentencing task is to distil the relevant facts from the so called statement of agreed facts, which is a document of 48 closely typed pages. It is not a statement of facts at all, but in large part is a summary of evidence that would be relied on to prove each of the offences. It ought to have been simplified, even if it was thought there was some need to provide some examples of the facts in order for the Court to be able to determine the objective criminality of each offence. However, it is not necessary in any so called statement of agreed facts to set out the precise words used in every message or telephone conversation, or specific details such as precise telephone numbers and the like. 11 Summaries would be sufficient to identify the objective seriousness of any offence. I am sympathetic to the fact, particularly from the Crown's perspective, that there was an enormous volume of material in this matter to distil, but it is unfortunate that both parties, not just the prosecuting authorities, but also those appearing for the offender, did not attempt to simplify the agreed facts so that the task of sentencing here was made shorter and more straightforward. This comment is directed at both ends of the bar table, not just the prosecution. There is nothing, and never has been anything, preventing those appearing for offenders in complicated sentences like this, from preparing their own summary of agreed facts to present to the sentencing Judge as a form, at least, of aide memoire. Provided it is an accurate and faithful summary of the tendered agreed facts, it will always be accepted. That ought to have been attempted in this case by both parties. 12 The Crown has at least provided some written submissions, and there are some summaries of facts in that. These are pleas of guilty, and on the face of it, there would appear to have been significant negotiations, from what I assume were a larger number of offences originally brought. These charges are not even before the Court in numerical chronological order, which adds to the complexity of the sentencing task, but these are pleas of guilty, and in such circumstances, the entirety of the evidence that would have been necessary to prove guilt is simply not needed, and in this case, and in all other cases in which this is continually done, adds to the complexity and time involved. 13 Doing the best I can, however, from this complicated situation, I accept that there is a background to this offending. The first offences occurred in 2007, involving the victim BB, when the offender himself was 18. There are 10 charges of which BB is the victim, either substantive matters for sentence or additional offences, and they cover a time span of 10 years. Even though it means that an analysis of the offences involving BB will require matters to be taken out of chronological order, I propose to deal with those first. 14 Sequence 57 is one of the 11 charges of sexual intercourse without consent, and occurred sometime between 1 January and 28 February 2017 at Arncliffe. As I have said, it carries a maximum penalty of 14 years, with the standard non-parole period of 7 years. When sentencing for this offence, I am to take into account two additional offences of sexual intercourse without consent, sequences 58 and 59, the first occurring during the same time period in Bardwell Valley, and the second in August 2007 at Bardwell Park. 15 This is one of those examples where two offences of equal seriousness are not before the Court substantively, but are to be taken into account in a meaningful way when sentencing for sequence 57, but not attracting a separate sentence with and considerations of concurrency and the like. 16 The victim of these offences, BB, was born in July 1989. She lived with her parents in Sydney, and in 2006 was in year 11 at high school and was aged 17. She completed high school in 2007. She met the offender in August or September 2006 through mutual friends, and commenced some contact through social media, including MSN Messenger. They began what is described in the facts as an on again off again relationship. Between 2007 and 2017, the offender demanded that BB forward to him nude images of herself, and threatened that he would forward these images to her friends and family if she did not engage in sexual acts with him. 17 In particular, in early January 2007, she was with him in his car, driving around the Arncliffe area. They went to a golf course. He stopped and pulled down his pants and exposed his erect penis. They were outside the car at this stage in the golf course. She turned away, and as she did so, he pushed her using both his hands and she fell onto a rock and grazed her knee. At that stage she was looking away from the offender, but she turned around and saw him standing close by with his erect penis millimetres from her face. She attempted to push him away, but could not move him. She told him to stop, but he did not move. He began masturbating with one hand, and put his other hand behind her head, and pulled her head towards him and forced his penis into her mouth. This caused her to choke and gag and she started crying. 18 She tried to push him away, but could not break free because he was holding her head with both his hands. He ejaculated into her mouth and then did up his pants. They then returned to the car and he drove her back to his home, and then she went to her home. As a result of this offence, she had grazes to her knees, and her mouth and throat were aching. She did not consent to this sexual intercourse. This offence occurred in the evening and there was no one else in the vicinity. 19 They are the facts for sequence 57, a substantive matter for sentence. During the same period, there was another similar incident which occurred in the yard of the house where the offender lived in Bardwell Valley. The offender took her, BB, by the hand, and led her to the side of the house. He took her under the house, where there was a cupboard, or a door, and led her inside where it was dark. Again, he pulled down his pants and began to masturbate until his penis was erect. BB said she did not want to do that and started to cry. He took hold of her shoulders and forced her to her knees. He then placed his hand on the back of her head, pulling her towards his crotch, and thrust his penis into her mouth. She choked and gagged, and he held her head with both hands and continued thrusting, whilst at the same time pulling her head back and forth. He ejaculated into her mouth. He then pulled his pants up and went back into the house, leaving her under the house. Again, she did not consent to this sexual intercourse. That is the first of the two additional offences to be taken into account on Form 1(F) when sentencing for sequence 57. 20 In July 2007, BB received some compensation following a knee injury, and spoke to the offender about it. As a joke, she told him that she would buy him a motorcycle, but later made it clear to him that it was a joke, and she had no intention of doing so. He became angry about this, and accused her of dishonesty. She was 17 or 18 at the time and just finishing school, and he was about a year older. He then claimed that she was indebted to him, because of what he described as her deception. He told her that she had to give him oral sex, which he then and thereafter described as head jobs, to make up for it. He said to her, "You owe me times two", and from that time BB started to receive messages from the offender with the characters "x2", meaning times two. The offender was 18 at the time. This would seem to be the beginning of a long period of his use of carriage services to threaten and blackmail young women into either sending him sexually explicit photos, or performing sexual acts with and on him. 21 One of these events is in fact sequence 59, the second additional offence to take into account when sentencing for the first substantive matter. In August 2007, BB received a text from the offender, telling her to come to his house in Bardwell Valley. It was night, and she went there and saw him in the living room with the TV on, which was the only light in the room. There is no evidence explaining where his parents were that night, or any other night when offences occurred at his home. She sat on the far end of the lounge away from him, and he ignored her until about an hour later when he said, "Well, what are you going to do? Why did you come all this way for?". 22 He undid his pants and began to masturbate until his penis was erect. At this stage, BB was closer to him. He placed his hand on the back of her head and forced her head down towards his crotch. She resisted, but he continued to force her head down, and ultimately managed to force his penis inside her mouth. He then took hold of her head with both hands and pulled her head up and down on his penis. She remained motionless, and after a few minutes he ejaculated into her mouth. He did up his pants and returned to watching TV. She left a short time later and this sexual intercourse was without her consent. That is the second offence to be taken into account as an additional offence. She was 17, he was 18. She did not consent, and he could tell by her actions that she was not consenting. 23 She suffered grazed knees as a result of the substantive offence, when he forced her to the ground. In all cases, he ejaculated into her mouth. This is very serious criminal offending. He was only 18, but he was already acting callously and in a manipulative way. He was supposed to be her friend. He had nude pictures of her, and threatened to use them to show her family if she did not have oral sex with him. For the substantive offence, they were alone at night in an isolated position in a golf course. 24 This of itself is a serious offence of sexual assault, but more so because of the two additional offences to take into account, which are of a similar, if not identical, nature. They must be taken into account in a meaningful way. Each of these offences carries a maximum penalty of 14 years imprisonment, with a standard non-parole period of 7 years, and I must sentence in accordance with the current relevant sentencing regime. Despite some of these features, which amount to some aggravation, I am of the view that the substantive offence nonetheless is slightly below the midrange for offences capable of being charged under this section. Further, this is a plea of guilty, and therefore the standard non-parole period of 7 years does not apply strictly, but must be taken into account as some form of yardstick. 25 I note in the Crown written submissions at paragraph 58D, the Crown argues that the objective seriousness of the two Form 1 offences here, that is, those to be found in Form 1(F), is aggravated because BB knew that the offender was a police officer, and used his position to intimidate her into consenting. That is not, in fact, the case here. These offences occurred in 2007, and he did not become a police officer until 2011. Clearly, there is some misunderstanding in that written submission. The Form 1 offences here, and generally throughout these sentences, must be dealt with in a meaningful way, always taking into account the seriousness of the individual Form 1 offences themselves, and the extent to which they indicate a greater level of criminality. 26 In particular, I accept from the decision of RL v R [2018] NSWCCA 274 that it is open to impose a longer sentence than might otherwise be appropriate for the substantive sentence, when taking these additional offences into account. That, of course, always depends on the nature of the additional offences and the extent to which, of themselves, they are offences of significant criminality. That is clearly the case here, namely that they are offences of significant criminality. They are, in fact, two equally serious and separate instances of sexual intercourse without consent to take into account, and the sentence to be imposed for sequence 57 must be longer for that reason. 27 The s 5 threshold referred to in the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) has been well and truly reached for this offence, and only fulltime custody would suffice to deal with the objective criminality. I am not, at this stage, either by that reference or otherwise, ignoring the subjective case which has been tendered on behalf of the offender, and to which I will refer in due course, but I intend, when dealing with each individual matter, to give an indication of what the appropriate sentence will be. In so doing, I have taken into account the evidence called in the subjective case, but will refer to it specifically later in the sentence judgment. 28 One thing I will specifically refer to at this early stage, however, is the fact that the offender comes to Court as a person with no prior criminal convictions. For many offenders, that is a matter that would be taken into account as a circumstance of mitigation and an indication of some good character. In this case, that is not a factor from which I would infer either that at the time of this early offending against BB, and certainly not thereafter, that he was a person of good character. He was in fact not caught until 2017, which explains why he comes to Court with no criminal record, but he was certainly not a person of good character either then nor now. 29 I do not ignore, either, and take into account the fact that these are pleas of guilty, entered at the earliest opportunity in the Local Court. When sentencing for all of the State offences, I will impose a sentence that takes into account a discount for the utilitarian value of those pleas. In accordance with the dicta of the Court of Criminal Appeal and R v Thomson and Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 383, I will apply a 25% discount at the top of the range to reflect the utilitarian value of the pleas. That will be applied in that numerical form, albeit perhaps not always strictly, when dealing with the State offences. 30 When dealing with the Commonwealth offences, I will also take into account the fact that the pleas of guilty indicate some willingness to facilitate the interests of justice, although in this case it may be of lesser significance. I will also take into account the utilitarian value of the pleas of guilty when setting the Commonwealth sentences and apply, to the extent that it is necessary, the same discount of approximately 25%. 31 Taking those matters into account it seems to me, then, that for sequence 57, an overall term of imprisonment of 5 years is called for, with a 3 year non-parole period, including taking into account the relevant Form 1 offences. 32 The offender and BB continued contact between October 2007 and early 2008. He continued to demand photos and oral sex, and made the same threats. She complied because of these threats. On a few occasions, he told her he wanted to make a pornographic film, but she refused. In early 2008, he asked her to send a nude image, and she refused. He then threatened to show naked pictures of her to her friends, and also threatened, in effect, to tell or show her brother. She then complied because of this threat and sent the requested images. 33 In July 2008 BB started to use Facebook Messenger to communicate with friends. The offender was one of those, and continued to demand nude photos and oral sex from her. She saw him on a semi constant basis during this period. He would often send her messages saying, "x2", that is times two, and she would refuse. She understood that to be a request or demand for oral sex. He then started to send messages which said "anal". She refused. He then started to send messages suggesting that she should go on Skype, and on one occasion when she was on Skype, he demanded nude images of her. She complied because of the ongoing threat that he would disseminate the other images that he had to others, including her family. 34 During the first half of 2010, BB's brother was arrested by police, and she asked the offender for help because she knew that he had studied criminology at university. She thought he might be able to explain the process to her. She went to his house at Bardwell Valley one evening in the first half of 2010, and they were sitting outside near a fire pit. She explained the situation with her brother, and the offender said that he could help her, and that he had a lawyer friend to whom he would speak. He led her into his bedroom and put her on his bed and undid his pants. 35 He behaved the same way that he had done previously, by exposing his penis and masturbating to erection. He told BB that she needed him, and said that without his help her brother may go to gaol. She sat on the edge of the bed with her back to him. He grabbed her elbow and pulled her around, but she resisted and refused to turn around. This happened several times, and each time she refused to turn around and face him. He again pulled her around, but this time he grabbed the back of her head and forced his penis into her mouth, holding her head until he ejaculated into her mouth. She did not consent to this, and left soon afterwards. 36 They are the facts for sequence 60, the second substantive offence involving BB. More probably than not, the lawyer of whom he spoke did not exist. As will become clear when discussing the balance of the offences, the offender constantly told lies to women about his contacts, even to the extent of posing as these contacts online, in order to either get sexual favours from these women, or sexually explicit photos from them. He used both blackmail and emotional blackmail on BB, when she sought help from him because of her concern for her brother. 37 In early 2012, the offender introduced BB to another person, and she went out with him a few times until she became involved in an intimate relationship with him from February 2012. The offender came to learn of that relationship, and thereafter started to send BB text messages asking her for nude images. She refused, and in response he threatened to forward the images he already had to her boyfriend. In the end, she complied with his request for nude images because of those threats. By this stage, the offender was a serving New South Wales police officer and had joined the police service in 2011. 38 In March 2012, BB's brother was arrested by police and she again approached the offender for advice. As I have said, by that stage he was a serving New South Wales police officer, a fact of which BB was aware. During a conversation with him, he said, "I know a lawyer, I can get some advice from him and it won't cost you anything, if you know what I mean". 39 On 19 April 2012, BB went to Rosehill Racecourse with a group of people, including her boyfriend and brother. According to the agreed facts, during the day she received hundreds of text messages from the offender. In July 2012, BB's mother passed away, and she turned to the offender again for guidance and support, including in relation to her brother's pending Court matter. This in part occurred because she knew he was a serving police officer and thought he might be able to assist. In return, he continued to demand nude images from her. 40 During the beginning of August 2012, the offender offered BB money in a text. He said that he could give her money, and all she needed to do was to go on Skype, and that it would only take half an hour. She refused, and so he then said to send him some photos. Again, she refused. He then said, "Well all you'll have to do is times two, and I'll give you 40K. You don't have to worry about it, I'll sort it out". I accept that this was him offering to pay for oral sex, and also a reference to her brother's impending criminal proceedings. 41 In August 2012, BB went to the offender's house in Bardwell Valley, and they were again in the rear yard. She was feeling depressed about her mother's death and her brother's legal issues. The offender asked her questions about her brother, and kept coming back to the situation involving her brother, and asked if she had spoken to the police. She did not reply, and he then offered to make some calls for her. She ignored him, and he said to her, "Do you really want a dead mother, and a brother in gaol? I've got a friend at the DPP that can help out". 42 This of course was a lie, but because of previous conversations with the offender, BB thought that he had the ability to jeopardize her brother's Court proceedings if she did not comply with his request. He put his arm around her, unbuttoned his pants and unzipped his fly, pulling out his erect penis. He put his hand on her. He put her hand on his penis, but she pulled it away. He took hold of her hand and held it down on his penis. He said, "Do you want to lose your brother too? It's up to you, you can fix this. You just need to do this, and I'll sort it out". 43 He moved his hand to the back of her head and pushed her head towards his crotch. She resisted, and he said, "I can fuck this up, all it would take is a call from me and he'll be put away". BB, as I have said, knew that he was a police officer and thought he had this power, so she performed oral sex on him for a few minutes before he ejaculated into her mouth. She did not consent to this sexual intercourse, and only did so because of the threats that were being made. These facts are the relevant facts for sequence 61, which is the offence in Form 1(G), the additional offence to be taken into account when sentencing for sequence 60, which occurred two years earlier. 44 Sequence 60, it seems to me, is a little below the midrange in terms of objective seriousness, and also it is, as I have said, a plea of guilty, but the sentence must be longer than it might otherwise be, to take into account in a meaningful way the criminality involved in the additional offence, sequence 61, the Form 1 offence. Again, and it seems to me in a somewhat bizarre way, the facts for sequence 61 are more serious than the relevant circumstances comprising the substantive offence sequence 60. That in part is because of the relevant aggravating circumstances, namely that by that stage the offender was a serving police officer, and further, he was taking advantage not only of the concern BB had for her brother, but also manipulating and taking advantage of the situation that she found herself in, namely grieving for the relatively recent death of her mother. For those reasons, sequence 61, albeit an additional offence, seems to me to be more serious than sequence 60, and must be taken into account in a meaningful way. Again, it seems to me that the relevant sentence for that sequence, with that Form 1 taken into account, is an overall term of imprisonment of 5 years with a 3 year non-parole period. 45 The next group of offences involving BB started between June and July 2014. During this time, BB received a text from the offender, similarly saying, "x2", or times two, with further threats that he would forward the collection of nude photographs he had of her to her boyfriend. As a result of feeling threatened in that way, she went to his house at Campbelltown on an evening in that time period. By that stage he had moved to live in his own house in Campbelltown. There were two large dogs in the house, of which she was afraid, because they were large and acted aggressively. 46 When she arrived at the house that night, she saw him sitting on the lounge with a glass of wine and he was playing with a knife, and appeared to be acting erratically and on edge. He told her that he had guns in the house, which may or may not have been true, given what was subsequently found when he was ultimately arrested. He also told her that he was working undercover infiltrating a motorcycle gang, which is almost certainly not true, because if that had been true he would not have told her. 47 They sat on the lounge for a few hours and then she left. As she drove away, she received texts from him simply saying, "x2", or times two. She understood that was a demand or request for oral sex, and she felt under a degree of compulsion because of what he just told her, and also because of the erratic behaviour she had seen. So, she returned to the house. When she arrived, she found him in the lounge room, masturbating. She walked over and sat on the lounge. He leaned over and grabbed her by the wrist and dragged her across to him. He placed his hand on the back of her head and forced her down towards his crotch. She resisted, but he continued and forced his penis into her mouth. She performed oral sex on him for a few minutes before he ejaculated into her mouth. Again, she did not consent to this oral sex, and was only back in the house because of the threats that he had made, which she believed he was capable of carrying out. After he had finished, he continued to watch television, and she left. 48 Those are the relevant facts for sequence 62, an offence for substantive sentence. When sentencing him for this, I am to take into account two additional offences of sexual intercourse without consent, one occurring in 49 December 2014, which is sequence 63, and the other occurring in April 2015, which is sequence 64. These two additional offences are to be found in Form 1(H). The relevant facts for these two additional offences are that on an evening in December 2014, the offender sent BB many text messages. She originally ignored them, but then received a message, which again said "x2", or times two. She understood, again, this was a demand for oral sex. He also threatened to disseminate the nude photos of her which he had, if she did not comply. 50 She went to his house in Campbelltown between 9:00 pm and 10:00 pm, and saw him seated on the lounge, and he appeared to be drunk. She saw a number of knives on the coffee table in front of him, and the large dogs were also present. He picked up one of the knives and started playing with it. He opened and closed it a number of times. The blade was about 20 cm long. He started to tell her and describe to her how he hunted and killed pigs, and waved and gestured with the knife in the air. She felt intimidated by these actions, and whilst he was demonstrating this to her, he reminded her that he had guns and knives in the room. He started to watch television and did not speak for a few hours. 51 After midnight, BB decided to leave, but the offender said, "Are you going to do this or what? You know what the consequences would be". She sat down next to him, and he undid his pants and took out his erect penis and placed his hand on the back of her head and pushed it down towards his crotch. She tried to resist, but he insisted, and forced her to give him oral sex for a few minutes before he ejaculated into her mouth. She did not consent to this sexual intercourse, and she left shortly afterwards. 52 The second additional offence occurred during April 2015. BB agreed to have dinner with the offender at his house in Campbelltown. During dinner, he left the table and did not return. She did not know why he left, so she started to drive home, and then received some text messages from him, in which he referred to her boyfriend, implied a threat to tell him that she was there with him, and threatened to send him the nude photos that he had of her. He instructed her to come back to the house, and again texted or said "x2", which she understood to be a demand for oral sex. In those circumstances, she returned. 53 The dogs were there and were barking, and they followed her into the house. She went back to the lounge room and sat on the lounge. The dogs were harassing her. The offender intervened and pushed them away. He then stopped in front of her and undid his pants. He pulled out his erect penis, and pulled her head towards him and forced his penis into her mouth. He held the back of her head and manipulated her head so that she engaged in oral sex with him. She choked and gagged when he did so, and was having difficulty breathing and tried to pull away, but he would not allow her to do so, and continued to thrust into her mouth. She tried to push him away, but could not do so because he was too strong. She experienced pain, but was not able to yell out. After a few minutes, he ejaculated into her mouth. Again, she did not consent to this sexual intercourse, and left shortly afterwards. 54 That is sequence 64, the second of the two additional offences to be taken into account when sentencing for sequence 62. All of these offences occurred at his house at Campbelltown and are equally serious. They are all aggravated by the fact that he was a serving police officer at the time, which she knew, and he would have been aware that it enhanced the level of threat that he presented to her. The level of threat was also increased by the fact that he was handling knives, making comments about his ability to hunt and kill pigs, telling her that he had guns in the house and similar matters. 55 All of the same comments and findings made about the objective criminality of the offending overall are relevant for these offences too, including the use of threats to obtain sexual favours, the fact that he was imposing on what was meant to be a friendship and the like. But the events were becoming more serious. He was behaving erratically and there were weapons present. There is no evidence that he actually used these weapons in a menacing way towards her, but they certainly presented in a threatening manner and were perceived in that way by her when she was there. 56 Taking all of those findings into account, these are obviously objectively serious and the two additional offences must be taken into account in a meaningful way. Even with a discount for the pleas of guilty, it seems to me that the overall term for sequence 62 should be 6 years with the 4 year non-parole period. 57 The last group of offences involving BB comprises sequence 65, a charge of sexual intercourse without consent, which occurred on 2 September 2015, with one additional offence to be taken into account, also of sexual intercourse without consent, occurring much later on 26 February 2017. That is sequence 66 and is to be found on Form 1(J). The relevant facts for sequence 65 are that on 2 September 2015, BB agreed to have dinner with the offender in Campbelltown. After dinner, she dropped him to his house in Campbelltown, and then started driving home. He then started to send her text messages directing her to return, and again wrote "x2". She refused, and they argued by way of text messages. She pulled to the side of the road and called him. During the conversation she had with him, he said to her, "Come back, you know what you have to do". She refused. He said, "Remember what I have got, the collection of you. What would your boss think of it". His threats now had escalated beyond her family, friends and boyfriend, and were now involving a threat to inform her boss, and in some way threaten her career. 58 In those circumstances she drove back, and when she got to his house he was on the lounge. She sat on the far end of the lounge and remained frozen. After about 20 minutes, he said, "What's it going to be. It's up to you how this all plays out, it's up to you". She refused, and they then had an argument. He said, "Come on, times two". She understood that this was a demand for oral sex. He undid his pants and took out his erect penis. He put her hand on his penis but she pulled away. He did that again. She looked away from him and in the direction of the television, but he put his hand on the back of her head and pushed it towards his crotch. He forced his penis into her mouth and forced her to engage in oral sex with him for about ten minutes, after which he ejaculated. She did not consent to this, and left shortly afterwards. 59 I also have to take into account, as an additional offence, Sequence 66, which occurred two years later. The background to this is that in October 2015, BB moved overseas with her boyfriend. The offender continued to demand nude images from her, and threatened to forward the photos to her brother and her work if she did not do so. Because of these threats, she forwarded him several images during this period. On 26 February 2017, she came back to Sydney to enable her to renew her work visa for the UK. 60 On 27 February 2017, she agreed to visit the offender at his home in Campbelltown. She stayed the evening and slept on the lounge. The following morning there was an argument between them. He asked why she had visited if she was going to ignore him, and again used the term "times two", which she understood was a demand for oral sex. He went further, and said, "You don't want to fuck up your visa". They continued to argue, and he said, "You don't want to have to give up London. If you don't times two, I can fuck this up for you". He was at the time still a serving police officer and she believed, albeit erroneously, that he had some power to compromise her ability to renew her work visa to the UK. He undid his pants and took out his erect penis. He put his hand on the back of her head and pulled her down towards his crotch. She resisted and pushed backwards. He continued to push and applied more pressure to the back of her head, overpowering her and forcing his penis into her mouth. She performed oral sex on him for a few minutes until he ejaculated into her mouth. She left a short time later, and returned to the UK a week later. They are the facts for the sequence 66 additional offence. 61 On 13 March 2018, BB made a formal statement to New South Wales police, outlining the full ranges of offences referred to already in this sentence. As for the previous three substantive offences involving BB, when sentencing him for sequence 65, I have to take into account the additional offence of sequence 66 in a meaningful way. All the same findings apply as earlier, in terms of the objective criminality including the threats, the fact that he was a serving police officer which she knew. It seems to me that the relevant sentence for that offence in those circumstances is also 5 years with a 3 year non-parole period. 62 When indicating the sentences appropriate for these offences involving the victim BB, I indicate that I have taken into account the victim impact statement that was read onto the record by BB's mother, and which is tendered in these proceedings. I accept that she has suffered serious adverse consequences as a result of what can only be described as the offender's persistent abuse of her over 10 years. The Court is aware of the ongoing consequences of sexual abuse, and even in the absence of any victim impact statements, the Court would make a finding in every case that the victim of sexual abuse is likely to suffer serious psychological sequelae, require treatment and have lifelong adverse consequences as a result. That is even more so given those facts which the offender has admitted by the agreed facts, which I have just recently summarised. I accept that she has become insular and has had difficulties with anxiety and depression, and whilst there is no strict evidence of a medical nature in relation to the ongoing impact on her, because of the wealth of information available to the Court about the well-known consequences of sexual abuse, I accept that this is likely to be ongoing and may well be ongoing for her whole life. 63 This amounts to a serious adverse impact on her, but not of the type, in my view, which would amount to an additional aggravating factor. The Crown does not argue for a finding that this impact on the victim is more than would be expected from the type of offending, but it must be seen as serious, it is ongoing and persistent, in circumstances where, presumably, she felt she had little control over her life during these 10 years. I have taken all of this into account when sentencing for the offences involving BB. 64 For the offences involving BB, in summary, there are 10 separate instances of sexual intercourse without consent, over a period of 10 years, in which the offender forced BB to engage in oral intercourse with him. He ejaculated into her mouth on all occasions. He used some force in doing so, and on the first of these occasions she suffered some relatively minor, but nonetheless, injuries to her knees. He was meant to be her friend and he took advantage of that. He threatened her with the use of photographs, to disseminate them to her friends, family, boyfriend and boss. 65 The offences occurring after 2011 are further aggravated by the fact that he was then a serving police officer, of whom a higher standard of behaviour is expected. What is more, he used that position in relation to some of the offences, by pretending that that position would mean he could either bring about advantageous outcomes for her brother, or disadvantageous situations for her brother, if she did not comply with his request for sexual favours or the forwarding of sexually explicit photographs. 66 For some of the later offences there were present, whilst he was making these demands, weapons, mainly in the form of knives, which he brandished about whilst making these requests for sex. His behaviour became bizarre and more menacing. He frequently texted her hundreds of times on a day, and in all of those circumstances, these are very serious criminal offences which even if they were being sentenced alone would give rise to lengthy periods of imprisonment. 67 Clearly enough, the s 5 threshold for imprisonment is met, and only fulltime custody would suffice. There should be a message of general deterrence sent in the sentences for these offences, and especially these offences, because of the nature of them. There is also a need for specific deterrence here, for reasons I will explore later in this sentence judgment. In due course, I will be imposing an aggregate sentence for all of these matters, taking into account the indicative sentences which I have set out at this stage. I will not announce what that aggregate sentence will be for this group of offences, but will now continue to go through the remaining matters for sentence. 68 I now return to the other offences before the Court. The matters to which I have already referred would be enough by themselves for this offender to be sent to gaol for a considerable period of time, but there are, as I have said, a large number of other offences that need to be dealt with. The next offence involves the victim AB and is sequence 34. The offender had been a close friend of AB's brother and her family since 2002, and was a frequent visitor to her home. He started corresponding with AB via social media in 2003, and in 2005 he told her that a neighbourhood friend had boasted to him that he had installed cameras in the bathroom at AB's home, and had boasted that he had seen her naked. By 2005, the offender was a close and trusted friend of AB. 69 In 2006, AB had become involved in organizing under 18 dance functions, and the offender knew of her interest. AB turned 17 in May 2007. In September 2007, she was befriended by someone on MSN messenger with a username that contained the initials DJ. She thought that the request had come about because it was someone who shared her interest in under-18 dance functions. In fact, the person who was communicating with her was the offender using an assumed identity. He did not identify himself to her, but provided some information to her about her personal circumstances. 70 In February 2008, the offender had an MSN conversation with AB using this assumed identity. He told her that she had been naughty, and that he had photos and videos of her getting dressed, and naked. She asked what he wanted, and he asked her to send him a photo. He threatened that unless she sent him a photo, he would send these other photos of her, naked or getting dressed, to her friends, family and work. She continued to communicate with him over MSN and demanded that he send her the photos to prove that in fact he had access to nude photos of her. He did not do so, but he then stated that he would then provide some private information about her, which the offender actually knew, such as the sort of pyjamas that she wore, which he only knew because he was a friend of her brother, and a frequent and trusted visitor to their house. 71 Using this assumed identity, he continued to demand photos of her naked, including pictures of her breasts. She told him she did not have a camera or a webcam, and he threatened that she had one day to provide the photos to him, or he would distribute those other photos that he claimed to have. He claimed that people were watching her through her bedroom window and she began to fear that whoever this person was could in fact see into her bedroom. 72 At this stage, as I have said, she was only 17. In March 2008 she blocked this identity from her account, but within half an hour she was befriended by a new MSN user with a different account name. It was the offender using a different identity. He immediately demanded a picture of her naked breasts and in other exchanges made it clear that it was the same person who had been corresponding with her earlier and that he was now angry because she had blocked his original account name. She created a new MSN account, and imported all of her contacts, apart from this one, not realising that in fact this was the offender. She shared this information with him, and that same night the offender used yet another MSN name and sent a message saying, "Hi, I'm back. Do you think you could hide from me". She sent a photo of herself in a bikini in an attempt to placate the person, who then said, "That's not enough, if you don't send a proper photo or meet up with me, then I will send the photos and fuck your life". 73 He became increasingly aggressive towards her, called her a bitch, and threatened to send images to her school friends. As I have said, at this stage AB was 17, and the offender was 19. He became increasingly rude to her. He demanded money from her and suggested she obtained money from a person he named as Anthony. At the time, AB was in a relationship with a person called Anthony, whose family was known to be well off. She became increasingly worried that this MSN identity, who of course she did not know was the offender, was aware of this detail. She searched her home for hidden cameras and began to stay at her boyfriend's home, because she thought a neighbour was watching her. She began to receive prank calls to her mobile number, and when she answered, she could hear a person breathing on the other end of the line. She would receive text messages from the same number, saying, "You can't run from me", and demanding that she connect with him on MSN messenger or she would suffer consequences. 74 She told her boyfriend, who then used her MSN account to communicate with the person, not knowing it was the offender. The offender said to him about AB, "She's a slut". In the end, on 29 April 2008, AB and her boyfriend reported the matter to Kogarah police. There is no evidence, as I understand it, about what happened as a result of that report. She in fact made a statement to police about this, during the course of what must have been a later investigation on 1 December 2017. 75 These facts involving the victim AB are sequence 34. It is one of the 10 separate Commonwealth offences of using a carriage service to threaten, menace or harass a person. The offender did so in order to obtain sexually explicit photos of her. She was the sister of his friend, and he was a trusted friend of the family, allowed regular access to her and their home. He abused that friendship and that trust that both the family and the victim had in him. 76 There is a victim impact statement before the Court from AB, who read it out in Court. I accept that she has been badly affected by his conduct towards her. He acted as her friend, almost like a brother. He allowed her to confide in him about the person who was menacing her on Messenger, and at the same time, because he was that very person, was victimising her in doing so. Not surprisingly, she has trust issues in relation to people generally, and this is ongoing, being reactivated, no doubt, at the time the offender was actually charged and she gave a statement to police almost 10 years later. I have read and listened to her statement and taken it into account. 77 It is a serious instance of using a carriage service to menace. It continued over a period of time. When sentencing for this and all of the other Commonwealth offences, I am required to take into account the provisions of Part 1B of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), and in particular, the provisions of s 16A. There are a number of factors there which I have, and will, take into account. One of those is to set out the nature and circumstances of the offence, in other words, the objective seriousness of the offending. It is, in my view, a relatively serious instance of this particular offence. I note that all of these offences brought contrary to s 474.17(1) are capable of being dealt with in the Local Court, where the jurisdictional limit would be 2 years. 78 Whether or not this particular offence would cross the threshold for imprisonment, if it were being sentenced alone, is a moot point. In its own terms, however, it is serious, it is cruel, it amounts to serious stalking and it seeks to obtain sexual content by the menacing. It creates a fear for the victim of feeling unsafe in her own home. In my view, in the overall circumstances of this case, taking into account the subjective case involving the offender, and also the early plea of guilty in the way that I have already outlined, it does require a period of custody. However, the maximum penalty for this offence is only 3 years. It is nowhere near the top of the range. It was not for a very lengthy period of time, it did not involve gross language and it involved messaging, not voice calls. These are all factors that I take into account in assessing the objective criminality. I have decided that without a discount for a plea of guilty, this ought to give rise to a 12 month term of imprisonment, therefore, a 9 month term with the discount for a plea of guilty. 79 The next group of offences involves the victim CD, and also surrounds the victim EF. In 2008, EF commenced a relationship with the offender. They were both students at the University of New South Wales. CD was one of EFs close friends from high school, and was also studying at the university. All three would often socialise together. The offence involving CD is sequence 24, and that involving EF is sequence 30. 80 At one stage, the offender told EF, his girlfriend at the time, that he had seen some sexually explicit photos of her friend CD and her boyfriend, on the boyfriend's phone. This was not true. Sometime in 2010, in general conversation with him, CD told the offender that she wanted to travel to Germany to study in October 2010. On 17 July 2010, CD received a Facebook friend request from a person named Adam Wolfgang, who she did not know or recognise, but because of his name and her interest in travelling to Germany, she accepted this friend request. It was in fact the offender using this false Facebook identity. He conversed with her for about two to three days over Facebook, largely about Germany, and then asked CD for her Skype details, which she provided. They then started to communicate over Skype, I understand by way of Skype messenger, not by way of video. 81 Once that started, the offender began to communicate in a sexualised manner. CD told her friend EF about these messages from the person called Adam Wolfgang, and EF then told the offender, who was her boyfriend. The offender, in his own persona, then contacted CD and said he had a friend who he described as a hacker, who may be able to help her. He arranged for CD to alert him when she was next on Skype with the person Adam Wolfgang, and said that he would then arrange for this friend to find out the identity of Adam Wolfgang. 82 CD did that one night in late July 2010. She let the offender know that she was on Skype with Adam Wolfgang, and he told her to stay in communication with him because his hacker friend was close to identifying him. All of this, of course, was not true. At one stage, Adam Wolfgang, that is, the offender posing as Adam Wolfgang, told CD to turn on the camera in her computer. She told the offender about this request, and he instructed her to comply, so as to make it easier for his hacker friend to identify him. All of this, of course, was not true and quite manipulative. Adam Wolfgang then asked CD to expose her breasts, and added that he knew she would do so, because he knew that her boyfriend had a photo of CD on his phone, which was sexual in nature. 83 At this point, CDs boyfriend in fact started to ring the offender, because CD had begun to suspect that Adam Wolfgang was in fact the offender. But he did not answer. He did however continue to send SMS messages to CD, instructing her to comply with Adam Wolfgang's request, or his hacker friend would not be able to identify him. CD muted the microphone on her computer to prevent the offender from hearing her, and rang her friend EF, telling her that she suspected that the offender was posing as Adam Wolfgang. But EF did not believe this, and told her to do what Adam Wolfgang was instructing her to do. CD tried to ring the offender a few more times but he did not answer, so she shut her computer down. When this happened, the offender began to send CD SMS messages to the effect that his connection with Adam Wolfgang had been lost. He also told her that his hacker friend had a connection with the Hells Angels outlaw motorcycle gang, and had taken a great risk in attempting to help her and that she had not shown any respect or gratitude. He told her that the Hells Angels were furious with her and wanted to burn down her house, but that he was protecting her from them. 84 At this stage, EF started to receive messages from the identity Adam Wolfgang, asking her to try to convince her friend CD to go back online, or he would release photos, which he had, of her and her boyfriend, which would prevent her from going overseas. All of this, of course, was starting to become manipulative and complicated and a well-planned form of manipulation in the nature of menacing and harassing CD via the carriage service, so in summary, this offence involving CD involves the offender creating a false Facebook profile in the name of Adam Wolfgang and posing as that person as a means of blackmailing CD in order to obtain sexually explicit photos of her. In doing that, he used a carriage service to menace her. He was 21 at the time, and whilst the evidence does not set her age out exactly, I accept that she was around the same age or perhaps a little younger. 85 CD reported this to the police on 15 August 2010, who contacted the offender, but he told them that he had no knowledge of the incident. Again, there is no evidence about what, if anything, happened to that complaint she made to the police, or whether there was any further investigation of it. She also made a statement to police in the subsequent investigation that occurred about these events, and that statement was dated 12 July 2017. Connected to this offence is the offence involving EF. On 12 August 2008, in an attempt to get CD to re-establish contact with the person Adam Wolfgang, the offender communicated with EF using another false Facebook identity, Fred Piercson. 86 The exchange demanded that she persuade CD to check her inbox, and threatened that the offender, who he named as Vaughan, was a dead man, which was all CDs fault for ceasing contact. He threatened that physical harm would come to the offender, who it must be remembered was EFs boyfriend at the time, and also threatened physical harm to EF. He demanded that EF add him as a Facebook friend, claiming to have done some research on her, and threatened to involve her family in some way if she did not do so. 87 This offence then, which is sequence 30, involves the offender's using yet another false Facebook identity, menacing and threatening EF via a carriage service for the purpose of EF attempting to persuade CD to check her inbox, all as part of an attempt to extort explicit photos from CD. Each of these two offences is serious, especially so that involving CD, where the actual aim was to extort sexually explicit photos from her. In each case there was the use of a falsely created identity, and more than one identity was created. There were threats of physical violence made towards EF, and, she believed, towards the offender. There was a threat also, indirectly, of physical violence to CD, by the mention of the involvement of Hells Angels and outlaw motorcycle gangs. 88 It, in my view, was complicated and very disturbing behaviour in circumstances where the offender was communicating with CD using two identities at the same time, one his own, trying to persuade her to continue to engage with the assumed identity, which was also him. It is in my view complex and disturbed behaviour. He was 21 at the time. She was his girlfriend's friend. He also abused the trust of his girlfriend, trying to persuade her to engage her friend to send sexually explicit photos. I have read and taken into account the victim impact statement provided by CD. She remains adversely affected by this manipulation, I accept, and particularly so because of the involvement in it of her best friend. 89 Given the escalating nature of these offences, I have concluded that each of these offences should give rise to a term of imprisonment of 12 months. 90 The next in time are the offences involving the victim GH, which are sequences 52, 67, 68, and 55, all of which occurred between April and August 2008, when GH was 16 or 17 and the offender was 19. Sequences 67 and 55 are for substantive sentence. 91 Sequence 67 is one of the 11 charges of sexual intercourse without consent, which occurred in July 2008, and sequence 55 is another of those 11 charges of sexual intercourse without consent, which occurred in August 2008. When sentencing the offender for this latter offence, sequence 55, I am to take into account two additional offences found in a schedule to Form 1(A). They are sequences 68 and 52. Sequence 68 is yet another charge of sexual intercourse without consent, contrary to s 61I. Sequence 52 is a charge contrary s 474.17(1) of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth), of using a carriage service to menace GH. 92 The background to these offences is that the victim started to live with her father and his partner in Penshurst from June 2006, when she was 14. The family joined the Elouera Surf Life Saving Club. The victim was unemployed between 2006 and 2008, and had only limited access to funds and did not have either a vehicle or a driver's licence. The offender himself was a member of the Elouera Surf Lifesaving Club between October 2000 and April 2008. At that stage he was living with his parents in Bardwell Valley. He was communicating with the victim's sister by a mobile phone and MSN Messenger during late 2006 to early 2008. He started to communicate with the victim, GH, via MSN Messenger and mobile phone from early 2008. 93 Specifically, in February 2008, he participated in some webcam chat sessions with the victim using MSN Messenger. The victim was using a desktop computer in her bedroom which had an external webcam. She had found the offender to be charming and complimentary of her. She confided personal information to him, including her family circumstances and her limited access to money. During these sessions, the offender encouraged her to participate in games of Truth or Dare and encouraged her to reveal her body to him, or in his words, to flash him. 94 By early 2008, there had been a number of such MSN Messenger chat sessions between the two of them, and she had at his request exposed her naked body to him. She was 16 years old at the time, he was 19 and due to turn 20 in November that year. Some of these messages also included his simultaneously exposing himself to her, including masturbating in a way that she could see. He sent her a picture of his erect penis. The victim believed that this ongoing communication between them was live video transmission, and could not be recorded. 95 On an occasion, the offender told her that he would give her money if she agreed to do things for him or other people. He suggested that he could provide her with a fake ID, which she would need to have to work as a prostitute. He also told her that he could provide her with protection, including a firearm or pepper spray. She questioned the truthfulness of these assertions. He then assumed another identity online, a person who he referred to as Kieran, and introduced Kieran to GH as a person who worked on the wharves in Sydney and could access stolen or illegal goods, including firearms. 96 The victim started to communicate with this person referring to himself as Kieran via Messenger. She never met him in person and their communication was by way of written messages, never by way of webcam. This person started to tell the victim that he knew she only had limited money, and that he could help her out if she agreed to do things for the offender. He told her that the offender would accept these things that she was to do for him, in repayment of the debt she would owe to Kieran. He told her that he would provide her with money if she agreed to appear topless or naked for the offender over webcam chat sessions. 97 GH believed that Kieran was real, and did not realise that it was the offender. She felt intimidated by him because of the way in which the offender had described him, and started to avoid appearing online on MSN Messenger to avoid Kieran. She blocked him from her contact list, and shortly afterwards started to receive messages from a new MSN contact, again purporting to be Kieran, who made it clear that he was angry with her for trying to block him. 98 The offender then started to send GH text messages and to call her, and told her that she was upsetting Kieran. This contact occurred throughout April 2008. The person called Kieran then started to send her messages via Messenger when she was offline, demanding that she come back online. By May 2008, because she was scared of Kieran and concerned that she was being blackmailed, she again blocked Kieran. On 7 May 2008, she was contacted by another person who referred to themselves as Damien on MSN Messenger, who made it clear that he was the same person as Kieran. He told her that he had a video recording of her, and sent a file via MSN Messenger. 99 She recognised it as a recording of an earlier webcam chat session she had had with the offender, which depicted her topless but which she did not know was being recorded. The person Damien, who was in fact the offender, told GH that he would give the video to her father, sister, members of the lifesaving club and her school friends unless she agreed to do things for the offender. 100 In acting in this way, the offender was using a carriage service to threaten the victim, GH. Using his real identity, he also told GH that the person, Damien, would disseminate the video unless she agreed to do as Damien asked. He told her that he was now being threatened by Damien, and GH came to believe that if she continued to refuse to comply with Damien's demands, not only was there a risk that the video would be released to her family, friends and the like, but also that the offender would be put at risk. As a result of these threats, GH participated in the three instances of sexual intercourse with the offender which comprise the following charges. 101 All three of these offences, which are charged as sexual intercourse without consent, took place during 2008, when the victim was in year 11 at high school and was aged either 16 or 17. The offender was 19. All of this activity on the part of the offender, posing as both Kieran and Damien, is the subject matter of sequence 52, the Commonwealth offence of using a carriage service to menace GH, and is not a substantive offence for sentence, but is an offence to be taken into account as an additional offence when sentencing him in relation to sequence 55. 102 The first of the charged acts of sexual intercourse without consent is s 67, and is a matter for substantive sentence. It took place on a late afternoon or early evening in 2008, at a time in the year before GH turned 17. The person Kieran sent her a message saying that he would give her money if she agreed to perform oral sex on the offender, his friend. At this stage, she did not realise that Kieran was the offender. She left home and met the offender in Penshurst, who drove her to a park in South Hurstville. He parked the car and led her along a boardwalk path through a mangrove forest. They reached the landing, and he said let us do it here, or words to that effect. She refused, and was concerned that people might walk past. He said that it was not a concern, and pulled down his pants and underpants and exposed his erect penis. 103 The victim knelt down and placed her mouth over his penis. He put his hands either side of her head and pushed her head backwards and forwards. She began to struggle to breathe, and felt pain in the back of her mouth and started to cry. After a number of minutes, the offender ejaculated into her mouth. In fact, she did not consent to this sexual intercourse, and only participated because of the threats made to her by Kieran, who in fact was the offender posing as Kieran, to disseminate images of her. The offended took her back to the car and drove her home. She did not tell anybody about what had happened. 104 All sexual intercourse offences are serious. I have made that clear when dealing with the facts, in relation to the victim BB. This is not a minimal instance of this offence, but nor is it at the top of the range for offences capable of being charged under this section. It does not involve vaginal/penile penetration, but nonetheless the offender ejaculated into her mouth and acted forcefully during the sexual intercourse by pushing her head back and forth. 105 Perhaps more seriously, though, when assessing the objective criminality, is that this came about as a result of a threat to circulate images of her, and in circumstances where he was supposed to be a personal friend of her and her family, but acted through a fake identity using information he knew of her because of his friendship with her and her family, namely that she was vulnerable as a person and had limited financial resources. He also used a video image of her, which he had taken without her knowledge, albeit that she was behaving towards him in a sexualised way online, but in circumstances where she did not believe it was being recorded and saved. Those factors play a part in the assessment of the objective criminality of this offence. 106 This would appear to be a standalone offence with no additional offences to be taken into account. It is objectively serious, but as I have said, not at the top of the range. It was for a relatively short period and there was no additional violence nor threats made. It is below the midrange in terms of objective seriousness, and for that reason, and also the fact that there was a plea of guilty, the standard non-parole period of 7 years does not strictly apply, it must, however, be taken into account as some form of guidepost. 107 It seems to me that without the 25% discount for the utilitarian value of the plea of guilty, a starting point for this offence would be 4 years. There will be a sentence of 3 years with a non-parole period of 2 years. I will in due course address the issue of special circumstances, which will be relevant for all of those offences where it is necessary to fix a non-parole period. 108 Sequence 68 is an additional offence to be taken into account when sentencing for sequence 55. Chronologically, it is the second act of sexual intercourse without consent which occurred, involving GH. It also occurred in the late afternoon or evening during 2008, at a time before the victim turned 17 that year. Again, the offender, posing as Kieran, told the victim that he would give her money if she agreed to perform oral sex on the offender. The victim feared that he would send the video she knew from earlier to her family and friends if she did not agree. She thus met with the offender at the same park as for the previous offence, but on this occasion, she refused to perform the act in a public place. The offender, in what can only be described as a further bizarrely manipulative act, claimed that Kieran had specified that the act needed to be performed in public. The victim continued to refuse to do so, and so the offender agreed that it could happen in his car. He stayed in the driver's seat and the victim was in the front passenger seat. He removed his pants and underpants and exposed his erect penis. The victim leant across the centre of the car, and placed her mouth on his penis. He took hold of her hair with both hands and began to move her head up and down against his penis. She felt pain because he was pulling her hair, and began to struggle to breathe and felt pain in the back of her throat. She also felt pain in her chest, because it was bumping against the gearstick between the seats. After about ten minutes, the offender ejaculated. Again, she did not consent to this sexual intercourse and only engaged in it because of a threat that had been made by the person called Kieran, in fact the offender, that he would disseminate the video. 109 When the act was over, she asked the offender about the money that she had been promised. The offender told her that he did not have the money and that he would go to meet Kieran to obtain it and give it to her later. For reasons that do not bear logical scrutiny, this sequence is not charged as a separate substantive charge, nor is it an additional offence to be taken into account when sentencing for s 67, which would make more sense, because of the factual similarities and timing. It is, however, an additional offence to be taken into account when sentencing for sequence 55, the third act of sexual intercourse without consent, as is sequence 52, the Commonwealth using a carriage service offence to which I have already referred. 110 Sequence 55, as I have said, is the third offence of sexual intercourse without consent. It occurred a few weeks after the earlier two offences, and just before the victim's 17th birthday. Again the offender, posing as Kieran messaged the victim, telling her that she had to go with the offender to his house and have anal sex with him. He said that this was going to be recorded on video by the offender, which would then be distributed to him via a friend, as proof that the act as demanded had occurred. He sent a message making a threat that if she did not do this, he would distribute the earlier video. He said, "It's not even that bad, and you can walk away with $500". She did not want the money from the offender or his friend and in any event did not believe that the money would be forthcoming, but complied with the demand because she believed that otherwise her family and friends would be given the video, which she knew already existed. The offender and victim exchanged text messages to arrange to meet. 111 At about 11:00 pm one night, she met him in Penshurst. They went to the Bardwell Valley Golf Course, and walked around for about half an hour and then got back into his car. He then drove her to his home in Bardwell Valley, arriving at about midnight. It would appear that there was no one awake in the house. He led her to a room at the front of the house, where there was a computer. He instructed her to bend over, and she did. He began to push his erect penis against her anus, which caused immediate pain. He continued to push his penis against her anus until it entered her anus. She felt pain and began to bleed. He laughed, and said "…at least we can use the blood for lube." He continued to penetrate her anus for about ten minutes before ejaculating onto her buttocks. She felt strong pain throughout this incident. She did not consent to this, and only engaged in this behaviour because of the threat to disseminate the earlier video. She cleaned herself with a cloth and then demanded to see the video recording that she had been told would be made. The offender said, "Actually, I was so into it, I forgot to film it, so we will have to do it again". He said he would try to talk to Kieran, but that ultimately Kieran would demand proof that the event had occurred. He then drove the victim home. 112 Over the following weeks the victim blocked MSN contacts for the offender, Kieran and Damien and reduced her social media presence. The offender continued to send text messages to her, but she stopped responding. Eventually, he stopped sending her messages. Apparently, this victim made a statement to police on 19 February 2018, which obviously was after he was arrested and after statements had been made by others. This is a serious offence of sexual intercourse without consent. Again, the surrounding circumstances aggravate the objective criminality, in that the event occurred because of threats made in fact by the offender posing as two different online identities to circulate a video that he himself had made of the victim. That video itself was made without her knowledge, and in circumstances where she believed her interaction with the offender, albeit of a sexual nature, was occurring via live video and would not be recorded and saved. The offence was planned and calculated. The hallmarks, it seems to me, are bizarre and manipulative. She was obviously vulnerable and naive. It involved penetrative anal intercourse, which caused her pain and bleeding and lasted for about 10 minutes. It is, in my view, at about the middle of the range for offences capable of being charged under this section, and further, I must take into account the earlier incidents of sexual intercourse without consent involving forced oral sex, and also the Commonwealth offence of using a carriage service to menace and harass. These two additional offences must be taken into account in a meaningful way. The standard non-parole period does not apply strictly, however, because it is a plea of guilty. Nonetheless, this is a serious offence in its own terms, and in my view, the appropriate sentence is one of 6 years with a 4 year non-parole period for all of those factors, having taken into account the plea of guilty and other matters which I will address in a global way later in this sentence, particularly involving the subjective circumstances of the offender. 113 GH is not a victim who has provided a victim impact statement to the Court, but I accept that, without doubt, the impact of these offences on her would have been seriously adverse, and that is more likely than not to be a continuing situation, particularly so when she discovered that the offender had been charged, and she was asked to provide a statement, and to remember the details of these events that occurred. Even at the time, she was vulnerable, and had particular issues surrounding her. She was taken advantage of and the Court is entitled to take into account, in the absence of any evidence, the real likelihood that there have been some adverse psychological sequelae flowing to her as a result of these offences. 114 The next offences in time involve the victim IJ, and sequences 36, 37, 39, 41 and 42. They cover a period from June 2010 to July/ August 2010. Sequences 37, 39, 41 and 42 are for offences of sexual intercourse without consent, and when sentencing for Sequence 37 I am to take into account an additional offence of using a carriage service to solicit child pornography, an offence contrary to s 474.19(1) of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth), which appears in a schedule to a Form 1(B) signed by the offender and exhibited in these proceedings. 115 The victim IJ was a vulnerable young woman who had been raised by her grandmother from the age of one. She lived with her and her two older brothers in the St George area of Sydney. She was also raised sporadically by a couple who she had met through the Aunties and Uncles program, which is a mentoring program for vulnerable and socially isolated children. She was unemployed and had little access to funds. She did not have a driver's licence or access to a vehicle, and travelled mainly via train. In 2009, she started a relationship with a young man who was the younger brother of one of the other victims, AB. As previously stated, the offender was a close friend of her boyfriend's family, and had been in a relationship with another of the victims, EF, since 2008. IJ met the offender and EF during social functions, and also attended with AB and her family, during late 2009. In early 2010 she started corresponding with the offender on social media. She turned 16 in April 2010 and was in year 11 in high school. 116 On the evening of 1 June 2010, just after she turned 16, she was staying with her Aunty and Uncle contacts in Banksia, communicating with the offender using her school laptop. The offender asked whether she would like to obtain a fake ID, and she agreed. He gave her an MSN Messenger username for a person called Simon for this purpose. Simon was in fact the offender, using a fake MSN profile. He continued then to communicate with IJ, both as himself, and simultaneously as Simon, using a webcam chat feed. So, he was communicating with her using two identities at the same time. She had a conversation with Simon, in which she asked about getting a fake ID, and he agreed to help. 117 He said it would cost her $250, or it could be free, and when she asked how, he said that if, in his words, she showed him her boobs, he would give it to her for free. She refused, and said she had a boyfriend, and in any event, expressed concern that he would screenshot the photo and use it in the future. She asked how she would know he would not do that, and Simon attempted to minimise the situation by saying, in his words, "It is literally just a flash", and telling her to calm down. 118 By acting in this way, he was soliciting child pornography from IJ. Child pornography, for the purposes of this section, is defined as including sexualised images of young people aged under 18. She was just 16 at the time, and had no way of paying $250. I infer because of the offender's knowledge of IJ's situation, that he would have been aware that she had little access to money, and was in fact a year 11 high school student. At that point, IJ ceased her online communication with the offender, but continued her communication with Simon, although she could still see the offender via his webcam feed. 119 IJ told Simon that she would show him her bra, and removed her singlet top and exposed her bra to Simon via the webcam chat feed. She then replaced her top, and Simon said that this was not good enough. She sought further assurance from Simon that he would not take a screenshot of her, and she agreed to expose her breasts. She then removed her singlet top and bra and exposed her breasts to Simon, and then replaced her clothing. He immediately replied that he had saved it, that he had taken a screenshot of her breasts and saved that shot. He then told her that the offender owed him a debt, and that if she did not do what he asked, he was going to send the picture to her boyfriend, her school friends and her school. At all times of course, these demands were being made by the offender, masquerading online as Simon. This is sequence 36, the first Form 1 offence. 120 Simon then said that the offender, who he referred to as Vaughan, owed him a lot of favours, and that IJ needed to go for a drive with him to help him clear his debt with Simon. Simon then instructed IJ to look at the offender's eyes, and then informed her that she needed to go on a drive with the offender and to engage in oral sex with him, which was to be filmed, and he wanted to see it that night. IJ decided to comply with these instructions because she was scared that the images of her breasts would be circulated at her school, and she thought that if she complied then the problem would go away. She believed that Simon was a real person, separate from the offender, and the offender was also being manipulated by Simon. She waited in her room that night and was receiving text messages from the offender, arranging to pick her up. 121 About 11:00 pm, she left her home and met the offender in Banksia. He drove her to his home in Bardwell Valley and took her into his room. When inside, he picked up a digital camera from an inside set of drawers next to the bed. He approached, and began to film her. She removed her singlet top so that her bra was visible. He spoke to her in a way that was a pretence, that he was also being controlled by Simon, and then started to kiss her and removed his jeans and underwear. She knelt in front of him and performed oral sex on him. He filmed this event by holding the digital camera above her head and pointing it down. He ejaculated into her mouth, and she stopped and replaced her clothing. 122 She in fact did not consent to the sexual intercourse, and only engaged in it because of the threat by the person she knew as Simon to disseminate pictures of her naked breasts to friends, family and school. The offender then drove her back to her home, and said that he would deliver the video to Simon. Later that night, in, again, an act of manipulation, he sent a text message to IJ saying that he was sickened by what had happened, and that he intended to get revenge on Simon. He was 21 at the time and IJ was 16. This act of sexual intercourse without consent is sequence 37, a matter that is for a substantive sentence. 123 It is below the middle of the range, in my view, for offences capable of being charged pursuant to this section. It has the same surrounding circumstances as for the earlier offences, namely sexual intercourse as a result of blackmail. The victim is young and vulnerable. He is pretending to be someone else. He is also pretending to be an unwilling participant also being manipulated by Simon, but there is no additional violence, no additional physical force used. 124 The Form 1 connected to this offence ought to be taken into account as an additional offence, namely sequence 36, as an offence of some seriousness. The only reason that the offender had the material with which to blackmail her was because he had used the carriage service to solicit the child pornography from her. She did not know it was going to be saved, however, for offences capable of being charged under that particular section, where the maximum penalty is 15 years, it is nowhere near the top of the range. I have concluded that the starting point for this offence, taking into account the Form 1 offence as an offence below the midrange, would be 4 years, and that with the reduction of 12 months for the 25% discount, it gives rise to a sentence of 3 years with a non-parole period which I will set at two years. 125 About two weeks after this offence occurred, the offender contacted IJ. He told her that he wanted to talk about what had happened with Simon. She went to an address in Penshurst with him and he told her, in his words, that he had done away with Simon, and when she asked what that meant, he said, the National Park is a very big place and he will never be found. IJ believed that he had killed Simon. 126 By this stage, the offender had spun IJ a broad spectrum of lies and fabrications which made her believe that this was a possibility. He had told her that he was involved with outlaw motorcycle gangs in criminal activities. He said that he trafficked cocaine on behalf of outlaw motorcycle gangs and affiliates. He also claimed to have access to firearms, and seemed to have knowledge of firearms. She came to believe that in fact he had disposed of Simon in some way, especially as the previous photo of her breasts and the video of her having oral sex with the offender had not surfaced in any way, so she thought that the offender had also been manipulated by Simon, that Simon was a person separate from the offender, and that the offender had a genuine interest in her welfare. 127 Not long after this, the offender asked her to go to his house with him again, and she agreed. He supplied a bottle of gin that she started to drink. They were talking in a room adjacent to his bedroom. She said that what had occurred earlier with him should not have happened, but he seemed to ignore her comment. She told him that she had spoken to her counsellor about what had occurred between her, the offender and Simon, and that it had been reported to the police. 128 The offender then asked her that she not do anything further about it, because it would stop him from getting into the police. She was aware that he wanted to join the New South Wales police service, and so she agreed not to pursue the matter. She still thought that the offender himself was another victim of Simon. The offender then started to badger IJ to allow him to perform oral sex on her. She did not want this to happen, and said no. He continued to request this for at least an hour. He then said that he was not taking her home until she permitted him to do so. He led her to his bedroom and she lay on the bed. He removed her jeans and undies, he performed oral sex on her by licking her genital area with his tongue and inserting his finger into her vagina, for about 15 minutes. She did not consent to this sexual intercourse. She then got up and got dressed, and he drove her home. This is sequence 39, which is a substantive offence for sentence. 129 By late June, early July, the offender began to threaten IJ that if she did not comply with his continued requests for sex, he would tell her boyfriend, David, and his family what she had been doing. She was very close to this family because she had had a difficult relationship with her own family. The offender started to contact her by phone more and more frequently, telling her that he was coming to pick her up. He also started to threaten to disseminate sexually explicit images of her that he had, unless she agreed to his demands. The phone contact increased in frequency. His phone records for this time period have been analysed, and it was discovered that he contacted IJ on his phone on no less than 3,900 occasions in late June to early July 2010, mostly by text messages. In July or August 2010, he also bought a new digital camera, and on those occasions where he and IJ had sex, he took nude and sexually explicit photos of her. 130 One instance of sexual intercourse took place around July and August 2010, and is sequence 41. The offender contacted her by phone late one evening and told her he was coming to pick her up from home. She said she did not want to see him. He said he was on his way, and that if she did not go with him, he would tell the family of AB. He picked her up, and they went to his house. She was crying, and he asked her why. She said, "You know I didn't want to see you tonight". He gave her a bottle of gin, part of which she drank. He then had penile vaginal intercourse with her on the bed in his room, for a number of minutes before ejaculating. She did not give voluntary consent to this sexual intercourse, and only participated because of the threats he made to disseminate photos and videos of her to friends, school or the family of AB, on whom she depended heavily for support, a fact of which he was aware. He drove her home the following morning. 131 Just returning briefly to sequence 39, I realise I have not attempted to set out the objective criminality of that offence. It is also objectively serious. It is, in my view, below the midrange in terms of objective seriousness for events as capable of being charged under this section. It is one event, there was no additional violence employed. In the circumstances, it seems to me that the appropriate sentence for this offence should also be a term of imprisonment of 3 years with a two year non-parole period. 132 Sequence 41, the instance of penile/vaginal sexual intercourse which occurred in June/ July 2010, is also somewhat below the midrange in terms of objective seriousness. Again, it is aggravated by the same factors that were present in relation to the other offences, namely the fact that he threatened to disseminate the sexually explicit videos and photos that he had of her. He knew that she was vulnerable and dependent on the family of her boyfriend for support because of her own difficult relationship with her own family. 133 It was a case in which he also supplied her with alcohol, even though she was at that stage under the legal drinking age. He acted in a callous way, in that she was crying, he could see that she was not consenting and did not want to consent. It was penile/vaginal intercourse with all of the additional risks that involves. He was supposed to be a friend, and he was certainly a friend of the family on whom she depended and who trusted him. It was manipulative and callous behaviour. It is, albeit towards the bottom of the range for offences capable of being charged under this section. In my view, taking into account the plea of guilty, it ought to give rise to a term of imprisonment of 4 years with a 3 year non-parole period. 134 The last charge involving IJ occurred between June and August 2010. She had arranged to meet her boyfriend, David, after school. The offender contacted her and told her to catch a bus and come to Hurstville. She said she had already made plans to meet David. He called her and said these words, "If you don't fucking get on that bus and get over here right now, I'm going straight over to the family of AB to tell them everything." As a result of that threat she then caught the bus to the car park outside Dan Murphy's in Hurstville. She met the offender in the car park. 135 At that stage, he was a cadet working with the Sydney water Catchment Authority and was driving a work vehicle. They were seen by a work colleague of the offender, who made a comment to the offender to the effect that he liked them young, which no doubt was a reference to the fact that IJ was at the time wearing her school uniform. The offender laughed. He drove IF to his home and took her to his bedroom. He told her that he wanted to have sex with her while she was wearing her school uniform. He pulled her stockings and underwear down, and started to have penile/vaginal sex with her, and ejaculated. She did not consent to this, and only engaged in it because of the threats made by him to disclose the earlier videos to the family of her boyfriend. He then drove her to the boyfriend's home. Eventually, IJ made a statement to New South Wales police, but not until the 8 December 2017, after the offender had been arrested in relation to other matters. This last offence, which is sequence 42, is also a serious offence. It has much the same objective seriousness as the other offences, and it seems to me, gives rise to the same sentence as for the last in time, namely a sentence of 4 years with a non-parole period of 3 years. 136 Chronologically, the next event that occurred, not an offence, but an event, is set on the 16 December 2011. The offender joined the New South Wales Police Force, initially with the rank of probationary constable, and swore an oath of office in that role, on that day. All of the offences that occurred thereafter then were committed by him when he was a serving New South Wales police officer. 137 The next offences in time are those involving the victim KL, and the substantive offence is sequence 18, an offence of using a carriage service to solicit child pornography material, contrary to s 474.19(1) of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth). As previously stated, this carries a maximum penalty of 15 years imprisonment. When sentencing for this offence, I am to take into account, as an additional offence, sequence 19, a further offence contrary to that section, involving the same victim. 138 This additional offence is to be found attached to an additional charge Form 1(C), the offence to be taken into account pursuant to s 16BA of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth). The background to these two offences is that KL was born in 1996 and so was 16 at the time of the offences. In about 2010, when she was about 14, she started working in a video game store in Marrickville and became friends with another young woman who worked there. In about 2012, she told that friend that she wanted to obtain a fake ID. Her friend said that her boyfriend, who she named as Vaughan, and who she said was a police officer, would be able to get one for her. She gave KL Vaughan's Facebook username, the name of Vaughan Bailey, and he and KL became Facebook friends. Vaughan Bailey was in fact the offender. 139 On 10 September 2012, in the afternoon, KL and the offender were communicating with each other by way of Facebook Messenger. He told her that he was a police officer who worked in the city. She told him that she was still at school. He offered to obtain a fake ID for her through a friend, and later that day he provided her with a Skype address, which purported to be the person who could obtain the fake ID for her. In fact, the address he gave her was himself. He then used that Skype address to have a conversation with KL, in which he solicited her to send a photograph of her breasts in exchange for providing her with a fake ID. She told him she was 16. He said he was 18, although in fact he was 23 at the time, and pretending to be someone else. 140 She was reluctant, but he said that it would otherwise cost her $250, or she could get the fake ID by sending a photo of her breasts. She was reluctant, but eventually sent a picture of herself in her bra. He then said that was not enough, and he wanted to see her naked breasts. She said she was embarrassed, and she asked him not to tell Vaughan, and she was referring to the offender when she made that comment, not knowing, of course, that it was the offender to whom she was speaking on Skype. Eventually, she sent a photo of her naked breasts to this contact, without showing her face. 141 This is the subject matter of sequence 18, namely that he posed with a Skype username and used a carriage service and Facebook Messenger to obtain this child pornography material from KL. 142 As I said earlier, it falls within the definition of child pornography because that is defined under the Criminal Code as sexualised images of people under 18. All of this occurred on 11 September 2012. The offender and KL continued to communicate. He gave her a Skype name for himself, and she communicated with him via that Skype address. The subject matter of sequence 19, an offence to be taken into account when sentencing for sequence 18, would appear to be messages between the two of them on 18 October, using Skype. 143 It would appear that in that conversation he said he was making plans to deliver the fake ID to her. The conversation is in fact hard to follow, at best, and given that the offender has admitted this offence, I infer that in some form or other that is not entirely clear, he was soliciting her to provide a photo of herself in a way that would fall within the definition of child pornography. More probably than not, a photo of her breasts, but it is far from clear. The facts for this particular additional offence, in my view, are so vague and non-specific that except for the fact that he has admitted it by asking that it be taken into account, it would be hard to see how it could ever be proved to be an offence under this section. It could not, in any way, in my view, be seen to increase the appropriate penalty for sequence 18. 144 Sequence 18 is an instance of this particular offence, in my view, below the midrange. It is aggravated by the fact that he used his position as a police officer, which was known to the victim, to give her a false sense of security and to make her believe that he could obtain a fake ID for her through a third party. He then used this false identity to solicit child pornography, but the child pornography that he in fact solicited was a photo of her naked breasts without exposing her face. Overall, it seems to me it is towards the bottom of the range for offences capable of being charged under this section. It is nowhere near the top, and as I have already said, sequence 19, the additional offence, in the circumstances, does not in any way increase what would otherwise be the appropriate penalty for sequence 18. 145 The maximum penalty for this offence is 15 years. It is therefore to be regarded as a serious offence. As I have said, this particular offence is nowhere near the top of the range of offences capable of being charged under this section, for an offence of soliciting child pornography material. It would appear from perusing the statistics published by the Judicial Commission that there have been very few cases dealt with in this Court under this section. I have concluded that the starting point for this offence would be 2 years, less 6 months for the utilitarian value of the plea of guilty. Therefore, a term of 18 months is appropriate for this offence. 146 The next offence is sequence 1, a common law offence of misconduct in public office. The Court attendance notice before the Court alleges that this offence occurred in a time period between 1 February 2015 and 31 March 2015. The agreed facts refer to a more limited time period between 26 February and 14 March 2015. 147 Bearing in mind the specific facts that are relied on to make up this offence, I will deal with this offence as an offence occurring between 26 February and 14 March 2015. It may be that there was an intention to amend the original Court attendance notice and that was overlooked. It makes little difference, in any event, in the circumstances. Specifically, the charge is that between those dates the offender did misconduct himself in public office, in that as a sworn member of the New South Wales Police Force, he made a false police report, accessed restricted data, used restricted data to falsely subscribe mobile phone services and used those falsely subscribed mobile phone services and social networking applications to threaten, menace and harass members of the public. 148 During the relevant time period, the offender was a NSW police officer, and on 26 February 2015 he rang the police assistance line just after 4.30 in the afternoon, to report his Samsung S5 mobile phone was stolen. His conversation was recorded. He identified himself as Vaughan, and said that he wanted to report his phone as stolen. He said that he had put it with other items on the beach at Bondi and had gone for a swim, and when he came back it was gone. He gave his correct name as Vaughan Hildebrand, and his correct date of birth to the assistance line. He provided the details of the phone, including the number, the IMEI number, and the like. 149 It was a lie that his phone had been stolen at all, and the surrounding detail he provided about how it was stolen were also lies. He did, however, provide the correct details about the phone and his own personal details. He did so, according to the agreed facts, in order to disassociate himself from that particular phone, so that he could use it to commit subsequent offences of using a carriage service to menace and harass women. These were offences that he was going to commit in the future. In fact, when the police finally caught him and executed a search warrant at his home on 31 May 2017, they found the phone that he had reported stolen in his home in Campbelltown. 150 At 11.45 am on 14 March 2015, several weeks after he reported the phone stolen, he accessed the New South Wales COPS system, whilst on duty, to access the particulars of a person named in paragraph 88 of the facts. This was a woman born in 1984. He had no legitimate lawful excuse to access her particulars at the time. He made three separate accesses to her information, once to obtain RTA records, and on two further occasions to access particular information about her held exclusively on the COPS platform. 151 After doing that, he then committed the offence which is sequence 20, and is an offence contrary to s 192J of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), of dealing with identity information with the intention of committing an indictable offence. The indictable offence alleged is to use a carriage service to menace, harass or offend, namely another offence contrary to s 474.17(1) of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth). 152 In relation to this offence, sequence 20, the specific facts are that on 15 October 2015 the offender made a mobile phone subscription with Vodafone under the false name of the woman whose details he had unlawfully accessed through the COPS system. It included her address, which he also obtained via the COPS system. He was allocated a Vodafone subscriber number. It was in fact the offender who made this application and had the phone service allocated to him. The person in whose name the subscription was made had no knowledge of this subscription. He did this in order to commit a later offence involving the victims MN and OP, to which I will refer in due course. At the time he subscribed to this phone service, using this unlawfully obtained identity information, he was 26 years of age and a serving officer of the New South Wales Police Service. 153 He also used that same information, which he unlawfully accessed via the COPS system whilst on duty, to commit a further offence on 19 February 2016 contrary to s 192J of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). That is sequence 21. On that day he made another phone subscription with Vodafone under the person's name, and gave the address, those details having been accessed by him via the COPS system. He was allocated another phone number. In fact, the only phone handset for which this particular number was ever used was the Samsung phone which he had reported stolen on 26 February 2015, but which was located in his home in May 2017. He used this second Vodafone service to commit further offences involving MN and QR, and to communicate with OP. They will also be dealt with in due course. 154 Sequences 1, 20 and 21 are therefore connected. The maximum penalty for sequences 20 and 21 is 10 years. They are each relatively serious instances of offences capable of being charged under this section, but they are in any event, serious offences, given the maximum penalty of 10 years. They amount to identity theft offences, which regrettably are becoming more and more prevalent. 155 It is often an offence often committed by individuals who wish to steal another's identity for the purpose of taking possession of drugs, and thus commit crimes with serious and broader ramifications to the community at large. Whilst this is not the case here, nonetheless, the offences for which the identities were stolen and used are themselves serious offences, namely, to menace individuals by a mobile phone service subscribed to the stolen identity. They are very serious, but what increases the objective criminality more so here is that, in each case, he came into possession of the identity information in his role as a police officer, and in circumstances where he wilfully misconducted himself in his public office, and he did so not just wilfully, but specifically for the purposes of committing further serious offences. 156 So, each of sequences 20 and 21 involve significant planning and were committed in serious circumstances of breach of trust. In each of them, the s 5 threshold is clearly crossed. Determining the appropriate sentence, however, for each is difficult. The maximum penalty is 10 years. I regard these offences as very serious indeed. In my view, the starting point is 4 years, and with the 25% for the plea of guilty, the appropriate sentence for each of them is 3 years. Whilst there may be some argument about partial accumulation of these two offences, in fact in my view they represent one episode of criminality. The fact that there are two distinct victims of the indictable offences that are the object of the criminality, or the identity theft, will be taken into account in due course when sentencing for those particular offences. Otherwise, it seems to me the sentences for sequences 20 and 21 should be concurrent with each other. 157 The offence of misconduct in public office, sequence 1, is also serious. As I have said earlier, the sentence is at large and there is no real comparable statutory offence to use as a guideline. I accept, said from the decision of R v Obeid (No 12) [2016] NSWSC 1815, that there are general principles to be considered when dealing with an offence of wilful misconduct in public office. In particular, I accept that the real damage of such offences is the damage to public institutions, and the reduction of public confidence in them. 158 General deterrence and denunciation are thus to be given considerable weight for offences of this type. However, this is not a breach by someone of ministerial rank, as were the cases involving Obeid, Macdonald and Maitland. Nonetheless, the public has a right to expect that police officers in this State will act in complete good faith at all times and uphold the oath that they took when they when they joined the police service. It is no doubt a difficult and often thankless job, but by the same token, police in New South Wales have considerable powers, including coercive powers over individuals, and have access to a wealth of information about individuals in the course of their job. They are expected to exercise these powers appropriately and honestly, and not to take advantage of the position of power that they have, potentially, over individuals. 159 Whilst the offender here was only a relatively junior officer, nonetheless, he had been in the police force for about 3 years. Even the most junior of officers would understand the misconduct involved in reporting a mobile phone stolen to the police assistance line, but not doing so for just perhaps some small monetary gain, but doing so in his own name so that he could distance himself from that phone and thus be able to use it in the future to continue to menace and harass other women, including blackmailing them into providing him with sexually explicit images, and in some cases engaging in sexual conduct with him. It is extremely calculated misconduct involving a significant degree of planning and manipulation. The misconduct went further, with the offender's then accessing data held in police records purely and simply so that he could subscribe to two additional phone services, with the sole purpose of continuing that menacing and threatening behaviour against victims. This is also manipulative and calculating. Whilst this does not fall into the category of misconduct at the rank of minister or thereabouts, it is nonetheless a serious example of this common law offence. That he was motivated ultimately by sexual desire also aggravates the offending, but the most significant aspect of his criminality for this offence of misconduct in public office, is that he brought the Police Service into disrepute and damaged the trust which the public is entitled to have in police officers that they will do the right thing and not abuse the very wide powers they have. It is difficult to know what this sentence is worth, but ultimately I have concluded that a term of imprisonment of 3 years is appropriate for this offence. 160 The next group of offences involves the victim MN, and are sequences 3, 4, 5 and 6. Sequence 3 is for substantive sentence, and is a further charge contrary to s 474.17(1) of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) of using a carriage service to menace MN, which occurred on 22 September 2015. There are three additional offences to be taken into account pursuant to s 16BA of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) when sentencing for this offence. They are all separate charges, also contrary to s 474.17(1), occurring on 15 October 2015, 18 February 2016 and 4 October 2016. 161 The background to these offences is that in November 2013, the offender commenced a relationship with another police officer named in the facts at para 95. MN was that officer's sister. At that stage, MN had developed an interest in undergoing breast augmentation surgery, and was open about it and shared this interest with family and friends, including her sister, the police officer who was in a relationship with the offender. She in turn shared it with the offender. On 10 July 2015, just after ten in the morning, the offender sent MN an SMS message. He claimed to have a friend who he named as a doctor, who was interested in developing a cosmetic surgery business, and in particular wanted to build a website of before and after shots for cosmetic breast surgery. He claimed to have met this doctor in the military while serving overseas. This was a lie. The doctor did not exist and the offender had never been in the military. MN indicated to him that she was interested in the proposal and they discussed the prospect of her undergoing surgery. 162 On 13 August 2015, the offender created an email address called and sent an SMS to MN telling her to chat to this fake doctor by Skype. He then created a Skype account in the name of the fake doctor using a fake email address, and sent that address to MN. He then sent her several messages asking her if she was speaking to him or not, and advising that his friend was becoming frustrated because she had not spoken to him yet. She said she did not have time to do so, but he continued to plead with her to create a Skype account and communicate with his friend, the fake doctor. About 1:00 pm on 18 August, MN started to communicate with someone at the fake email address, thinking that she was actually communicating with the doctor there. In fact, she was communicating with the offender. The communication at that stage was largely about what breast augmentation surgery would involve. 163 On 21 September 2015 she wrote to the person who she thought was the doctor, and advised that she was prepared to talk to him about the operation. The offender posing as the doctor asked her to send some photographs, and she agreed to do so when she got home. About 8:00 pm that night she took some photographs of her breasts and sent them to the offender, who was pretending to be the doctor. He replied that he was not sure about the veracity of them, and so wanted to see her face as well. The offender had originally told MN that her face would not need to be exposed. 164 The fake doctor became manipulative in his messages. She sent him several other photographs of herself in which her breasts and face were exposed, and then he began to ask her to engage in a video chat with him. She stopped communicating with him, and he sent around 20 messages in the space of less than two hours expressing frustration that she had stopped responding to him. It was at that stage that he started to threaten to her via the carriage service that if she did not send him more naked photos of herself, he would publish what she had already sent and tarnish her business. He threatened to ruin her career. She then relayed these threats to the offender by SMS, because she did not realise that the fake doctor was in fact the offender. He tried to calm her by saying that the doctor was not being serious, and that he would be able to take care of the situation in any event, because he was a police officer. She told him that she was going to contact the police about these threats, but he replied that if she went to the police he would be sacked, and that he could not afford to lose his job. He kept asking her not to do so. He asked her to let him take care of the situation. 165 At around 11:40 at night he suggested that she should give the doctor what he wanted, and in three hours they would all be gone. He said he did not want to lose his job or his girlfriend, her sister. He asked if she trusted her. The fake doctor continued to use the carriage service to threaten MN, including demanding that she send photos of herself using sex toys, and MN continued to relay these messages to the offender, who kept begging her not to contact the police. He told her to block the fake doctor, and let him take care of the situation. 166 At around midnight on 22 December 2015, he began telling her that he had resolved the situation by providing the doctor with a contract worth $15,000 and that the photographs that she had sent him were gone. He then suggested to her that she should send the photographs to him, so that he could do a reverse Google images trace. This of course was all rubbish, and part of the subterfuge. She did not send him the pictures as requested, and just before 1:00 am that day, they stopped communicating over SMS. 167 All of this behaviour by the offender masquerading as the doctor is the subject matter of the substantive offence of using a carriage service to menace MN. This is a very serious instance of this offence. He was a police officer. He took advantage of the fact that he was in a relationship with her sister, and therefore knew something of her interest in breast augmentation. He created a false identity as a plastic surgeon, and went to quite some lengths to create a false email address and a false identity so that she would believe he was genuine. There was a significant degree of planning in his commission of this offence. He became nasty in his threats and presumably, and no doubt, MN started to become helpless and feel gullible. She had sent the photographs of her naked breasts, originally believing that he was a genuine plastic surgeon and that it was required for the procedure that she had anticipated having. 168 The three additional offences to take into account are firstly sequence 4, another offence of using a carriage service to menace or harass. On 15 October the offender activated the telephone number that he had subscribed in the name of the person whose identity he had stolen from COPS, and which is the subject matter of sequence 20. He then started to send SMS messages to MN using that number, claiming that he knew who she was and that the caller had photos of her cheating on her husband. 169 He asked why she was being unfaithful to her husband, and threatened to send photos of her being unfaithful to her husband if she did not admit it. She tried to ring the number, but it diverted to an automated message bank. At around 11:35 am in the morning on 15 October 2015, MN started sending messages to the offender asking for assistance and advice about what to do if someone was sending her threats via the phone, but which were not violent threats. Specifically, she asked if she could ask the police to check the number. 170 He of course was the person who was doing that, but in the ways set out in paras 107 to 111 of the facts, he led her along in a series of text messages, attempting, it would appear, to have her admit that there were some sexually explicit photos of her. She never did admit that. He then ultimately pretended that he had sorted it out by paying off some people who were able to use remote access to mobile devices and cripple them. The gravamen of this additional offence is that the offender was using this phone service to try to blackmail MN in order to obtain sexually explicit images of her. 171 The second additional offence is of a similar nature. It occurred on 18 February 2016. MN began to receive messages from a phone number which was one of the numbers subscribed in the name of the person whose identity the offender had stolen from COPS. He threatened to disseminate sexually explicit photos of MN, including on Instagram. She did not reply, but eventually said that she was going to the police. He then backed down and said, in fact, that he was not in Australia. Later that same day MN started to send SMS messages to the offender, advising him that the same person as before was messaging her, but with a different number. She told him that she would block this person. 172 The third additional offence occurred on 4 October 2016, so later in the same year. MN was not home and she started to receive text messages from the offender, who claimed to have been contacted by someone on Snapchat who said they had proof that MN's sister, the police officer with whom the offender was in a relationship, was cheating on him. MN told him that she had access to a fake Snapchat account, and gave him the name. She offered to add this person so that she could obtain information from them. He then told her the name of the person who he had claimed was communicating with him via Snapchat, and MN started communicating with that person. Of course, it was the offender with whom she was communicating, but she did not know that. 173 She asked the person for the information they claimed to have about her sister. The person told her that they had a photo of her sister. At the same time that she was on Snapchat with this person, she was also sending text messages to the offender. The offender told her that her sister had been unfaithful to him in the past, and she asked for details, but he refused. She eventually blocked the Snapchat contact, but when she told the offender this, he implored her to unblock him. He spun her a story about having seen her sister topless in the lounge one night after team drinks. She eventually unblocked the Snapchat contact, who sent her a photo of someone's buttocks. She took a screenshot of this. The Snapchat identity, who was in fact the offender, started demanding photos of MN and her sister together. She told the offender about this. He urged that they comply with this demand. The offender then told MN that his Snapchat identity had told him that unless MN and her other sister sent a photograph of them together, he would confront her sister. He continued to send texts to MN suggesting that she comply with the demand, but she repeatedly told him she was not willing to do so. 174 In the ways set out in these three offences, he used carriage services to harass MN in an attempt to obtain sexually explicit photos of her. He was 28 at the time he did this, and a serving police officer. He did so using telephone services, two of which he had obtained through the identity theft arising from his unlawful access to COPS information. These three additional offences are then not insignificant examples of these particular offences. Each of them would be capable of attracting a maximum penalty of 3 years if sentenced separately. In each case there was planning and considerable subterfuge, and he was taking advantage of the relationship he had with MN's sister and the trust she had in him, both in that regard and also because he was a police officer. 175 The substantive offence involving the fake plastic surgeon was very serious and very calculated, and in fact MN provided photos of her naked breasts with her face identified, because she had been tricked into doing so. These three additional offences must be taken into account in a meaningful way when sentencing for this substantive offence. They are not minimal examples of this offence. Whilst it is the case that he did not in fact receive any sexually explicit photos as a result of the offending, it was designed for that end. 176 There is a victim impact statement before the Court from MN. It is brief, but I have read it and taken it into account. As would be expected, she felt very stressed and anxious as a result of being blackmailed by the offender, especially, I accept after she became aware that it was in fact the offender, who she knew and trusted and who was close to her family. I accept that she still feels uncomfortable about the position in which she was placed by the offender. The maximum penalty, as I have said, for the substantive offence is 3 years. In my view, taking into account the Form 1 offences, the appropriate penalty for this is 2 years, which is the term I will be imposing for sequence 3. 177 The next group of offences involves the victim OP. They are sequences 27 and 25. Sequence 27 is one of the charges of sexual intercourse without consent, occurring sometime between 4 and 30 of September 2016, which is before the Court for substantive sentence. Sequence 25 is a further charge of using a carriage service to menace OP, which I am to take into account as an additional offence, pursuant to Form 1(E), when sentencing for that substantive offence. 178 The background to these offences is that around late 2012 or early 2013, OP met the offender via a telephone dating app called Blendr. They conversed on that app for about three weeks and then exchanged mobile phone numbers. They then started to communicate via these mobile phone numbers. The offender told her that he was a police officer during the course of their communications. She went to his house in Bardwell Park on one occasion in this early period. They continued to communicate via SMS and various social media apps. He would ask her to come to his parents' house sometimes and also to send him photos. On occasions she sent him photos of herself naked. She went to his house three times and on occasions had consensual sexual intercourse with him. She also went to his house in Campbelltown later and on these occasions she found that he was almost always drunk. He had two dogs at this time who he described to OP as trained attack dogs and claimed that they would attack anyone on his command. 179 In late 2014 or early 2015, the offender and OP began to communicate via Skype. She told him that she wanted to travel to Europe, and he told her that he had a friend in Europe who lived or worked in a small castle, who would be able to host her. Every time OP told him that she wanted to travel to somewhere in particular, he would tell her that he knew someone in that field or location. In March 2015 they were communicating via Skype using the video chat function. He asked her to expose her breasts in exchange for $2,000. She agreed and exposed her breasts, but was never paid any money. He also asked her if there was anything she would wish for. She said she wanted to have larger breasts. He told her that he was friends with a plastic surgeon and said that he was prepared to pay for a breast augmentation procedure. She refused. On 27 July 2015 he sent OP a text message in which he gave her the email of the friend, who he said was a plastic surgeon, and asked her to add him on Skype. He provided an email address, which was not the same address that he used in similar circumstances with the victim MN, but the name used was the same. OP declined. He repeatedly suggested that she should undergo a breast augmentation, and she repeatedly declined. 180 Over the next few months he sent text messages to her, often inviting her over in exchange for money. She declined. On 30 September 2015, he told her by SMS that he had been in hospital with a heart murmur and something related to cancer, neither of which was true. She started to feel some sympathy for him and started to overlook his earlier behaviour. He continued to send messages to her, offering money and to pay for sex, which she did not take up. Overnight on 4 and 5 November 2015, OP received various text messages from the number he had subscribed, using the identity he had stolen from his access to the COPS system. It was the same number that he used in the offences involving MN. The texts were to the effect that the person had a number of naked photos of OP, and unless she paid him $4,000 he would publish them on a website, which he named. 181 OP was distressed by this and told him that she did not have $4,000. In response she received a message demanding either sexual favours or additional photographs of herself naked. She refused, but arranged to meet the person at midnight in Glenhaven Reserve. While she was at the reserve she created a new Skype account, and sent an SMS to the person with whom she had been communicating. This person then created a new Skype account in a different name, and invited her to add it. He then called her from this name via Skype. The camera was activated but blacked out. She could hear breathing and sniggering but no words were used. The offender in this guise asked OP to expose her breasts, but she refused to do so, and then terminated the call. In this way the offender used the carriage service to menace OP as a means of either obtaining money, sexual favours or sexually explicit images of her. 182 Whilst this was occurring, OP was having text message exchanges with the offender via his legitimate phone number. The offender initiated this. She told him what was happening and sent him screenshots of the messages she was receiving from the bogus phone account. He offered to help, telling her that he knew people who could find the user of the account, but asked her to perform oral sex on him, because the people he would be recruiting would be breaking the law. 183 Around 23 September 2016, the offender started sending SMS messages to OP from his legitimate number. She told him she did not want to be in contact with him any longer. He then sent her a message asking a question to the effect of "What would your parents think of the photos?" He then threatened to send the photos to her parents unless she came to his house and performed oral sex on him twice. He told her that if she did so he would delete the photos. There was then an exchange of texts in which OP told him she did not trust him, that he had scared her on the last occasion they had been together, that she had a boyfriend and that she did not want anything to do with him. He continued to threaten to disseminate the photos of her, including that he would deliver a disc to her letterbox. He promised that if she came to his house he would delete the photos and videos he had. OP then agreed to attend and arrived around midnight on 21 September 2016. He then asked her to send a photo of her breasts, she refused. 184 She went to his house and followed him into his bedroom. He sat on the right side of the bed on which there was an open laptop. OP sat on the bed far away from the offender. He asked her if she wanted to watch a movie and she said no, and that she did not want to be there anyway. He said, "Well fine, let's get on with it". He sat against the head of the bed with his legs outstretched and then pulled down his pants and underpants and exposed his penis. She performed oral sex on him. He asked her to remove her top but she refused. 185 After a few minutes he ejaculated into her mouth. She moved to the left side of the bed and said, "I'm only here because you made me come", and he said that she could leave. She asked about the photos. He retrieved his mobile phone and showed her a folder with her name as the title, and showed her that it was empty. She expressed some doubt about whether he had actually deleted the photos, and asked him to delete her number. He then went and retrieved a different phone and handed it to her. She checked the contents on that phone and discovered that her details were not there and she then left. She did not consent to this sexual intercourse and only engaged in it because of the threats made to her, namely that the photos that she knew the offender had would be disseminated to others, including her family. 186 This is a relatively serious example of sexual intercourse without consent. The same aggravating factors apply as for those to which I referred yesterday. In the more recent period, by this stage, he was a serving police officer. He had obtained the photographs of her in good faith with her consent whilst they were in a relationship, but was manipulating and using her and manipulating the relationship that they had. The nature of the sexual contact was oral sex, not penile vaginal penetration, but nonetheless it was sexual intercourse and he ejaculated into her mouth. Overall it is relatively serious, but nowhere near the top of the range for offences capable of being charged under this section. 187 It seems to me that the appropriate sentence in the circumstances, taking into account all of the objective features, the subjective circumstances to which I will refer in detail in due course, and other issues, including the early plea of guilty, a sentence of 3 years is appropriate with a non-parole period of 2 years. 188 The next offence involves the victim QR and is sequence 23. It is a charge of using a carriage service to menace or harass, and it occurred between 18 February 2016 and 31 March 2016. The offender first met QR in 2004 when she was only a teenager, at a surf lifesaving event. They exchanged email addresses and commenced a relationship in about 2004, which lasted until about September 2005. QR maintained the same mobile phone number since that time. 189 Many years later on 18 February 2016, QR received an SMS from a mobile phone number that she did not recognise. It was one of the phone numbers subscribed by the offender, using the identity stolen by him from his access to the COPS records, and was the phone number that had been used to commit one of the offences against MN and OP. There was an exchange of texts in which the offender, without disclosing his identity, told QR in essence that he knew she was cheating on her boyfriend. She tried to find out who this person was. He used her name. She said that she did not appreciate false accusations or harassment. He then said that he did not realise that he was harassing her, and that he would go, and he did. That seems to be the extent of that particular charge. 190 The victim impact statement written by QR, which I have read and taken into account, indicates that she continues to feel uneasy about this interaction, especially now that she knows it was the offender who was in contact with her. This indicates that she has a quite strong ongoing fear of the offender, including a belief that he might pursue her when he is released from prison. I accept that she has this belief, but there is nothing in the evidence to suggest this is a probability. In fact, on the evidence before me, whilst this offending does in fact amount to harassment, and no doubt would raise fear and concern in anyone about being stalked in that way, it was a brief interaction, and when QR stood up to the offender and confronted him with the false accusation and accused him of harassment, he stopped. There is nothing in the evidence to suggest that he tried to continue contact with her, or that that is likely. I do however accept that she may well have this fear, but fortunately the evidence does not seem to suggest that there is any basis for it. 191 In the circumstances, this offence is towards the bottom of the range of offences capable of being charged under this section. Perhaps if this were being sentenced alone it would not reach the s 5 threshold, or the relevant equivalent in the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), but here it is not alone. He was in fact a police officer, and in addition he was using a phone number that he only obtained by abusing his position of trust as an officer and gaining access to COPS records. It was also part of an ongoing course of conduct and criminality which was well established by that stage. 192 The threshold for imprisonment has been reached, but the term of imprisonment ought be short because it is very much towards the bottom of the range of matters that could be charged under this section, in terms of its objective criminality. A 6 month term is sufficient to deal with that matter. 193 The next offence involves the victim ST, and is sequence 11, which is another of the charges of using a carriage service to menace or harass, and occurred between 1 July and 31 October 2016. At the time ST was a police officer in Sydney. She met the offender when they began working together at the same police station. She once attended a barbeque at his house in Campbelltown. At the time the offender was in a relationship with MN's sister, who was also an officer at the same station. ST never had any form of personal relationship with the offender. 194 On 30 July 2016 ST was on maternity leave, and she started to receive messages on her phone via the Snapchat app. This person was calling himself Sam Barnext, and he told her that he had photos of her, and wanted to help her get them deleted. She tried to engage him in conversation but he did not respond. About two months later she received a Snapchat message from someone who called themselves Michelle Barnext, who also said she wanted to help her by getting the photos deleted. Over the next period, she received messages on Snapchat from six different identities, all of whom said that they would delete photos they had of her, if she sent them photos of her breasts. 195 She was concerned about this because in fact she had sent naked photos of herself to people in the past; so she sent a photo to one of these Snapchat identities of her in a crop top without her face showing. That person then asked for a photo of her with the crop top off and her face showing. She replied that she felt that the person was blackmailing her, and asked what he would do if she did not send the photo. He said he would send the photos and show them to people. She then, because of that threat, sent five photos of herself with her face and breasts exposed, and the Snapchat identity, who I accept was the offender, then said that he would delete the photos, but then shortly afterwards complained that she was not being serious, and that he would only delete the photos if she sent him a photo of her having oral sex with someone who was not her partner. 196 He then asked her, "Who do you think this is", and she replied that she thought it was Vaughan. He said, no it was definitely not him, but that he knew Vaughan, and that Vaughan would be willing to help out, so that she could provide a photo of her having oral sex with someone who was not her partner. She then sent the offender, who she thought was a friend, a Snapchat message saying that someone was blackmailing her, and wanted a photo of her having oral sex with him, Vaughan. The offender replied that it was not possible, because he had a partner, and so did the victim, but then sent a message to her not long afterwards, saying "Let's do it now". 197 Sending these messages to ST via Snapchat amounted to the offender's menacing ST, and blackmailing her in order to obtain either sexually explicit images of her, or sexual favours from her. This it seems to me is a somewhat more serious instance of this particular offence. It is calculated and manipulative and well planned. He knew her because of his work, and her connection with his partner. On this occasion in fact he succeeded in getting explicit photos from her, and yet again he pretended to be two people, in touch with her at the same time. It is cunning, calculated and manipulative behaviour. The appropriate penalty for this offence, in my view, is 12 months. 198 There are then similar offences of using a carriage service to menace, harass, mentally harass, occurring between 22 October 2016 and December 2016. One involves the victim WX and occurred on 22 October 2016, and is sequence 32. WX had been a police constable for about two years. She met the offender at her workplace around February 2016. In the second half of 2016, she received a request from him to add her to his Snapchat contact list, and she accepted. The first shift she worked with him was on 24 October 2016, where they were on guard duties together at Prince of Wales Hospital. Their initial conversations were unremarkable, except according to the facts she found some of the comments he made odd, including a comment that if they were ever both single they should watch scary movies together. He also made a comment when they were eating food whilst on duty, that they were on a dinner date. She regarded them initially however as harmless jokes. 199 Around the end of October 2016, he started to send her messages over Snapchat, but she did not regard them as containing anything of note. On 22 October 2016, she accepted a Snapchat friend request from a person calling themselves K Snizzle. She accepted the request, although she did not know who the person was. In fact, it was the offender. He claimed to be a friend of her ex-boyfriend, and said that he had been showing people nude photographs of her. She asked him who he was, and which ex-boyfriend he was talking about. He replied with the initials "ER". He said he did not want to jeopardise his friendship with that person, and said he did not want her to get hurt. At the time WX was dating someone with those initials, and her Facebook profile showed that she was in a relationship with a person with those initials. The offender, posing as K Snizzle, told her that her ex-boyfriend was using an app where he had nude photographs of her and other girls. She knew of no photographs of her of this nature, and asked this person his true identity. He said, "If you send me selfies" (that is, photos of her) "I might tell you". 200 He told her that he knew her boyfriend had been going on dates with other girls, whilst they had been recently separated. WX remembered discussing their period of separation with the offender, at one point. The person calling themselves K Snizzle then continued to ask for photographs in return for revealing his true identity. She sent him a photograph of herself with antlers juxtaposed so that her identity was obscured. He demanded a photo without the obscuring feature. She declined and then blocked him. She spoke to the offender about these messages, of course not realising that this Snapchat identity was in fact the offender. She asked for his advice. She viewed him as an experienced police officer and someone she could trust. He told her that Snapchat activity could not be traced, and that accounts could be created without phone numbers or email addresses. In fact, it was the offender who was using this Snapchat identity to pose as someone else, in an attempt to obtain photographs of her. 201 This is also a serious offence and a relatively serious example of this particular charge, for all of the reasons that I have already indicated in relation to most of the similar offences. He was a police officer and she was a co-worker. That is a serious breach of trust. He took advantage of her trust, and some information he knew about her because of that relationship, knowing that she would trust him. No harm was done, in that he did not ultimately receive any photographs of this victim, but nonetheless it is serious, and again planned, calculated and manipulative. The appropriate penalty for this offence is 9 months. 202 The next offence involves the victim UV, and is sequence 12. It occurred on 4 November 2016. UV was also a serving police officer and had been since May 2016. She was initially working on general duties in the Sydney area, and met the offender through her work. She also knew the offender's partner who was part of her team, and also knew ST. She worked out of the same police vehicle as the offender. She was with the offender on the night of the Lindt café siege, where they were both in a police vehicle at the beginning of the evening. As a result of those tragic events they both became closer. Their friendship became more than that, although the offender remained in a relationship with his partner, the other police officer. However, UV thought that his relationship with the other police officer had ended, and during this period she sent him a picture of herself in matching underwear. 203 In February 2015 she had a conversation with the offender, in which she ended their relationship. She had met someone else and commenced a relationship with that person, and then transferred out of the city. In November 2016, she was talking to the offender on the phone, and told him that her partner was away at a police training course. In the days following this, she was contacted by at least four different Snapchat user accounts. Using one of these, the offender started to message UV at around 11pm on 3 November 2016. He said that her boyfriend needed to stop showing people secret pictures of her, and later he sent a message saying that UV was always matching. She understood that to be a reference to her wearing matching underwear. She then blocked that contact, and after that she began to receive messages from another Snapchat identity, who said, "If you block again, I'll send myself the pictures from his phone, sound okay". He then said, "I added you to tell you about your boyfriend showing his mates pictures of you", and later said, "Your boyfriend showed me pictures of you and got his dick sucked and fucked by another girl". This was all the offender using this identity which he had created on Snapchat. 204 By using these two identities, he used a carriage service to menace her, by threatening to disseminate photos of her in her underwear. Again, it is serious for all of the same reasons including the breach of trust involved in taking advantage of information he knew as a result of his friendship with UV; the fact that he did this as a serving officer, the creation of false identities, and the degree of manipulation and cunning involved. The appropriate penalty for that in my view is 9 months imprisonment. 205 The next of these offences involves the victim YZ and occurred on 30 November 2015. It is sequence 33. YZ was a probationary constable with the New South Wales police service. She met the offender at the police station where he was then stationed in June 2016, and they worked a shift together. They lived in the same area and started to drive to work together, but they were on different shifts and that did not occur often in the initial period. In September 2016, he was placed on the same team as her, and so they started to drive to work together more often. He would often speak to her about the attractiveness of other female officers. 206 On 30 November she started to receive messages from someone on Snapchat with the user name Mallory. In fact it was the offender. She also received a request from another person who asked to be added on her contact list. This is also the offender in a different assumed identity. She added this person. She then had a conversation with him, and he told her that he was a colleague of her partner, and that her partner had showed him photographs of her at work. YZ, who trusted the offender as a co-worker, then sent him a message in his true identity, asking if there was any way of tracking a Snapchat username. He said no, and asked why. She told him that someone was claiming to have photos of her, to which he replied, "Well, are there photos?" She eventually blocked this person, and after that she received two requests from other unknown Snapchat user IDs, to be added to her contact list, which she declined. 207 The summary of this offence is that the offender used this assumed Snapchat identity via a carriage service to harass YZ, in an attempt to obtain sexually explicit photos of her. He did not, and this is towards the bottom of the range of offences capable of being charged under this section. Again, it is a case which, if it were to be sentenced alone, may not reach the threshold for imprisonment, but on this occasion it does, in part because of the circumstances of the offender as a serving officer, the fact that he took advantage of the working relationship that he had with the victim, and the trust that he knew she had in him; and the ongoing nature of the offending, as in an ongoing course of conduct. However, it is objectively less serious than some of the others, and the appropriate sentence in my view is 6 months. 208 The last of these offences involves the victim AA, and occurred in December 2015. It is sequence 31. In 2008, AA was studying criminology at the University of New South Wales, where she made friends with EF, an earlier victim with whom the offender was in a relationship at the time. At the time, she added the offender as a Facebook friend. After finishing university she had no further involvement with him, and in 2015 she noticed he was no longer a Facebook friend. Towards the end of 2016, the offender and AA became connected on Snapchat. The offender asked her if she was still, in his words, "interested in getting a boob job". She said yes, and he told her the same as he had for some of his other victims, namely that he had a friend who was a plastic surgeon who needed photos for a portfolio. She asked for information about the surgeon, but he did not answer any of these questions, but told her that he could act as a middleman between AA and his friend, including handling the photos. 209 Over the space of about a month, they continued to communicate and he asked her to send him photos of her breasts in that context. She ignored those messages. In late December 2016/ early January 2017, she received a request from someone on Snapchat to be included as part of her contact list. She cannot remember the name, but it was the offender posing as someone else. She accepted the request, and then received a message to the effect that this person had photos of her, that had been sent by her ex-boyfriend. He threatened that if she did not want him to send them out or to disseminate them, she should send him a photo. AA asked who the person was, but he replied to the effect that he only wanted to help her out, and if she sent the photos he would ensure that the photos he already had were not released. She ignored the demands and the user. 210 The summary of this offence is therefore that the offender used a carriage service to menace AA, in an attempt to obtain sexually explicit photographs of her. Again, this was not successful, and whilst it is a serious offence for all of the same reasons that I have already expressed, it is towards the bottom of the range for offences capable of being charged under this section, and in my view, a term of imprisonment of 6 months is appropriate. 211 Ultimately, the offender was apprehended in relation to this ongoing series of offences on the 13 February 2018. BB completed a statement with New South Wales police, and outlined the offences involving her, to which I referred yesterday. At about 1.30 pm on 31 May 2017, investigators from the Professional Standards Command stopped the offender when he was driving in Menai. He was placed under arrest and cautioned. They searched his car, subject to a Commonwealth search warrant and found a mobile phone on the front passenger seat. There were a large number of sexually explicit images of women located on that phone, many of which appeared to be screenshots from Snapchat. 212 Also, in a black bag on the front seat of the car, were three unsecured .233 calibre rounds of ammunition, which were fully functional and in working order. The offender was not licensed to possess that type of ammunition. The possession of that ammunition is sequence 13, and is a Form 1 offence to be taken into account when sentencing the offender for sequence 15. He was taken to Sutherland police station and exercised his right to silence. Police then executed a search warrant of his home in Campbelltown. There they located a mobile phone, a laptop, electronic storage devices and similar equipment. They found the Samsung phone which he had reported stolen in February 2015, and which he had used to operate the service to which he had subscribed under the stolen identity he had accessed through the COPS system. An examination of the laptop and this mobile phone located a large number of sexually explicit images of women in various stages of undress, and a number of them were screen shots from Snapchat or Skype. These images included images of the victims BB, MN, the sister of one of the victims, UV and TS. 213 Also located in the premises were nine unsecured .303 calibre rounds of ammunition, all fully functional and in working order. He was not licensed to possess those, and his possession of them is sequence 14, another of the Form 1 offences to take into account when sentencing for sequence 15. 214 Police also located in his premises two unsecured Glock brand pistol magazines, each of which had a capacity of 15 rounds of ammunition, each of which contained the full 15 rounds of .40 hollow point rounds of ammunition. They were fully functional and in working order. He was not authorised to possess these magazines, which fall within the definition of prohibited weapon, nor this type of ammunition. Police did not locate the firearm which could be used with these magazines. 215 His possession of these two magazines are the relevant facts for sequence 15, a charge before the Court for sentence substantively, namely that on 31 May 2016 at Campbelltown he possessed a prohibited weapon, namely a Glock .40 calibre magazine without being authorised to do so. This is an offence contrary to s 7(1) of the Weapons Prohibition Act 1998 (NSW), which carries a maximum penalty of 14 years imprisonment, with a standard non-parole period of 5 years. 216 When sentencing him for this offence, I am to take into account four additional offences appearing in the schedule to a Form 1, signed by him and exhibited in these proceedings. They are sequences 13 and 14, to which I have already referred, that is the three rounds of .233 ammunition found in his motor car, and the nine unsecured .33 calibre rounds of ammunition found during the search of his premises. The remaining two additional offences are sequence 16, a further charge of possessing a prohibited weapon, which amounts to the second Glock point .40 calibre magazine found in his premises, and doing so without being authorised. Exactly why this is an additional offence to be taken into account in sentencing for sequence 15, rather than a substantive sentence is hard to understand. The remaining offence, sequence 17, relates to the 15 rounds of .40 calibre ammunition, at least according to the Court attendance notice, found inside one of the magazines. There were two, of course, but the charge that is the subject of sequence 17 only refers to 15 rounds of ammunition. There would appear to have been no charge in relation to all of the ammunition found in both magazines. Again, why that is so, is impossible to fathom. 217 Sequence 15 is serious, and that is clearly the case given the maximum penalty of 14 years and the standard non-parole period of 5 years, but whilst this magazine falls within the definition of prohibited weapon, in fact it was a magazine, and whilst it was in working order, police did not locate any weapon in the premises with which it could be used. It was therefore of itself, in its then form, not capable of being used to actually perpetrate any harm. Of course, put together with a Glock pistol, it was. However as I have said, police did not locate a Glock pistol in the premises. 218 There is no evidence before me to explain why the offender had any of these weapons or ammunition. It is a serious offence, and the fact that he had two, which must be reflected by treating in a meaningful way the additional offence, sequence 16, increases the appropriate penalty for sequence 15. But in the circumstances it seems to me it is below the midrange in terms of objective seriousness, and there is a plea of guilty, and for those two reasons therefore, the standard non-parole period does not strictly apply. 219 However, the threshold for imprisonment has been reached, in my view. He was a police officer. It is well known to the Court that standard police pistol issue is a Glock. How it was that he was therefore in possession of two magazines to fit what was a standard police issue weapon is unexplained, but clearly enough, as a police officer he would have known that he was not authorised to be in possession of these weapons and the fact of his being a police officer in those circumstances aggravates the criminality. Taking all of that into account, it seems to me that the appropriate term of imprisonment is one of 3 years, and because it would be necessary to fix a non-parole period because it is a standard non-parole period offence, that would be 2 years. 220 The offender was charged with what more probably than not was a very large number of offences, and has been in custody bail refused ever since 31 May 2017. 221 That, as I understand it then, is a recitation of all of the offences before the Court, either for substantive sentence or to be taken into account as additional offences, findings in relation to individual objective criminality and indications of the sentences which either will be imposed, or given as indicative sentences in circumstances where there will be aggregate sentences imposed. 222 The overall criminality involved here is, of course, extremely high. The offender, I accept, committed multiple serious crimes against, and caused harm to, 15 victims over the course of a decade. All of these offences, with the exception of the firearms offences, were motivated by sexual desire. The Crown submissions indicate that sexual desire would appear to have been arising from a paraphilic disorder for which treatment is yet to commence. As will become clear, I am far from convinced that that paraphilic disorder does in fact exist in this offender. I will deal with that in due course. 223 He abused his position as a police officer. He abused the trust of his friends. He abused the trust of his partners. He abused the trust of the friends of his partners. He used multiple identities. He created multiple identities. He did all of this for no other reason than to engage in sexual behaviour. The sentences must send a very strong message of general deterrence. He also needs a sentence which reflects a degree of specific deterrence. He must be punished for this appalling behaviour over a period of ten years, and be denounced. The denunciation is even more important in relation to those offences committed by him when he was a serving police officer. There is a saying that "…from those to whom much is given, much is expected." That applies to those in positions of authority, like police officers. Much is expected of those to whom much is given. He failed, miserably, in that regard and he failed as a human being in the way he treated, abused, manipulated and callously dealt with all of the victims of these offences. 224 I will now turn to look at the subjective case which has been mounted on his behalf. He did not give evidence and his subjective case consisted only of a psychiatric report and some documents from the gaol. As to the latter, I accept that since going into custody he has completed some courses. It is possible that he has not had much access otherwise, because he has been on a form of protection since he has been in custody. However, those certificates do show that he has acted positively in his dealings within the prison system. In particular the letter from the chaplain at the MRRC is positive, and I accept that he has undertaken the Salvation Army positive lifestyle program, and is well regarded by the chaplain there. 225 The offender is now aged 30 almost 31, and as I have said has been in custody on remand since 31 May 2017. He is still young therefore, and as a general principle is open to be rehabilitated. The sentence imposed on him should not be so crushing that it prevents him from taking advantage of whatever might be available in the prison system while he serves the balance of his non-parole period, so that he emerges in a rehabilitated state. He will be released from prison one day, and when he is released he will not be particularly old. It would be much better both for him and for the community generally, that he is rehabilitated to whatever extent can be achieved, and he ought to at least be given some expectation that his term, in due course, will come to an end, so that he has an aim to work towards rehabilitation, in due course. 226 He has served his remand period of just over 2 years in various forms of protection. More probably than not when he is a sentenced prisoner, he will remain on protection because of his previous employment at the very least, and possibly also because of the nature of the bulk of his offending. He was in a relatively strict form of segregation at the time he went into custody initially, for between about six and seven months, up until late 2017. I accept from the evidence given by a chief superintendent from Corrective Services that this involved quite a degree of isolation, with non-association conditions, requiring him to be escorted from place to place within the prison. 227 Since late 2017, he was moved to another area which is called limited association. That has allowed him access to other inmates within the same classification, but he is not within the general prison population. It is a form of protection, and I accept that almost certainly he will continue to be on protection during the whole of his term of imprisonment. It is nowhere near as onerous as the segregation in which he was held initially. He has access to medical services and psychological counselling, and it is clear from the psychiatric report tendered that he has been psychiatrically assessed on at least three occasions since going into custody. 228 Chief Superintendent David gave evidence that this form of protection allowed association, access to visitors and the like. It is not as onerous as segregation, and he has largely been in this form of limited association protection during 2018, and up until recently. I accept that over the last perhaps two weeks he was moved back into segregation, perhaps in preparation for these proceedings, and that the last two weeks have seen him in more onerous and restricted conditions; but I also accept more probably than not that after today he will become a sentenced prisoner, and will be classified formally. It is unlikely, in my view, and based on my experience, that he will remain in segregation for any length of time, and I accept more probably than not that he is likely to return to the form of protective custody or limited association that he has been in for most of his time on remand. I accept Mr David's evidence that he is not likely to serve his time in custody anymore onerously than any other prisoner on protection, and the Court is only too aware that there are very many of them. 229 The offender was between 19 and 28 during the period of offending. At the time of his arrest he was living in Campbelltown with his girlfriend, who, as I have said, was also a police officer, and who he met in that context. He remained a serving officer until his resignation in September 2017 after going into custody and whilst facing these charges. He apparently had been suspended at the beginning of 2017. He has two siblings who have little contact with him. He has parents still alive who have always been supportive of him, and who visited him regularly in the initial period of his incarceration. They have since moved interstate and see less of him. 230 I accept from the psychiatric report that the offender appears to have had a positive upbringing in the St George area of Sydney, completing year 12, achieving relatively well at school, without any evidence of childhood conduct issues. He seems to have enjoyed, as I have said, a positive childhood with supportive parents. He had a very early ambition to become a police officer or a fireman, and indicated that this was because of a desire to help people. He studied a degree in criminology at the University of New South Wales between the ages of 18 and 21. He worked for a period in a cadetship with the Sydney Water Catchment Authority, until he was accepted into the police force in December 2011. 231 According to the psychiatric report from Dr Furst, there were no indications that he suffered from symptoms of depression or anxiety in his early 20s. Whilst there may not have been any indications outwardly, one thing is clear however, and that is that from the time he was at least 19, he was engaging in predatory sexual behaviour and manipulation and harassment of young women, for base sexual motives. He was apparently subject to a sexual harassment claim in 2015, arising from his workplace, which was upheld, and he was moved from the city to Mascot where he stayed for about 12 months, until he was eventually suspended. 232 He told the psychiatrist that he had been exposed to significant stressors or stressful events in his role as a police officer, including attending suicides, witnessing a person jump from a high rise building, being present in the early hours of the morning at the Lindt café siege, and was present at a distressing incident in the city where a woman was set alight by her boyfriend. All of this occurred from 2012 at the earliest, whereas the offending here commenced in 2007, and many of the more serious offences in fact occurred in the period before he joined the police force, and before any of these stressful events had occurred. 233 He claimed to Dr Furst to have been suffering nightmares and flashbacks of these traumatic events since the start of 2015. According to his report to Dr Furst, he had used alcohol since he was 15 and started to drink to excess between 2011 and 2012, and continued to do so up until the time of his arrest. But this too, this use of alcohol or abuse of alcohol, to the extent that it has been diagnosed as an alcohol abuse disorder, did not start until well after the commencement of these earlier offences. He has never had counselling for excessive drinking, but did see a GP at one stage at the request of his then girlfriend, because she was concerned about it. 234 There is no history of illicit drug use or a gambling disorder. He has had no major medical problems and there is no family history of a mental illness. None of this, in my view, explains his offending. He told Dr Furst that he was aroused by the sexual nature of the offending. I am not quite sure what this means. I accept Dr Furst's opinion in circumstances where in fact the offending involved him engaging in sexual conduct, namely being fellated by young women, which I assume was in circumstances where he was sexually aroused. Dr Furst's opinion is that this offending was likely driven by sexual deviance. Apparently he had watched a lot of pornography in the past. He is attracted to regular heterosexual sex, and has not identified any attraction to inflicting physical harm or engaging in rape fantasies, or the like. He does not indicate any sexual attraction to men or boys, or prepubescent girls. 235 He claims to have been the victim himself of sexual assault between the ages of nine and 12 by a male about three years older than him. That is not something, as I understand it, for which he has ever received any treatment. He claimed to have an ongoing close relationship with a woman who is a few years older than him, who has children. Her husband apparently has a limited life expectancy, and the offender claims that his relationship with her and her children will be his main support when he is released. This material, however, is only by way of history provided by him to Dr Furst. There is no evidence otherwise in these proceedings to verify any of those claims. 236 His parents, as I have said, remain supportive of him and used to visit him frequently, but now that they have moved interstate they see him less often. He claimed to Dr Furst to regret his actions, admitting that he had done the wrong thing, and had lost everything. Indeed, he has lost everything. He has lost his career, he has lost his house, he has lost whatever friends he had. Dr Furst has perused the Justice Health medical records and I accept from those that in fact he was initially managed in segregation in the months following his arrest. He has undergone some mental health assessments, on 26 June 2017 and 21 July 2017, and there were concerns about his deteriorating mental health, including the report of some suicidal feelings. Without intending to minimise this in any way, it is of course not surprising that he might feel like that in the circumstances that he then found himself, in custody, looking at a long prison term, as a former police officer with everything in his life having come to a sudden stop. 237 He reported that at the time of his arrest he had been drinking 15 to 16 standard drinks a day, and that in custody at that early stage he was feeling depressed and having panic attacks. He was seen by another psychiatrist in custody on 15 January 2018, and was thought to be having posttraumatic stress disorder related nightmares. He was commenced on some medication for that. There was further assessment in April 2018, in which he reported flashbacks, and was diagnosed with posttraumatic stress disorder and there was yet another assessment in May 2018, with further reports of extremely disturbing nightmares relating to his previous work experiences as a police officer. He continues to receive some medication for his mental disorders. 238 I accept Dr Furst's diagnosis that he currently suffers from posttraumatic stress disorder, probably arising from the traumatic events that he witnessed or was involved in as a police officer. That diagnosis is based on the history given, and the history of nightmares given. I accept Dr Furst's opinion, and those of the psychiatrists who have seen him, that he suffers from this disorder. There is no evidence, however, of any connection between that condition from which he now suffers, and his commission of any of these offences, certainly not for those that occurred before he became a police officer. Nor is there any evidence of any connection between his posttraumatic stress disorder and any of the offences he committed after he became a police officer, and was subject, if he was, to these distressing events. Nor is there anything in the facts, extensive as they are, in relation to any of the offences to indicate that he was behaving in a way to indicate anxiety, panic, flashbacks or nightmares. It may well be the case that he was up until the time he was arrested, but there is nothing in the evidence to indicate that. 239 He is being treated for this condition in prison, and he is therefore a person who suffers from a psychiatric condition which is a fact. The fact that it has no connection with his offending behaviour is not the only basis on which his psychiatric condition ought be taken into account on sentence. The fact that he is a person who suffers from a psychiatric condition may be relevant, particularly so in determining the extent to which, if at all, he is a less viable vehicle for general deterrence. In this case, his psychiatric condition of post-traumatic stress disorder is not, in my view, something that alters the appropriate sentences, and is not something that would minimise in any way the extent to which his sentences should reflect general deterrence. 240 He is also diagnosed by Dr Furst as suffering from what is called unspecified paraphilic disorder, but as I understand it, that diagnosis is based on the fact that he in fact committed the offences before me for, and what is said to be the degree of sexual deviance involved. I accept that this so called disorder is, according to Dr Furst, characterised by recurrent intense, sexually arousing fantasies, urges, or behaviours. This diagnosis as described in that way, does not seem to me to fit the facts surrounding these sentences. 241 His sexual offending was indeed surrounded by controlling and manipulative behaviour, and there was considerable planning, but it seems to me there is nothing about the sexual activities on the facts that are before me, to indicate that he was playing out any particular fantasy. He was tricking, manipulating and blackmailing women into fellating him, usually in his bedroom, and once or twice in a car or outdoors, but with nothing else. He was doing the same, that is, tricking, manipulating or blackmailing them, in an attempt to get them to give him naked pictures of themselves. 242 There is no evidence that there were any fantasies surrounding these activities. In fact, it had the hallmarks similar to someone accessing pornography. He also sexually assaulted a number of different women, most of the time in a fairly cold and calculating way, not apparently involving any sexually arousing fantasies, urges or behaviours that are distressing or disabling, but rather involving sexual activity that on the facts, he would seem to have enjoyed. He committed these offences for sexual pleasure, not in my view, as a result of sexual deviance, or at least not on the evidence that is before me. 243 What he did was illegal. It involved his obtaining of sex illegally because it was without consent, and on the basis of threats. It was not, in my view, the result of any particular form of sexual deviance. I would give little weight to this diagnosis, albeit I accept that Dr Furst is of that opinion, but on the material before me, it seems to me that this diagnosis is not actually available. However, Dr Furst, on the basis of his diagnosis, has suggested that it is something that can be treated. Indeed, there are programs available in the prison, and hopefully he will have access to them. 244 He is, of course, a sex offender. These are all sexual offences, and there are sex offender programs in the prison. There is a suggestion also by Dr Furst that because these offences were all driven by sexual desires, that when he is due for release he might be treated with anti-libidinal medication. Whether or not that occurs will be a matter for the medical staff and Corrective Services, in due course. 245 The offender has agreed to undertake whatever treatment is available to him as a sex offender whilst he remains in custody, and to do so, of course, must improve his prospects of rehabilitation. I accept that he has expressed regret for his actions, and on the face of it, I accept that that is genuine. To that extent, this indicates some contrition and remorse. He has also acknowledged that his offences caused harm to his victims, as indeed they did. He appears to be prepared to engage in appropriate counselling within the gaol system, and says that he wants to understand his offending behaviour so that he does not offend like that again. That, of course, would be beneficial to him and to the community on his release, and it is to be hoped that the sex offender programs in which he will engage will, at the very least, help him to understand why he acted the way he did so that he does not do it again. 246 His prospects of rehabilitation, overall, it seems to me, are relatively good. He has acknowledged his guilt. He has expressed remorse. He is prepared to seek help, and there would appear to be a range of options available in the prison system to help him and, if it be the case that he suffers from some form of sexual deviance, to treat that. 247 He will be much older when he is released. He does not seem to have much support in the community, but these matters no doubt will be addressed by Community Corrections when he is eligible for release to parole. 248 In indicating what sentences will be imposed, I have for some of the particular charges, where it is necessary to impose a non-parole period, given an indication of the length of the non-parole period. In all cases in doing so, I have indicated a lower non-parole period than the statutory ratio of 75% applicable for the state offences. 249 To the extent that is necessary for me to indicate reasons for doing so, I accept that there are limited special circumstances here. One is that there will be a degree of partial accumulation of all of the sentences; the second is that this is his first time in custody; and the third is that his non-parole period, at least to some extent, will be served in slightly more onerous circumstances than it might be for others, but to a very limited extent. 250 The issue then arises of how to structure this overall sentence, given the individual sentences indicated. There are ten counts of sexual intercourse without consent, involving four victims. Some are more serious than others, and some have serious Form 1 offences attached to them, whereas others do not. 251 On the basis of the sentences that I have already indicated, however, this would be the outcome in relation to the victim BB. There would be a total of 21 years, with a total non-parole period of 13. For the victim GH there would be a total of 8 years with a total non-parole period of 5 years. For IJ, there would be a total of 14 years with the total non-parole period of 10 years and for OP a total of 3 with a non-parole period of 2. That would be a total of 46 years. Even though these are serious offences, and there are ten separate offences involving four victims, that would be very much excessive in the circumstances. The sentences for this group of offences has to be structured to reflect total criminality. 252 I propose to impose an aggregate sentence for the four sentences involving BB. As I have said, on the basis of the sentences which I have already indicated, the total would be 21 years, but I will be imposing an aggregate sentence of 10 years, with an aggregate non-parole period of 5. 253 It is here that I must again reiterate the presence of some special circumstances, namely partial accumulation, first time custody, and some limited more onerous conditions in prison during the non-parole period. However, as I hope will become clear, this particular non-parole period and the resulting period on parole, is also calculated, because it will be the last sentence in time imposed of the sentences I will impose, and will therefore ultimately permit a period on parole of five years, which in my view is more than sufficient to deal with whatever might need to occur with the offender, when he is next able to be released to the community. So to an extent, the structure of this particular aggregate sentence is for the purpose of the overall sentence structure. 254 For the four counts involving IJ, as I have said, the fully accumulated total would be 14 years, but in my view the aggregate sentence should be 7 years with a 5 year aggregate non-parole period. For the two sentences involving GH, they would total, as I have said, 8 years. The overall criminality for the latter of these offences is higher, because of the nature of the sexual intercourse involved, and the actual physical harm suffered by the victim. There will be an aggregate sentence for those two offences of 6 years with a 4 year non-parole period. 255 The offence involving OP is one offence which I have already indicated will be a sentence of 3 years with a 2 year non-parole period. Again, I acknowledge that the ratio between the non-parole period and the overall sentence for these four sentences is different, but it is not meant to be mathematically precise or identical, and it is done in a way to facilitate the overall structure of the sentence. In any event, the non-parole periods which I am required to set for the offences involving IJ, GH and OP will have no effect, and certainly will not lead to his being released to parole at the end of them, because they will be part of an overall longer non-parole period. I set them only because the legislation requires me to. 256 If those aggregate sentences were entirely accumulated, it would be 10 years plus 7 years, plus 6 years, plus 3 years, which would be 26 years. That too, in my view, is excessive for the criminality represented by all of these sexual intercourse without consent offences, again, despite the serious nature of the offending, but bearing in mind the actual objective criminality of most of the individual offences. 257 In my view, the total criminality should be reflected by an overall period of custody for these offences of 16 years with an overall non-parole period of 11 years, which I propose to deal with by a partial accumulation of each of the four groups or single sentence. 258 Dealing with the Commonwealth offences, there are two groups. There are ten offences contrary to s 474.17(1). I have indicated a number of sentences which in my view are appropriate for each of those offences, which are sequences 34, 24, 33, 23, 11, 32, 12, 33 and 31. As I calculate it, that would lead to a total of 8 years and 9 months. That is excessive in the circumstances. 259 It would be appropriate to deal with these offences also by way of an aggregate sentence, which is available to the Court for Commonwealth offences. The limitation provided for in s 49(2) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) is that no aggregate sentence can exceed the maximum which would have been available had all of the individual sentences been sentenced separately, and accumulated. The maximum for each of these sentences is 3 years, so the maximum that cannot be exceeded would be 30 years. In my view, the relevant aggregate sentence for this group of ten sentences is 5 years. 260 Because I will be imposing this aggregate sentence of more than 3 years for this Commonwealth sentence, I understand that I am required to also set an aggregate non-parole period, and I will do so as non-parole period of 3 years, but again, I do not expect that he will be released to parole at the expiration of that non-parole period, because it will be part of an overall sentence. 261 Sequence 15, as I have said, is a standalone offence of 3 years with a non-parole period of 2 years. Sequence 18 is a standalone offence of contrary to s 474.19 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth), which I have indicated is to be sentenced in a term of 18 months. Sequence 1 is a standalone offence, and I have indicated a term of 3 years. I have indicated also that sequences 20 and 21, the use of identity theft offences, attract a sentence of 3 years each. The misconduct in public office offence, sequence 1 and sequences 20 and 21, are connected, and whilst they did not entirely overlap, it seems to me appropriate that they be ordered to be served concurrently, and that they be fixed terms, because they will be part of a much longer overall non-parole period. 262 If each of these was then accumulated on the other, it would, on my calculation, be a little more than 31 years, which also is excessive to represent the total criminality. The total criminality represented by all of these offences should give rise to an overall sentence of 20 years, with an overall non-parole period of 15 years. 263 Whilst I am conscious that this equates to the statutory ratio of 75% for a non-parole period, where many of the indicative or other sentences imposed have indicated a lower non-parole period; and whilst I have indicated some special circumstances, in my view, nothing less than a non-parole period of 15 years would be sufficient to deal with the objective criminality and the period on parole of 5 years is more than sufficient to deal with the supervision and needs of the offender, once he is released. 264 The offender is convicted in relation to all offences. For sequences 1, 20 and 21, he is sentenced to a fixed term of imprisonment of 3 years commencing 31 May 2017, and expiring in 30 May 2020. I declined to set a non-parole period because this is part of a longer overall non-parole period. 265 For sequences 4, 24, 33, 23, 11, 32, 12, 33, and 31, the s 474.17 offences, he is sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment pursuant to s 53A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) of 5 years commencing 31 May 2019, and expiring 30 May 2024; with a non-parole period pursuant to the provisions of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) of 3 years, commencing 31 May 2019, and expiring 30 May 2022. The indicative sentences are: (1) Sequence 34 - 9 months; (2) Sequence 24 - 12 months; (3) Sequence 30 - 12 months; (4) Sequence 3 - 2 years; (5) Sequence 23 - 6 months; (6) Sequence 11 - 12 months; (7) Sequence 32 - 9 months; (8) Sequence 12 - 9 months; (9) Sequence 33 - 6 months; (10) Sequence 31 - 6 months. 266 For sequence 15, he is sentenced to an overall term of imprisonment of 3 years commencing 31 May 2020, expiring 30 May 2023, with a non-parole period of 2 years, commencing 31 May 2020, expiring 30 May 2022, and with parole thereafter of 12 months, commencing 31 May 2022, expiring 30 May 2023. 267 For sequence 18, the s 474.19 offence, he is sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 18 months commencing 31 May 2020, and expiring 30 November 2022. 268 Sequence 27, he is sentenced to a non-parole period of 2 years commencing 31 May 2022, expiring 30 May 2024, with parole thereafter of 12 months commencing 31 May 2024, expiring 30 May 2025; giving rise to an overall term of imprisonment of 3 years commencing 31 May 2022, and expiring 30 May 2025. 269 For sequences 67 and 55, he is sentenced to an aggregate sentence pursuant to s 53A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) of 7 years, commencing 31 May 2024, expiring 30 May 2031, with a non-parole period for 5 years commencing 31 May 2024, expiring 30 May 2029, with parole thereafter of 2 years, commencing 31 May 2029, expiring 30 May 2031. The indicative sentences for sequences 67 and 55 are: (1) Sequence 67 - 3 years with a 2 year non-parole period; (2) Sequence 55 - 6 years with a 4 year non-parole period. 270 For sequences 37, 39, 41, and 42, he is sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment pursuant to s 53A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) of 7 years, commencing 31 May 2026, expiring 30 May 2033 with a non-parole period of 5 years, commencing 31 May 2026, expiring 30 May 2033, with a parole thereafter of 2 years, commencing 31 May 2031, expiring 30 May 2033. The indicative sentences are: (1) Sequence 37 - 3 years with a 2 year non-parole period; (2) Sequence 39 - 3 years with a 2 year non-parole period; (3) Sequence 41 - 4 years with a 3 year non-parole period; (4) Sequence 42 - 4 years with a 3 year non-parole. 271 For sequences 57, 60, 62, and 65, he is sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 10 years commencing 31 May 2027, expiring 30 May 2037, with a non-parole period of 5 years commencing 31 May 2027, expiring 30 May 2032, with parole thereafter commencing 31 May 2032, expiring 30 May 2037. The indicative sentences for BB are: (1) Sequence 57, 5 years with 3 year non-parole period; (2) Sequence 60, 5 years with a 3 year non-parole period; (3) Sequence 62, 6 years with a 4 year non-parole period; (4) Sequence 65, 5 years with a 3 year non-parole period. 272 I make a notation that except for the non-parole period attaching to the aggregate sentence for sequences 57, 60, 62, and 65, the offender, whilst eligible for parole, will not be able to be released to parole, wherever sentences requiring a non-parole period have been set because it is all part of an overall longer non-parole period. 273 At the time of announcing these sentences an error was noticed when referring to the indicative sentence for Count 55. It does not affect the overall assessment of the total criminality which I will not change. My assessment is the overall criminality should give rise to 20 years, with a 15 year non-parole period. How I go about structuring it of course is complicated but it has just become apparent that my analysis of how I reached that now has an arithmetical error in it, because of my misstatement of the indicative sentence that I said was relevant to sequence 55, and I have to correct that. It would be so much better if it had been brought to my attention by one party or another at the time. 274 I go back to my sentence judgment in this matter and in particular at a stage earlier today, which dealt with the issue of how to structure this sentence given the indications that I had made. In the course of that, I said that of the ten offences of sexual intercourse without consent, two of them related to the victim GH; and I said that on the basis of the two sentences I had indicated for those, being sequences 67 and 55, that gave rise to a total of 8 years with a total of a 5 year non-parole period if they were entirely accumulated on each other. I have now been reminded that when indicating the sentence for sequence 55 yesterday, I indicated that it was to be 6 years with 4 years as the indicative sentence. That of course means that the total for those two offences should be 9 years, with a total non-parole period of 6 years; and to that extent, those findings made today are in error. 275 It would also mean that the total for all of the sexual intercourse without consent offences, if entirely accumulated on each other, would be 47 years not 46 years, as I indicated previously. That does not however change the finding that I made, that although each of these offences is serious and represent ten separate offences involving four victims; nonetheless 47 years would be excessive, and that the sentences for the offences had to be structured to reflect total criminality. 276 I repeat, that the two sentences involving GH, which I initially said would add to a total of 8 years, but in fact on the indications would add to a total of 9 years, was too high, and I do not propose to change that view. There should be an aggregate sentence for these two offences, but it should be an aggregate sentence of 7 years with a non-parole period of 5 years, not 6 with 4 as I originally said. 277 That also has the effect of meaning that an addition of all of the aggregates plus the individual sentences, would give rise to 27 years, not 26 years. Again, that is excessive, but the addition of one year does not change my overall finding, that the criminality for all of these sexual intercourse without consent offences should give rise to overall imprisonment of 16 years with an overall non-parole period of 11 years and I repeat the earlier finding that I made, that in my view, the overall criminality of all of the offending, should give rise to a term of imprisonment that effectively is 20 years, with an overall non-parole period of 15 years. 278 What needs to be done then, is to alter slightly the dates originally announced for sequences 67 and 55, to give rise to those new findings. For those two sequences, 67 and 55, I withdraw the earlier announcement, and instead the offender will be sentenced to an aggregate sentence pursuant to s 53A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) of 7 years, with a 5 year non-parole period, which commences on 31 May 2024 and expires on 30 May 2031, with a non-parole period which commences on 31 May 2024 and expires on 30 May 2029, with parole thereafter of 2 years, commencing 31 May 2029, expiring 30 May 2031. Paragraph 274 of this judgement has been amended accordingly. 279 I have taken into account for all substantive offences the additional offences found in Form 1 documents A to K, exhibited in these proceedings.