R v Whiteman

R v Whiteman - [2021] NSWDC 557 - NSWDC 2021 case summary — Zoe

[22]

Seq 79: Use carriage service to transmit indecent material child under 16

From 2010 until 2017, Child 7 was involved in a social activity with a girlfriend of Whiteman at the time.
In 2017, Child 7 (aged between 13 and 14) received a message over Snapchat from Whiteman (then aged 29). He introduced himself as 'Dale Whiteman' and told Child 7 who he was.
In late 2017, Whiteman informed Child 7 that he had a friend 'Emma', who was an Australian Model and could provide her clothes that agencies give her. Child 7 wanted the clothes and received "Emma's" mobile phone number from Whiteman.
A couple of days later Child 7 received text messages from 'Emma' from mobile phone number … 625. The text stated she was 'Dale's friend and was a model looking to 'get rid of some clothes'. Child 7 told 'the model' she would like the clothes, however, she never received them. Child 7 told Whiteman about this and Whiteman 'said something about them getting lost in the mail.'
Over the next couple of weeks, Child 7 received messages from Whiteman and 'Emma' however, never at the same time. If Child 7 failed to reply to either 'person', she received messages stating 'Where were you?', 'Why didn't you reply to me? or 'Why are you ignoring me?' She began to feel 'a bit weirded out' when both would 'do the same thing.'
Child 7 decided to 'block' Whiteman's mobile phone number. He then messaged her from a separate Snapchat account. Child 7 did not reply. He wrote to Child 7 on Instagram and asked, 'Why did you block me?' She then blocked him on Instagram.
Despite this, Child 7 continued to communicate with 'Emma'. 'Emma' asked her what type of underwear she wore and if she wore G-strings. Child 7 told police 'a lot of the time I could not be bothered explaining it so I would send a photograph of underwear or a photo of me in a bikini. Upon receiving a photograph of Child 7 in a bikini, 'Emma' responded that she 'could be a model'.
Child 7 later began to feel weird about 'Emma' asking her about her underwear and felt harassed. She blocked the phone number and deleted all of the messages.

[42]

Sexual communications

The harm done to child victims of carriage service or cybersex offences can be no less serious than in person offences. The internet may be used as a highly effective medium through which to exploit and sexualise vulnerable children, who often have unsupervised access to the internet: Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v Watson [2016] VSCA 73 at [89].
The medium of the internet permits an offender to employ techniques that exploit a child's curiosity and vulnerability to trickery and persuasion. An adult communicating with a child is able to use the internet to intimidate or coerce to ensure the child's participation. The young and vulnerable can be subject to sustained and predatory criminal communications from (generally much older) men for the purposes of their own sexual gratification: Small v R [2020] NSWCCA 216.
Cybersex offences that involve a real child victim render the offences more serious. Courts recognise that there is an implicit, persuasive presumption that a child will suffer harm as a result of prohibited sexual activity. That principle applies no less to cybersex offences than it does to in person sexual offences committed against young persons: Adamson v R (2015) 47 VR 268; Kannis v R [2020] NSWCCA 79. '"The legislature, in enacting the provisions prohibiting the use of a carriage service to engage in sexual activity with a child, sought to implement society's detestation of the practice of encouraging children to engage in inappropriate sexual behaviour, and to protect the child from immature decisions;" Adamson at [27].
Appellate courts have stressed the need to give primacy in sentencing to the need for general deterrence and denunciation, as it is a form of offending that is difficult to detect: R v Porte [2015] NSWCCA 174 at [52]: Watson at [89].
The Commonwealth Parliament has scaled cybersex crimes by the nature of the activity prohibited and allotted a variety of maximum penalties. They are one important indicator of the relative seriousness of an offence. The maximum penalties available reflect the legislature's recognition that today's technological landscape presents a dangerously easy playing field for manipulation of children: Watson at [89]. Here I am dealing with three types of cybersex offending: 1. Use a carriage service to engage in sexual activity: s.475.25A Criminal Code (Cth) - maximum penalty 15 years imprisonment 2. Use a carriage service to groom a child: s.474.27(1) Criminal Code (Cth) - maximum penalty 12 years imprisonment 3. Using a carriage service to transmit indecent material- 474.27 A(1) Criminal Code (Cth) - maximum penalty 7 years imprisonment. 4. Use a carriage service to offend: s s474.17(1) Criminal Code (Cth) - maximum penalty 3 years imprisonment
The actual character and extent of the crime itself must be also considered as a guide to where on the scale of seriousness an individual offence sits. The criminality in this conduct is related to the interference with the child's privacy and her right to a healthy psycho-sexual development. The offence involves an abuse of power that can lead to the formulation of a destructive relationship; by requiring the child to feed into and gratify an offender's sexual titillation and fantasies, often with a view of having her submit to sexual activity: R v Asplund [2010] NSWCCA 316:R v Tector [2008] NSWCCA 151. A court can consider: 1. The nature of conduct; including the topics raised, the methods used to gain the child's trust, any abuse of that trust, with requests for privacy. 2. The extent of any manipulation of the child. 3. The nature of any demands made of the child and the extent the child became compliant with the requests. 4. The number of contacts - from the occasional to a bombardment of indecent suggestions. 5. Whether graphic, intimate or sexual images were sent to the child. 6. Whether images were solicited from child. 7. Whether images were solicited sent by the child. 8. Whether the communications were accompanied by other acts such as gifts or money.

[63]

Form 1 and Schedule

As required by the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 and s 16 BA Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) I take these matters into account when determining the appropriate penalty for the offence to which they relate: Attorney General's Application under s 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 No 1 of 2002,: (2002) 56 NSWLR 146; Abbas, Bodiotis, Taleb and Amoun v R [2013] NSWCCA 115, Bathurst CJ at [22]: Dennison v R [2011] NSWCCA 114: Lamella v R [2014] NSWCCA 122 at [48].
I do not "in any sense" impose sentences for an offence on a Form or a Schedule: Attorney General's Application No. 1 at [68]. Rather, I take them into account as part of the instinctive synthesis approach to sentencing explained by Justice McHugh J in Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357; [2005] HCA 25 at [51]-[54]. Here, the various matters on each Form 1 and Schedule do operate to increase the sentence that would otherwise be appropriate. Such an increase recognises the need for personal deterrence and retribution for the crime for sentence: Attorney General's Application No. 1 at [39] - [42].
Their nature and seriousness must also be considered. On occasions they would not increase a sentence to any discernible extent because the facts in relation to them have already been taken into account in aggravation of the penalty for the matters to which they relate. On other occasions the increase can be substantial: Attorney General's Application No. 1 at [18]; Grube v R [2005] NSWCCA 140. Such matters generally involve crimes of a similar type to the matter to which they relate or similar offences committed against a separate victim or the carriage service matters multiple victims. For example: 1. After Child 1 rejected his advances Whiteman badgered her with messages, sexual requests and messages and requested underwear pictures from her (Seq 57). This will be taken into account sentence for Child 7 (seq 79). 2. The sentence for having sexual intercourse with Child 4 must take into account his having penile vaginal intercourse at a beach (Seq 4) and her performing oral sex on him at a cinema (seq 5). 3. The sentence for using a carriage service to groom Child 4 (seq 60) must take into account carriage service transmit offences against Child 10 (seq 62), Child 11 (seq 66) and Child 12 (seq 68).

[64]

Victim Impact

A Victim Impact Statement (VIS) may be received and considered by a sentencing court. In the case of a primary victim it must relate to "any personal harm suffered by the victim as a direct result of the offence:" s 26 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.
Here each of the VIS's received was in keeping with my expectations based on recent psychological research and the common experience of the courts. Each attested to harm of the kind that might be expected of the offence in question and I had no difficulty with acceptance of their contents: R v Tuala [2015] NSWCCA 8. Tragically their responses were all too common.
Many of the children told police how initially they welcomed the approaches by an older and adult man but how uncomfortable and confusing they found it when the approaches toward them turned to sexual demands. And, how they were left feeling vulnerable after they realised they had had their innocence exploited. The VISs that were read spoke of the loss of trust they experienced then and now. Whiteman's demands they keeping things secret exacerbated those feelings. Lasting impacts reported include; anxiety, shame, negative self-image and feeling that as young girl their life had been broken.
Some spoke of how coming forward to report the crimes had been empowering, as it enabled them to realise how strong they could be in the face of adversity. But the single most common response was how Whiteman had compromised their capacity to trust others, particularly men.
I note that behavioural responses to child sexual abuse vary; no unique set of behavioural constellations have been identified. Responses vary because of the diversity of abuse experiences. A sentencing court must recognise that all forms of child maltreatment present significant risks for later physical and emotional well-being. Any sexual interference with a child can led to developmentally inappropriate and dysfunctional interpersonal relations, feelings of betrayal of trust, powerlessness and guilt and shame about the experience. Significant longer term effects have also been identified: Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, Final Report, Impacts, Volume 3, pages 9 - 11.
Not every victim provided a VIS. The absence of a Victim Impact Statement does not give rise to an inference that an offence had little or no impact on a victim: s 30E (5) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.

[65]

Maximum Penalty

Careful attention to the maximum penalties and where applicable any standard non-parole period is required. Both provide sentencing measures to be balanced with all other relevant factors.
In his submissions and table, Mr Fraser proffered a suggestion as to where in the range of seriousness each offence lies. There is still a debate as to whether a sentencing judge must categorise offences in such relative terms: Cargnello v Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) [2012] NSWCCA 162 at [88]; R v Spinks [2021] NSWSC 649 at [39]. Such assessments are encouraged by the standard non-parole periods that apply to some State offences. They can provide a short hand method to help distinguish very serious (often called "worst case" offences) from the trivial and to rank matters for sentence relative to each other.
But, each sentencing exercise requires individual assessment. I have to take into account all factors that bear upon the process of instinctive synthesis in the particular case, including the legislative guideposts constituted by the maximum penalty: Markarian. A process of comparing and contrasting the actual offence with the abstract one is not necessary: Tepania v R [2018] NSWCCA 247.
When sentencing for the s 61M(2) offence seq 80 I have to have regard to the standard non-parole period and give it some content: Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120; [2011] HCA 39; R v NJK [2011] NSWCCA 151 at [40]. This is despite the fact that the ratio between the head sentence and the standard non-parole being has been described as "absurd: " BT v R [2010] NSWCCA 267.
In doing so I am required to assess objective seriousness without reference to matters personal to the offender and wholly by reference to the nature of the offending: Muldrock at [27]. While at times transparency is required I do not engage in staged approach to sentencing nor should I fix on a non-parole period and oscillate my sentence around it: Muldrock at [28]. I note that for a s61 m(2)
Care is required, for here, the maximum penalties prescribed cover the wide variety of matters that may fall within each type of offence. Some Commonwealth offences carry maximums for non-contact offences that are much higher than those for acts that involved intimate skin on skin physical contact, which in most cases would be regarded as more objectively serious. While each sentence must be proportionate to what was done those higher maximums still requires careful attention: Tector at [166]. Direct equivalence however is impossible.
The maximums prescribed also invite a comparison between this case and other cases. The consistent application of principle requires careful consideration be given to other decision of this and appellate courts but, "…sentencing is a discretionary judgment and that the mix of factors that must be weighed in determining the appropriate sentence will never be precisely the same as in a past case or cases.'' Queen v Pham (2015) 256 CLR 550: [2015] HCA 39; at [46]; Hili v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520; [2010] HC 45.
I must also give effect to basic principles of sentencing law, set out in the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) and s 16A Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) and at common law. One important principle is that a sentence of imprisonment should never exceed that which can be justified as appropriate or proportionate to the gravity of the crime considered in the light of its objective circumstances. Hoare v The Queen (1989) 167 CLR 348 at 354; Way v R [2004] NSWCA 131; (2004) 60 NSWLR 168 at [125].

[66]

Totality and accumulation

Particular care needs to be taken in sentencing for multiple offences whether they involve discrete offending against multiple victims, or multiple offences with overlapping elements of criminality. The question whether a series of sentences should be served concurrently or cumulatively is only considered after determining the appropriate sentence for each offence. If one penalty could not fully comprehend and reflect the criminality for the other offence they must be partly cumulative otherwise there is a risk that the total sentence will fail to reflect the total criminality of the offences. When sentencing for multiple offences, the nature of the charges may compel concurrency. On the other hand, particularly where the offences are separated in time and/or relate to multiple victims, accumulation is required. Care must then be taken to ensure that that the accumulation of a number of lengthy periods of imprisonment not result in a disproportionate level of punishment - the principle of totality.
A sentencing judge needs to evaluate, in a broad sense, the overall criminality involved in all of the offences and, having done so determine what, if any, downward adjustment is necessary in the aggregate sentence in order to achieve an appropriate relativity between the totality of the criminality and the totality of the sentences: R v Holder; R v Johnston [1983] 3 NSWLR 245 Street CJ at 260. The totality principle works to limit punishment to an overall assessment of the offender's criminality in its entirety and to recognise that sometimes appropriate punishment for each offence can result in a sentence that is unduly harsh or crushing: R v Clinch (1994) 72 A Crim R 301 at 306; MAK v R [2006] NSWCCA 381. What is a proportionate sentence or what might be seen as a "crushing" sentence can depend on the perspective of the observer; whether they are a victim, community, appeal court or offender: Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v Beattie [2017] NSWCCA 301 Basten JA at [26]-[45].
On one hand if a prisoner abandons hope their chances of rehabilitation may be diminished and they may no longer cooperate with gaol authority. On the other hand public confidence in the administration of criminal justice; requires that a person who commits multiple offences against many victims throughout the whole course of a studied and deliberate course of criminal behaviour cannot escape effective punishment for the offences which follow successively one upon another: R v Harris [2007] NSWCCA 130; R v Wheeler [2000] NSWCCA 34 at [36]-[37]; Van Ryn v R [2016] NSWCCA 1 at [229].
Sentences and the reasons for them should be as transparent. Everyone; whether victim, offender, court or community should know why a specific sentence was imposed: Beattie. That said, sentencing involves intuitive judgment. Different factors require different considerations - every offender and every sentencing exercise has it individual features. Pragmatic decisions need to be made and the perspectives of the victims, the community and the offender taken into account. Ultimately there must be a fair, just, proportionate or appropriate sentence for the whole of the offending.

[69]

The offender

Whiteman was born in 1988. He reports having a good and stable upbringing. His parents remain supportive and there was no history of neglect or abuse. He attended local schools where he was more active in sport than with academic activity. He has been in stable employment as a labourer since he was 20. After school he continued to be actively engaged in sport. It took up most of his free time and it was where he socialised until his arrest.
He has been in three long-term relationships and had a number of casual sexual encounters with same aged women. He reports no issues with drugs or alcohol and they played no part in his offending. He reports a history consistent with the onset of depressive symptoms from mid-adolescence, with fleeting suicidal ideation. He has been seeing a psychologist in custody and is been prescribed an anti-depressant for anxiety and sleeping difficulties.
Until his arrest Whiteman had no similar criminal convictions; a matter that must be taken into account in his favour. He was however on a Community Corrections Order for a larceny offence from February 2019. He committed his later offences in breach of this order and he still possessed the Child Abuse Material after he was released to bail in December 2019. Offending while on conditional liberty requires some additional punishment for those offences. He made a promise to a court not to offend. He broke those promises.
His apparent good character did not enable this offending but, as is obvious, he has not been of good character since he first began offending as a teenager. At best it can be said that most of his offending (serious as it was) was only of the type revealed in these proceedings.
Whiteman gave evidence on 23 September 2021. He tendered a letter he wrote to the Court and a reference from his parents, who promise their continuing support. I also received a comprehensive report from Ms K North a forensic psychologist.
In his letter Whiteman said he understood the seriousness of the charges and offered an apology, to the court, his family and the victims. He said he regretted what he did and was remorseful. He said he would strive to be better in the future. He would do whatever it takes to better himself.
He said he had applied himself in custody and had a trusted role as a "sweeper." He said he would engage in all the treatments recommended by Ms North. He said he had completely changed his attitudes and outlook toward life. And, he looked forward to continuing his personal redemption. He said "I plan to make the most of my second chance, whenever it comes."
In evidence he reiterated what he said in his letter about his deep regret for any harm caused and his promise that he would never repeat his actions.
He expressed some insight. He told me he suffered from low self-esteem and how he had made attempts at suicide. He said his arrest had changed his outlook and that he now every day looked back with regret at what he did.
He described the violence he experienced each day while in custody. He has had only one contact visit and is often locked in his cell for days at a time. He still had dreams of work and family on release.
During cross-examination he admitted he had been selfish and put his needs ahead of those of others. He accepted that his offending demonstrated a pattern whereby he would ingratiate himself to a group or family and take advantage of his victims. His said his attraction to girls was not age specific rather he took advantage of their availability. He said he did so because he was lonely and sought acceptance and self-esteem, things he did not get in his work or sport.
While I accept he has displayed some remorse; building on the practical remorse demonstrated by his early acceptance of responsibility, his evidence was overall unconvincing. His offending was age specific. It was planned and calculated. As was his evidence to me. His evidence and letter appeared insincere and self-serving.
Whiteman was obviously regretful for the position he was now in and the future time he must spend in gaol but his insight into why he did what he did and the harm caused to so many young women was limited. He has the capacity to say the right things and he will have time to learn how to change but when I come to evaluate his prospects I prefer the expert opinion of Ms North. Hers is a professional opinion that can be respected and acted on. She did not, as some purported experts who prepare sentencing reports for the court, act as the offender's advocate and simply parrot his version of events.

[70]

A Psychologist's opinion

Ms North accepted that Whiteman's underlying symptoms of depression and related feelings of loneliness and perceived social rejection had contributed to his offending. She noted his history; that he had difficulties relating to same age peers and how the attention he received from the girls he offended against may have boosted his self-confidence. She then summarised her conclusions as follows; "However, the ages of his victims and the duration of his offending behaviours also indicated the presence of deviant sexual interests, as did the presence of contact sex offences toward towards six (6) of the victims. With regard to his risk for sexual recidivism, Mr Whiteman was assessed as posing a Level IVa Above Average risk for sexual offending, indicating sex offences specific [treatment] would be required in addressing his risk issues. On a positive note Mr Whiteman accepted responsibility for his behaviours, expressed regret and presented as motivated towards engaging in offence-specific treatments."
It was his deviant sexual interest, she wrote, that contributed to his offending behaviour. Behaviour he knew "was wrong." She also noted (contrary to his evidence) that his preference for hebephilic (adolescent) females remained consistent over a 12 year period.
Ms North wrote that Whiteman was cooperative and candid in his interview with her. She administered a number of psychological tests and considered both risk and protective factors. Obviously, the more those risk factors can be addressed and the protective factors enhanced the better the chance there is that Whiteman will not offend on release.
Ms North concluded that his underlying depression and anxiety could be managed with medication and psychological treatment in custody and in the community. Addressing his offence specific issues and deviant interests he would require assistance developing his underdeveloped social skills, a support network and assistance with his low self-esteem. Suitable sex offender treatment is available in custody and he should be referred to Sex Offender programs for further assessment. I note however that such treatment is presently unavailable and may be delayed even after the COVID emergency is over: see [208] above. He will require monitoring and treatment on release. Suitable programmes are available in the community.
I note that Whiteman will not be released to parole unless the State Parole Authority are satisfied that it is in the interests of the safety of the community: s135 Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 (NSW).
A copy of Ms North's report will be forwarded to Community Corrections with the warrant.

[72]

Synthesis

I must formulate and indicate sentences for each offence for sentence. I must take into account the offences committed against the victims whose matters are included on Forms 1 or s16BA Schedules. I must take into account all relevant factors including, the often contradictory purposes of sentencing, for both Commonwealth and State offences.
Over a period of 15 years Dale Whiteman in a persistent and predatory manner exploited 22 young girls for his own sexual gratification and deviant and prurient interests. His actions harmed many young girls. His actions did, or had the potential to, cause lasting psychological harm to each child victim. His offending did not stop with his initial arrest but only when he was gaoled soon after.
Two aggregate sentences must be imposed as both State and Commonwealth offences were committed. Each sentence and their total, as accumulated, must properly reflect the Court's view of the seriousness of the individual crimes for sentences, take into account matters relating to a number of victims whose matters are not for sentence, and let other potential wrongdoers know the retribution which will fall upon them if they commit similar crimes: R v Herring (1956) 73 WN (NSW) 203, at 205; Ryan v The Queen (2001) 206 CLR 267; [2001] HCA 21; R v Windle [2012] NSWCCA 222.
I must take into account the case put by Whiteman and his personal circumstances and allow for the fact he must be returned to the community. The better equipped he is to do so the safer we all will be. He must get as much assistance as possible to help in his expressed desire to change his ways. Those criminal ways are however well entrenched. He must be assisted and supervised for as long as practicable on release, if only because community protection demands her receive such assistance to help prevent repetition of his offending.
After a long period in gaol he will need help adjusting to normal community life. Community protection and safety requires that his need for continuing monitoring and psychological treatment continue for as long as practicable. But, given the length of the overall sentence, the only reason for a finding of special circumstances is based on the fact the State aggregate sentence must be partly cumulative on the Commonwealth aggregate sentence. In so finding I am mindful of a requirement that the minimum period for which the offender should be imprisoned must also properly reflect the gravity of his offences and the other purposes of sentencing: R v Simpson [2001] NSWCCA 534; 53 NSWLR 704 at [59].
Whiteman must be adequately punished for persistent and calculated crimes committed against a large number of young girls. As a consequence he must be removed from the community for a considerable period. But eventually he must return to live in our community. He will need help. He has deviant sexual interests that he has acted on for all his adult life. It is hoped that gaol may deter him from future offending but he also needs appropriate treatment and monitoring. Without it there is a real risk he will offend again.
I must synthesise the many competing features discussed in this judgment. I have an obligation:

to vindicate the dignity of each victim;
to express the community's disapproval of the offending, and
to afford such protection as can be afforded by the state to the vulnerable against repetition of the offending. Munda v Western Australia (2013) 249 CLR 600: [2013] HCA 38, [52] to [58]

Ultimately, my duty as a sentencing judge requires I attempt to translate the complexity of the human condition and human behaviour to the mathematics of units of punishment - usually expressed in time in custody: Weininger v The Queen (2003) 212 CLR 629, at [24].

[76]

Police Reference Number H75711282

The offender is convicted of each offence.
The court takes into account the fact that the defendant has entered a plea of guilty and has reduced the sentence it would otherwise have imposed by 25% in accordance with s 25D Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.
The aggregate sentence reflects a finding of special circumstances.
I indicate the following sentences: 1. Sequence 17 Aggravated indecent assault - Taking into account the matter on the Form 1 (Seq 16) I indicate a sentence of 9 months 2. Sequence 19 Sexual intercourse child 14-16 -Taking into account the matter on the Form 1 (Seq 20) I indicate a sentence of 2 years 3 months 3. Sequence 22 Sexual intercourse child 14-16 - Taking into account the matter on the Form 1 (Seq 21) I indicate a sentence of 2 years 7 months. 4. Sequence 2 Sexual intercourse child 14-16 - Taking into account the matter on the Form 1 (Seq 4 & 5) I indicate a sentence of 3 years. 5. Sequence 55 Assault with act of indecency - I indicate a sentence of 1 year 6 months. 6. Sequence 80 Aggravated Indecent assault - As it carries a standard non parole period I indicate a sentence of 2 years 7 months with a non-parole period of 1 year 10 months. 7. Sequence 81 Sexual intercourse Child 14-16 - Taking into account the matter on the Form 1 (Seq 13 & 50) I indicate a sentence of 3 years 9 months. 8. Sequence 82 Sexual intercourse Child 14-16 - Taking into account the matter on the Form 1 (Seq 15 & 51) I indicate a sentence of 3 years 6 months 9. Sequence 6 Possess Child abuse material - I indicate a sentence of 2 years 3 months.
The total aggregate sentence is 10 years.
There will be a non-parole period of 6 years commencing 04/03/2026 and expiring 03/03/2032. The balance of the sentence of 4 years is to commence upon the expiration of the non-parole period on 04/03/2032 and expiring on 03/03/2036.
You will be eligible for consideration for release to parole at the expiration of the non-parole period on 04/03/2032.
The total effective sentence is 16 years with a non-parole period of 12 years.
Sentence explained to offender by His Honour.
Offender warned about application of Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 - Sect 25C

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Catchwords

Source

Catchwords

Judgment (77 paragraphs)

Parties

Legislation Cited (4)

Cases Cited (58)

Cited By (1)