Director of Public Prosecutions v Bullock (a pseudonym)
[2025] VCC 225
•19 February 2025 11 September 2025
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA AT MELBOURNE CRIMINAL DIVISION | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| DECLAN BULLOCK (A PSEUDONYM) |
---
JUDGE: | His Honour Judge Rozen | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 18 November 2024; 29 January 2025 | |
| DATE OF SENTENCE: DATE OF SORA EXEMPTION APPLICATION | 19 February 2025 11 September 2025 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Bullock (a pseudonym) | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2025] VCC 225 | |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Subject:CRIMINAL
Catchwords: Underage sexual activity – small age gap - rolled up charge - standard sentence offence – low to mid-range objective gravity - presumption of harm – significant matters in mitigation including youth, good rehabilitation prospects and remorse – delay - appropriateness of non custodial sentence - consistency in sentencing – SORA exemption application-granted.
Legislation Cited: Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic); Crimes Act 1958 (Vic); Sex Offender Registration Act 2004 (Vic).
Cases Cited:Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; R v Verdins [2007] VSCA 102; R v Mills (1998) 4 VR 235; Azzopardi v The Queen [2011] VSCA 372; R v Pham [2015] HCA 39; Rose (a pseudonym) v The Queen [2022] VSCA 112; Adkins v The King [2023] VSCA 23; DPP v Riley [2024] VCC 490; DPP v Parr [2024] VCC 173; DPP v Sekulic [2022] VCC 1669; DPP v Youl [2023] VCC 635; DPP v Calladine [2020] VCC 2014; DPP v Huynh [2023] VCC 2180; DPP v Dalgliesh [2017] HCA 41.
Sentence: 2 years’ Community Correction Orders – s 6AAA 9 months imprisonment – Community Correction Orders.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the DPP | Mr D. Plummer | Office of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused | Mr R. Martini | Rainer Martini and Associates |
HIS HONOUR:
1Declan Bullock,[1] you have pleaded guilty to one rolled up charge of sexual penetration of a child under 16, comprising four acts of penetration.
[1] A pseudonym.
2The maximum sentence which may be imposed is imprisonment for 15 years.
3The circumstances of your offending are taken from the Summary of Prosecution Opening Upon Plea dated 5 September 2024[2], which I note is an agreed document.
[2] Exhibit P1.
Circumstances of Offending
4The complainant in this matter is Lynette Peters.[3] At the time of your offending Ms Peters was 14 years of age, and you were 18.
[3] A pseudonym.
5On 24 April 2021, you and Ms Peters began communicating using the social media application Snapchat. You used the ‘quick add’ function to add Ms Peters and she added you in return. When you first began communicating, Ms Peters had just turned 14, and you were 17. Ms Peters could see that it was your 18th birthday on 9 May 2021 as this was visible on the application.
6After approximately one month of communication via Snapchat, you asked Ms Peters to meet up with you. Initially she thought you were joking, but later felt you were pressuring her to go and so agreed to meet you.
7Ms Peters told you she was 14 during your Snapchat conversations, stating ‘you know you’re gunna be meeting up with a 14 year old’.[4]
[4] Exhibit P1 (n 2) [8].
8The first time you met Ms Peters in person was in late May or early June of 2021 by which time you had turned 18. During an earlier conversation on Snapchat you had offered to supply Ms Peters with a vape in exchange for money. You originally asked Ms Peters to meet you at Lynbrook train station, however she declined as it was 8pm and too late for her to be walking to the train station. You then went to her home address, and met her at the back gate. You gave Ms Peters a vape, and she paid you before you walked away.
9Following this, you continued to communicate with Ms Peters via Snapchat messages and asked her to meet you again, which she agreed to do.
10Sometime in June 2021, at approximately midnight on a Friday or Saturday night, you went to Ms Peters’ house and the two of you walked to a park on Glenshee Drive in Lynbrook.
11You had a bag of alcohol with you and supplied Ms Peters with assorted alcoholic drinks. The two of you consumed the alcohol, talked, and played on the playground equipment. Of how she was feeling after consuming the alcohol, Ms Peters said ‘I was not functioning properly’ and ‘I couldn’t even walk straight’.[5]
[5] Ibid [11].
12After about 5 hours, you sat on the park bench with Ms Peters. You lay down on the bench, and asked Ms Peters if she wanted to lie down with you. You then kissed her.
13You kissed for a period of time before you positioned yourself on top of her, put your hand down her pants, and inserted your fingers into her vagina (Charge 1 – first instance). You continued to kiss until you eventually left the park and walked Ms Peters back to her house at around 5:30/6:00am.
14You continued to communicate and a week or two later in late June or early July 2021, at approximately 11.30pm, you asked Ms Peters via Snapchat to meet you again, which she agreed to do. You went to her address and the two of you went to the park again and sat on the bench. You both consumed alcohol which you had brought with you.
15You and Ms Peters were sitting on the bench seat with your legs on either side of the seat, facing each other. You began kissing Ms Peters and laid down on the bench seat, pulling her on top of you. You put your hand under her bra and unclipped her bra. You gave her 'hickeys' all over her chest.
16You took her pants and underwear off and inserted your finger into her vagina (Charge 1 – second instance). You then put a condom on your penis and the two of you moved on to the table. You put your penis inside Ms Peters’ vagina and had sex with her. You said, ‘You’re no longer a virgin’ (Charge 1 – third instance).
17You then said ‘no, suck my dick’ and moved Ms Peters’ head onto your penis. She gagged and choked a little bit (Charge 1 – fourth instance).
18You removed your penis from the Ms Peters’ mouth and you both got dressed. You then said ‘I just fucked a 14 year old’. You both continued to consume alcohol and listen to music and at approximately 5am Ms Peters returned home.
19You and Ms Peters continued to communicate via Snapchat until the report was made to police. Ms Peters spoke to you about the report she had made and you responded with something to the effect of, ‘you don't understand how much shit I'm gunna be in’ and ‘you know this could really be bad for me’. After this conversation you distanced yourself from Ms Peters.
Investigation
20Ms Peters conducted social media searches for you based on your name.
21On 30 May 2022, you were arrested by police at the Dandenong Police Station. You were interviewed and made significant admissions.
Objective gravity
22You have pleaded guilty to a rolled up charge under section 49B of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) (‘Crimes Act’). The section absolutely prohibits a person from sexually penetrating a child under the age of 16.
23The purpose of provisions such as section 49B was explained by the South Australian Supreme Court in 1990:
The law which prohibits sexual intercourse with young girls exists in order to protect young girls from their own inclinations, until they have reached a sufficient degree of maturity in life to make sensible and responsible decisions as to their own lives. It is necessary for the courts to impose penalties which vindicate that law and deter older men from taking advantage of the sexual inclinations of young girls.[6]
[6] R v Williams (1990) 53 SASR 253, 254.
24The passage has been cited with approval by the Victorian Court of Appeal.[7] As the Court of Appeal recognised in Clarkson, the absolute prohibitions on underage sexual activity ‘are founded on a presumption of harm’.
[7] R v Clarkson [2011] VSCA 157, 9-10 [27]. See also Simon v The State of Western Australia [2009] WASCA 10 at [44].
25In a well known English case concerning a similar prohibition, Baroness Hale of the House of Lords explained that premature sexual activity is presumed to cause ‘long term and serious harm, both physical and psychological’ to the child.[8]
[8] R v G [2009] 1 AC 92, 107-108.
26Sexual penetration of a child under the age of 16 is clearly a very serious offence. The relevant factors of your offending which inform its objective gravity are Ms Peters’ age; that you were aware that Ms Peters was 14; that you plied her with alcohol and took advantage of her drunken state; and that your offending was not one-off but consisted of four separate acts on two occasions. I note that the 2nd, 3rd and 4th acts occurred within a short time of each other on a single occasion.
27It is also relevant that you were young at the time. The age gap of 4 years is small compared to many cases that come before this court.
28I assess your offending as a low to mid-range example of the offence.
Personal Circumstances
29Your personal circumstances are drawn from the Clinical Psychological Risk Assessment Report by Dr Paul L. Grech dated 28 January 2025,[9] which was provided to the court.
[9] Exhibit D5.
30You are one of four boys. Your eldest brother was born at 24 weeks and has autism and an intellectual disability. Your mother told Dr Grech that you and your brothers were heavily involved in assisting with raising your brother.
31Your mother provided a detailed medical history to Dr Grech which was verified by your grandmother.
32You were born at 38 weeks and had an issue with your left arm/shoulder that required physical therapy. Your heart also stopped several times, requiring adrenaline to be injected directly into your heart and an admission to Monash children’s ICU for two weeks.
33Your development was normal until you were around 7 years of age when you started to become hyperactive. Your mother and your grandmother both believed you to have ADHD, however you were never tested.
34When you were 12, you started to get into trouble and were easily influenced by others. On one occasion you took a knife to school and were suspended.
35Your mother, your siblings, and you then moved into your father’s house which your mother described to Dr Grech as being a bad place to live and in a bad location. She said members of the family were physically and mentally abusive to you.
36While you were still a child you became dependent on drugs. Your mother is not sure how this started, but later found out that a manager at a place you worked gave out drugs to under-age staff. You would go missing for weeks at a time and your mother said you were disobedient, violent and suicidal.
37She took you to multiple hospitals, eventually taking you to the psychiatric clinic at Monash Hospital. She said that you were given a 5 minute evaluation, prescribed Valium for depression, and released after a seven day hold. She tried to get you a mental health care plan but described receiving little support from the doctor.
38Your mother reports that you think you are above authority and do what you want when you want; she says that you are very angry, and that you self harm. She reports that you are currently unable to sleep which she thinks is partly due to stress, and that you have admitted you are drinking to the point of passing out. She reports that you refuse assistance and do not believe that anyone will help you.
39From your perspective, you report struggling to make friends and feeling isolated, but that you have a close bond with your father. You have played hockey since you were 4 years old, but at a certain point you were only doing this for your father’s benefit and not your own enjoyment.
40You moved schools frequently and were unable to make friends until grade five when you made what you describe as ‘toxic friends that were no good for me’. One of these friends, a girl you really liked, introduced you to marijuana in year 7 and you report being hooked on smoking and drinking to get a buzz from that time onwards.
41You report becoming more irrational and violent after getting a job at KFC in year 8, and began not to care about school and only went as a way to drink alcohol away from your parents. You dropped out before the end of year 10 and started taking MDMA and ketamine. You were couch surfing and say your mother was the only person not to give up on you during this time.
42You got a plastering job which you describe as ‘borderline [supporting] the use of drugs’, and ending up in temporary psychosis and borderline schizophrenia due to LSD use at age 17/18, around the time of this offending. You left the plastering job and had a string of factory jobs, ending for various reasons including bad work environments, losing the job, and sustaining an injury.
43From year 7 onwards you describe being suicidal and taking steps towards this by over dosing, self-harming, becoming very dangerous on the roads and drinking.
44Yours was clearly a troubled childhood. Although your counsel placed no reliance on the principles in the case of Bugmy,[10] I consider that the general principle in that case is enlivened.[11] I have moderated your moral culpability to reflect your deprived childhood.
[10] Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37.
[11] Ibid.
A Letter to the Court
45You wrote a letter dated 31 August 2024 to the Court. You describe your conduct as inexcusable and take ‘complete responsibility’ for your actions. You inform the court that you are working with a psychiatrist to address your issues and to better understand the impact of your actions on others. You ask the court to accept that you are genuinely remorseful and willing to change. You wrote a similar letter to Ms Peters [12] expressing your sorrow for the pain you have caused her.
[12] The letter was provided to the court. It has not been sent to Ms Peters.
46The court also received a letter dated 31 August 2024 from your mother. Your mother is fully aware of your offending and describes you as deeply regretful. Ms Bullock states that you have taken meaningful steps towards self-improvement. She considers you are committed to becoming a better person.
Prospects of rehabilitation
47I have taken this family support into account as part of my assessment of your prospects of rehabilitation. You are fortunate to have her ongoing support. When considered together with your lack of any prior or subsequent offending and the efforts you have made to be treated by Dr Grech, I assess your prospects as good to very good. I have crafted my sentencing orders so as to promote your rehabilitation prospects.
Consideration
Verdins
48Your counsel placed reliance on the principles in the case of Verdins.[13] It is submitted on your behalf that the report of your treating psychologist, Dr Grech, ‘raises Verdins as a possible consideration in mitigation’.[14]
[13] R v Verdins [2007] VSCA 102.
[14] Further Sentencing Submissions dated 28 January 2025, 1 [1].
49Under the case of Verdins, a court may taken into account the role that a mental illness suffered by an offender played in their offending as part of the sentencing process.
50Dr Paul Grech is a clinical psychologist with experience working with offenders in the prison service. He has been treating you since November 2023. Dr Grech has seen you on 18 occasions the most recent of which was 18 January 2025. He has also had multiple discussions with your mother and grandmother.[15]
[15] Exhibit D5 (n 9) 3.
51In a comprehensive report dated 12 December 2024,[16] Dr Grech states that ‘[a]t the time of the offending there is a connection between his mental health and the offending in that he was not in receipt of any interventions or active treatment in relation to the mental health concerns, so Verdins Principles are relevant in this case’.[17]
[16] Ibid. Although the report is dated 12 December 2024, it appears that it was finalised more recently as it refers to a consultation in January 2025.
[17] Ibid 14.
52Verdins limb 1 requires some connection between the mental health condition and the offending. While the connection is not required to be causal, it does need to explain the offending by reference to the particular mental illness suffered by the offender at the time of the offending. For example a mental illness can be connected to the offending in the sense that the offender did not understand the wrongfulness of his actions or have the ability to make reasonable judgments or to control his faculties and emotions because of the effects of the particular illness.[18]
[18] Verdins (n 10) at [23].
53In cases where Verdins is relied upon a court will scrutinise the evidence carefully. The onus is on an offender to establish that Verdins applies.
54Dr Grech reports a history of ADHD, Autism Spectrum Disorder and evidence of borderline schizophrenia. I accept these diagnoses.
55However, there is little if any evidence in this case to enliven limb 1 of Verdins. Far from not appreciating the wrongfulness of your actions, the position appears to be that you approached your relationship with Ms Peters in a rational manner well aware of her age and the legal wrongfulness of your conduct. This was not isolated offending.
56I have rejected your counsel’s submission about Verdins.
Other matters of mitigation
57The most important matter of mitigation is your early plea of guilty. You have spared Ms Peters and the other witnesses the ordeal of giving evidence at your trial. This is a matter that is deserving of a significant sentencing discount and I have afforded you one.
58Your guilty plea is a recognition by you of responsibility for your offending. I accept that it is also reflective of the genuine remorse you feel.
59Delay is a significant aspect of this case. You offended in May of 2021 and were interviewed a year later at which time you made a number of admissions. Nearly four years have passed since the offending. Had the matter come before the court prior to 9 May 2024 you would have been entitled to be sentenced as a young offender. The delay has deprived you of this opportunity.
60Delay is also relevant in your case because you have demonstrated in the period since your arrest that you wish to be rehabilitated. You have acted on this wish by actively seeking out treatment from Dr Grech.
Sentencing Principles
61The offence against section 49B of the Crimes Act is a ‘standard sentence’ offence. This requires some explanation.
62The ‘standard sentence’ is 6 years’ imprisonment. This is the period specified for an offence that is ‘in the middle range of seriousness’ . . . ‘taking into account only the objective factors affecting the relative seriousness of that offence’.[19] Those factors are to be determined ‘without reference to matters personal to a particular offender’ and ‘wholly by reference to the nature of offending’.[20] I have earlier described the relevant objective factors.
[19] Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) s 5A (‘Sentencing Act’).
[20] Ibid s 5A(3).
63The standard sentence, like the maximum penalty is but one of a number of factors relevant to sentencing and does not affect the ‘instinctive synthesis’ approach to sentencing.[21] In sentencing you I must explain how the sentence I impose ‘relates to’ the standard sentence.[22] I will do that later in these reasons.
[21] Ibid s 5B(3).
[22] Ibid s 5b(5).
64The relevant sentencing purposes in your case are firstly general deterrence. Men of all ages must understand that engaging in sexual activity with underage girls will be met with stern punishment if they are caught. As discussed earlier, engaging in sexual activity at a young age carries with it the risk of long term harm. It matters little in this regard whether the man concerned is an 18 year old who himself is developing sexually or a 48 year old sexual predator.
65Secondly, there is a need for the court to denounce your conduct on behalf of the community.
66Thirdly there is the question of community protection which often looms large in such cases. However, the evidence concerning your future risk of offending reduces the need for community protection to feature heavily in the sentencing calculus. I accept that you are unlikely to offend again. Similarly, there is a reduced role for specific deterrence in light of your evident remorse and the steps you have taken towards your rehabilitation.
67Fourthly, your youth is an important consideration. It is well established that courts should promote the rehabilitation of young offenders whenever possible.[23] In a case such as this, your youth lessens the need for the sentence to achieve general deterrence.
[23] R v Mills (1998) 4 VR 235; Azzopardi v The Queen [2011] VSCA 372.
68Finally, I must sentence you consistently with the principle of parsimony. That finds statutory expression in section 5(4) of the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) (‘Sentencing Act’) which provides that a court must not imprison an offender if the purposes for which the sentence is to be imposed can be achieved by the imposition of a sentence that does not involve incarceration.
Current Sentencing Practices
69In determining the appropriate sentence to impose, another matter to which this court is required to have regard is ‘current sentencing practices’.[24]
[24] Sentencing Act (n 19) s 5(2)(b).
70In recent years, the Court of Appeal has twice reduced the sentences that were imposed by Judges of this court in cases involving charges of sexual penetration of a child under the age of 16.[25] The facts in those case bear a number of similarities to the present case.
[25] Comparable cases decided by intermediate court of appeal ‘provide the most useful guidance to a sentencing Judge’ – see R v Pham [2015] HCA 39 at [50] (‘Pham’).
71In Rose (a pseudonym) v The Queen,[26] the offender was 18 years of age when he became involved in a sexual relationship with a 14 year old girl. The two had met at school. The relationship lasted four months and involved a range of sexual activities including penile penetration of the complainant’s vagina which was the basis of the most serious charges. The offender was charged 5 years after the period of offending and pleaded guilty at the committal mention.
[26] [2022] VSCA 112.
72The sentencing judge accepted that the age gap was not significant in chronological terms but the power imbalance was ‘not insignificant’. The offender gave the complainant presents and was ‘manipulative’.[27] The offending was assessed as ‘towards the mid-range’ of objective seriousness.
[27] Ibid, 6 [38].
73The sentencing judge accepted that the considerable delay meant that the offender had lost the ‘real possibility’ of being sentenced to a youth justice disposition.[28] The judge accepted that the offender was of good character and, based on his lack of prior convictions and the character evidence before the court, his prospects of rehabilitation were ‘very good’.[29]
[28] Ibid, 7 [42].
[29] Ibid [43].
74The court imposed a total sentence of imprisonment of 2 years and 5 months with a non-parole period of 1 year and 3 months.
75On appeal, the sentence was reduced by the Court of Appeal to imprisonment for 7 months to be followed by a community correction order of 12 months’ duration. The court concluded that ‘a CCO was well within the range of sentencing options available to the judge’.[30]
[30] Ibid, 13 [73].
76The court ‘did not discount the significance of the presumption of harm and the actual harm suffered by the complainant or the power differential in the relationship’.[31] However, the court characterised the relationship as one ‘between two adolescents who were pupils at the same school’ and ‘not without mutual affection and care’. [32]
[31] Ibid, 11 [67].
[32] Ibid, 12 [71].
77According to the Court of Appeal, the case was to be distinguished from those involving ‘the exploitation of young children by much older, predatory men who are sometimes in a position of trust’.[33] The offender was ‘no longer a threat to the community, if he ever was’.[34]
[33] See ibid.
[34] Ibid, 13 [72].
78In Adkins v The King,[35] the offender was between 21 and 22 years old and the complainant was 15. The offender was ‘socially and sexually immature’.[36] They were members of the same cadet unit. They engaged in a sexual relationship for 6 months. There were features of the offending that were characterised by the sentencing Judge as violent and degrading.[37]
[35] [2023] VSCA 23.
[36] Ibid, 12 [56].
[37] Ibid, 6 [26], 12 [57].
79The offender, who had no prior convictions and had willingly engaged in rehabilitation, pleaded guilty to six counts of sexual penetration. There was a ‘significant delay’ between the offending and the sentence.[38]
[38] Ibid, 12 [56].
80The offender was sentenced at first instance to imprisonment for 2 years and 9 months with a non parole period of 1 year and 3 months. The Court of Appeal concluded that the sentencing judge was correct to conclude that ‘only a custodial sentence would achieve all the relevant sentencing purposes’.[39] However, while it accepted that general deterrence was an important sentencing consideration, ‘its significance was reduced to a degree … because of the [offender’s] particular immaturity’. The sentence was reduced on appeal to a total effective sentence of 2 years and 2 months with a non parole period of 12 months.
[39] Ibid, 12 [59].
81In a number of recent cases involving similar circumstances to these two cases, Judges of this Court have imposed sentences involving CCOs without any imprisonment.[40] In another case where the offender was 20 and the victim 15 a sentence of 15 months with a non-parole period of 8 months was imposed despite a delay of 12 years.[41]
[40] See DPP v Riley [2024] VCC 490; DPP v Parr [2024] VCC 173; DPP v Sekulic [2022] VCC 1669; DPP v Youl [2023] VCC 635; DPP v Calladine [2020] VCC 2014.
[41] DPP v Huynh [2023] VCC 2180.
Consistency in Sentencing
82The facts of your case are quite similar to those in Rose. As was the case in Rose, you were 18 at the time of your offending and the complainant was 14. The two of you were in a relationship of sorts and there is no suggestion that you coerced Ms Peters or were violent towards her. Unlike Adkins, there were no degrading features of your sexual activity.
83You too made a number of admissions when interviewed by police and pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity. You have no prior convictions and have not offended since this offending. You have some family support.
84As was the case in Rose, the delay associated with the prosecution – none of which is attributable to you – has resulted in you missing the opportunity to be sentenced as a ‘young offender’. [42]
[42] A person under the age of 21 years at the date of sentencing (Sentencing Act (n 19) s 3).
85Finally and importantly, like the offender in Rose, you are assessed as a low risk of sexually reoffending. In your case, the assessment has been made by a professional who has been treating you for over a year. I attach considerable weight to the assessment in these circumstances.
86While each case must of course be addressed having regard to its particular circumstances, and previous sentences are not to be treated as if they were precedents,[43] consistency in sentencing is important. It is one of the purposes of the Sentencing Act.[44] Similar offending when carried out by similar offenders should lead to similar outcomes regardless of the identity of the individual sentencing judicial officer.[45]
[43] DPP v Dalgliesh [2017] HCA 41.
[44] Sentencing Act (n 19) s 1(a).
[45] Pham (n 25) 14-5 [46].
87As noted earlier, the Court of Appeal in Rose considered that a CCO was ‘well within the range of sentencing options available to the sentencing judge’.[46] The ultimate outcome of that appeal, in which a combination sentence was imposed under which the offender served seven months in custody, is best explained by the reality that that was the period the offender had served when the appeal was heard.[47]
[46] Rose (n 26) 13 [73].
[47] Ibid. The Court of Appeal concluded at [80].
88I note that the prosecution in your case concedes that a CCO is within the range of sentencing options.
89Taking into account all relevant factors including the maximum sentence, the presumed harm[48] caused to the complainant by your offending and the matters of mitigation discussed earlier, I have concluded that a CCO of two years’ duration will adequately address all of the applicable sentencing purposes.
[48] No Victim Impact Statement was filed in the case.
90You were assessed by Corrections on 30 January 2025 as suitable for such an Order. During the assessment, you acknowledged that you had made a ‘terrible decision’ and told the assessor that you now exercise ‘extra levels of caution when interacting with people to ensure [you are] clear with [your] relationships’.[49]
[49] Community Correction Order Assessment Outcome Report dated 30 January 2025, 2.
91This is further evidence of your insight and remorse.
92The sentence I have imposed is less than the standard sentence of 6 years’ imprisonment. The reasons for this are your youth, prospects of rehabilitation, guilty plea and delay. I have also had regard to current sentencing practices.
93I can’t impose a CCO unless you agree to the court doing so. Before I ask you whether you agree I need to explain to you the consequences if you breach the order.
94If you fail to comply with the conditions of the Order, you may be brought back before the court. A Judge may sentence you to up to 3 months in custody for contravening the order and you may be re-sentenced for the original offending.
95The order may be varied by a Judge if you are finding it difficult to comply with the order.
96The duration of the Order will be 2 years commencing today.
97The general conditions are as follows:
(a) You must not commit, whether in or outside Victoria, during the period of the order, an offence punishable by imprisonment;
(b) You must comply with any obligation or requirement prescribed by the regulations;
(c) You must report to and receive visits from the Secretary or their delegate during the period of the order;
(d) You must report to the Community Corrections Centre specified within the order within two clear working days after the order comes into force;
(e) You must notify the Secretary of any change of address or employment within two clear working days after the change;
(f) You must not leave Victoria except with the permission, either generally or in relation to a particular case, of the Secretary; and
(g) You must comply with any direction given by the Secretary that is necessary for the Secretary to give to ensure that you comply with the order.
98In addition, the special conditions that I will impose in the order are:
(a) You must perform 180 hours of unpaid community work.
(b) You must participate in treatment and rehabilitation programs as directed for mental health, drugs and alcohol abuse and programs to reduce offending.
(c) I indicate that up to 80 hours of time spent in treatment and rehabilitation programs will count against the unpaid community work hours. In other words, if you are to participate in a full 80 hours of treatment, you will only be required to perform 100 hours of unpaid community work.
(d) You will be under supervision for the duration of the order.
99As you have been sentenced for a Class One offence, you are a registerable offender under section 6 of the Sex Offender Registration Act 2004 (Vic) (‘SORA’). The applicable registration period is 15 years. You will now be given notice of your reporting obligations.
100Your counsel has indicated your intention to apply for a registration exemption order under section 11A of the SORA. You have 6 months from today within which to make any such application.[50] It should be supported by evidence addressing the criteria in section 11B.
[50] Sex Offender Registration Act 2004 (Vic) s 11C (‘SORA’).
101The court will determine any such application having regard to the criteria specified in section 11B and the evidence.
102Finally, pursuant to section 6AAA of the Sentencing Act, I indicate that but for your pleas of guilty, I would have sentenced you to 9 months in custody with a Community Corrections Order.
Application for SORA Exemption
103On 19 February 2025, I formally sentenced Mr Bullock, those reasons have been published to the parties.
104On 18 August 2025, Mr Bullock through his solicitors, lodged an application with the court seeking a registration exemption order under section 11A of the SORA.
105I note that the formal requirements of the application are satisfied[51] and a copy of the application has been served on the Chief Commissioner of Police.
[51] Ibid s 11D.
106The application is supported by an affidavit sworn on the 13 August 2025, by Rainer Martini, Solicitor of Rainer Martini and Associates.
107Before turning to the affidavit, it is necessary to refer to the statutory provisions. The criteria set out in section 11A of the SORA do not need to be explained as it is common ground before the court that they have all been satisfied.
108In determining an application such as this, section 11B of the SORA requires the court be satisfied on the balance of the probabilities that:
(a) At all times during the commission of the specified offence, any victim of the offence is of or over the age of 14 years;
(b) The applicant poses no risk or a low risk to the sexual safety of one or more persons or of the community, having regard to:
(i)the seriousness of the specified offence; and
(ii)the ages of the applicant and any victim of the specified offence at the time of the commission of the specified offence; and
(iii)whether any victim of the specified offence was under the care, supervision or authority of the applicant at the time of the specified offence; and
(iv)whether any victim of the specified offence had a cognitive impairment or mental illness within the meaning of Subdivision (8E) of Division 1 of Part I of the Crimes Act 1958 at the time of the commission of the specified offence; and
(v)where the application relates to more than one specified offence—the number and nature of those specified offences, including whether the specified offences arose out of the same set of circumstances; and
(vi)any other matter that the court considers relevant; and
(c) But for the specific offence the applicant would not be a registerable offender.
109The court must in considering an application such as this, take into account any submissions made by Chief Commissioner of Police.[52] I note that the Chief Commissioner is represented by Ms Bristow of Counsel.
[52] Ibid s 11F.
Consideration
110Turning then to the evidence before the court, firstly there is the affidavit of Mr Martini which sets out the background to the matter. The affidavit refers to the materials that were before the court at the time of sentencing.
111Mr Martini set out why the court should assess that Mr Bullock is a low risk of sexual re-offending, largely referencing the court’s sentencing decision.[53] Reference is made to the report of Dr Grech, which was provided to the court at the time of sentencing and to Corrections Victoria for the CCO Assessment.
[53] Affidavit sworn by Mr Rainer Martini of counsel dated 13 August 2025, 2-3 [3]-[19] (Exhibit D2).
112It is noted that the court previously concluded that Mr Bullock’s prospects for rehabilitation are good to very good in light of all the material.[54]
[54] Referencing sentencing remarks at 8 [47].
113The principal report available to the court at the time of sentencing and relied upon in relation to this application is the report by Dr Paul Grech dated 12 December 2024. Importantly, at the time of the report Dr Grech had treated Mr Bullock via telehealth and in person on 18 occasions, between 9 November 2023 and 19 January 2025.
114Dr Grech sets out in some detail the tests that were administered to determine the risk of reoffending.[55] Dr Grech’s opinion on sexual offending risk is as follows:
In summary, in the examiner’s opinion, in considering the range of factors that predict sexual offence risk, Mr. Bullock may be considered to a low risk of sexually reoffending (even in the absence of intensive behaviour therapy) and a very low risk of escalating in his offending and after consideration of all available information and at the low end of the risk continuum in both the immediate, medium and longer term in relation to any type of sexual offending overall.
[…]
In the examiner’s opinion, Mr. Bullock presents as a young man with improving insight into important aspects of his psychological functioning and behaviour, acute awareness of the gravity of the offending and as someone who is able to meet any requirements of a correctional order inclusive of treatment relevant to his offending.[56]
[55] Exhibit D5 (n 9) 10.
[56] Ibid 14-5.
115Finally, the court has received the police checklist, which was completed by D/S Musker on the 25 August 2025.[57] D/S Musker notes that all of the statutory criteria are satisfied and defers to the opinion of Senior Police Psychologist Jason Freeland.
[57] SOR Exemption Checklist and Assessment dated 20 August 2025 (Exhibit P1).
116In relation to the question of risk, Mr Freeland considers the opinion of Dr Grech and notes that Dr Grech’s conclusion of Mr Bullock’s risk rating was inflated by static risk factors. Mr Freeland’ observes that ‘this is not uncommon for young offenders as they score higher for young age and generally having not lived with an intimate partner for 2 years or more.’[58]
[58] Ibid.
117Mr Freeland states that static factors in such a case should not be relied upon in isolation and notes Dr Grech’s opinion of very low to low risk of re-offending. Mr Freeland is somewhat critical of Dr Grech’s report, considering it to be lacking the structure and explanation as would ordinarily be expected, however admits that this is not the fault of Mr Bullock.
118I don’t necessarily agree with that criticism but note that this is not a matter that needs to be resolved today.
119Ultimately, I consider Mr Freeland’s conclusions to be entirely consistent with Dr Grech’s on review of the provided material. There is a distinct lack of anti-social sexual deviance, and more positively there are protective factors such as help seeking behaviours such as treatment for several years, displays of remorse and insight, and lack of evidence of further inappropriate sexual behaviours since the offending period in 2021.
120Overall, Mr Freeland assesses Mr Bullock for the purposes of this exemption application as being of low risk of sexual re-offending based upon available information.
121In light of the conclusions by Dr Grech, the Chief Commissioner, and in particular the opinion of Mr Freeland, the court concludes that the criteria in section 11B of the SORA are satisfied and Mr Bullock poses a low risk to the sexual safety of one or more persons or of the community.[59]
[59]SORA (n 50) s 11B(1)(b)(i)-(vi).
122I should add that these SORA Exemption Applications are important for two reasons:
(a) Registration for someone of Mr Bullock’s age, is a very serious matter and it would be very onerous and for a lengthy period of time. There needs to be a proper evaluation by the court of whether that is necessary for risk management; and
(b) By people like Mr Bullock, not having to be the subject of supervision by police, police resources can be devoted to those offenders who constitute a real risk to sexual safety, which is an important consideration given the limited resources that police have so that they can be devoted to where they will achieve the greatest good for the community in terms of monitoring.
123In those circumstances the court grants the application for exemption.
0
17
0