Director of Public Prosecutions v Connor Sharman (a pseudonym)

[2016] VCC 1334

IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA Revised
(Not) Restricted
Suitable for Publication

AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

CR 16-00782

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

v

CONNOR SHARMAN ( a pseudonym)

---

JUDGE:	HER HONOUR JUDGE DOUGLAS
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:
DATE OF SENTENCE:	8 September 2016
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Connor Sharman (a pseudonym)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2016] VCC 1334

REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---

Subject:
Catchwords:
Legislation Cited:
Cases Cited:
Sentence:

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Director of Public Prosecutions	Ms I. Ruschena
For the Offender	Mr C. Yang

HER HONOUR:

1Connor Sharman[1] has pleaded guilty to three charges on the indictment. Charge 1, between 1 January 2013 and 31 January 2013, committed an indecent act with the Complainant in Charge 1; Charge 2, between 10 April 2015 and 11 April 2015, committed an indecent act with the Complainant in Charge 2, a child under the age of 16. Each of those offences is contrary to s.47(1) Crimes Act. He also pleaded guilty to Charge 3, between 1 January 2014 and 31 August 2015, possess child pornography, pursuant to s.70(1) Crimes Act.

[1] Connor Sharman is a pseudonym.

2The maximum penalty for indecent act with a child under the age of 16 years is ten years' imprisonment.  The maximum penalty for possession of child pornography is ten years' imprisonment.

3Mr Sharman does not have any prior convictions or subsequent convictions.  I take into account in his favour that he is a man of previous good character.  I have been informed this morning that he has been charged in relation to producing child pornography.  Clearly there has been an investigation in relation to a story he has written that is referred to in Mr Cummins' forensic psychological report.  I do not take that into account as it is not a matter he is admitting to.

4Connor Sharman was born on 15 September 1951.  He is the grandfather of the Complainant in Charge 1 and the great uncle of the Complainant in Charge 2. The Complainant in Charge 2's mother is the daughter of Mr Sharman’s sister. 

5As to the offending, Mr Sharman, as I stated, was born on 15 September 1951.  Consequently, he was aged 61 to 62 when he committed the indecent act which is the subject of Charge 1, and was aged 63 years when he committed the indecent act, the subject of Charge 2.  He was aged 63 to 64 years when he committed the offence in relation to Charge 3, that is the child pornography.

6The Complainants were very young children.  The Complainant in Charge 1 was born on 1 October 2005 and was aged seven to eight years at the time Charge 1 was committed.  The Complainant in Charge 2 was born on 5 August 2008 and was aged six years at the time Charge 2 was committed.  Thus, at the time Charge 1 was committed, Mr Sharmanwas 54 years older than the Complainant in Charge 1, and at the time Charge 2 was committed, he was 56 years older that the Complainant in Charge 2.

7Charge 1 was committed on an occasion when the Complainant in Charge 1 stayed overnight with Mr Sharman and his wife, her grandparents.  Charge 2 was committed in similar circumstances.  The Complainant in Charge 2 stayed overnight with Mr Sharman and his wife, her great uncle and great aunt.

8The Complainant in Charge 2 complained to a child at her school that a man licked her vagina.  This information was conveyed by that child's mother to the complainant’s mother, who spoke to the complainant and was told it was Mr Sharman and it was the night they stayed. 

9Consequently, on 14 October 2015, the matter was reported to the Knox Sexual Offence Unit.  A record of interview was conducted a few days later, on
20 October 2015.  Allegations were put to Mr Sharman in relation to the Complainant in Charge 2 and he denied the allegations.

10The offending in relation to the Complainant in Charge 1 (Charge 1) did not come to light until she disclosed the offending on 22 October 2015 and the matter was reported to the police at Knox Police Station.  She participated in a VARE on 6 November 2015.  A second record of interview was conducted on 27 January 2016.

11As to Charge 1, the Complainant in Charge 1 stayed for a sleepover at her grandparents' home with her brother, who is older than she is.  She told the police that she was in Year 2 on that occasion and the incident was Mr Sharman was touching her - the words she used was "butt" and that woke her up.  He tried to turn her over but she woke up before he could do that.  She said she had been lying on her stomach, wearing pyjamas but not underpants.  She said the touch was sort of like a rub and she felt very uncomfortable.

12A record of interview, as I stated, was conducted on 27 January 2016 and the accused provided further details as to the incident alleged in Charge 1.  He told the police that he took her pyjama pants and rubbed her vagina with his hand directly on her skin.  This took place when she was alone in her room where she was sleeping at night.  He said when she woke up she seemed afraid so he stopped. 

13As to Charge 2, on 10 April 2015, the Complainant in Charge 2's parents allowed her to stay overnight with Mr Sharman and his wife, as they had to attend a wedding, and their four children were also left in the care of their great uncle and aunt.

14The prosecution case is that Mr Sharman licked her vagina.  It took place on a lounge suite.  In the record of interview that was conducted on 26 January 2016, Mr Sharman said the offending took place in the lounge room when his wife was asleep.  He was sitting in the dark when the complainant came running in and jumped on his lap, put her arms around him, kissed him and said she loved him.  He said he got carried away and did a similar thing to the complainant in charge 1 and that he removed her lower clothing and molested her.  He said he pulled her pants down, rubbed her vagina, went down and kissed her there.  This incident took place on 10 April 2015. 

15On 20 October 2015 Mr Sharman, as I stated, was interviewed.  During that interview he denied the allegations.  He told the police that the complainant was a very cuddly person.  He said he had been alone with her for five to ten minutes at about 8.30 in the evening.  They cuddled when sitting side-by-side on the couch.  When asked if he had anything to say in answer to the allegation, he said, "I can't understand where it's coming from."

16Six days later he left Victoria and travelled to Western Australia, where his sister resided.  He left a note for his wife, who was then away, saying that he was not coming back.  She contacted the police on her arrival back in Melbourne.  
Mr Sharman was located at that time near Ararat.  He was admitted to hospital there and then released.  After that, he travelled to his sister's home in Western Australia.

17On 28 October 2015 he handed his sister a bottle of heart medication and said that he had taken it.  He said "You don't know what I've done.  Something reprehensible.  I don't deserve to live.  [His wife] said it's over and doesn't want to talk to me."  No details were given by him.  He was then taken to hospital and remained there until 1 October 2015 when he was released.

18His sister lived in Geraldton in Western Australia.  Upon his arrival, he telephoned his wife and she told him the marriage was over.  He was then admitted to a psychiatric named the Hollywood Clinic in Perth, having been released from the hospital in Geraldton.  His condition had stabilised, therefore he was transferred.  When in the clinic in Perth, he telephoned the informant on 24 November 2015 and he made admissions as to Charge 1 and Charge 2.  There was an arrangement made for him to return to Victoria for a second record of interview to be conducted.

19On 31 December 2015 he telephoned his wife from Western Australia.  She confirmed the marriage was over, and because of this, he then took 54 heart tablets.  He states that it was to try and kill himself.  However, his sister found him and he was then taken to hospital and admitted to the psychiatric ward, where he remained for 13 days.

20On 27 January 2016 he returned to Victoria and a second record of interview was conducted.  As to each of the incidents, he told the police that he - during the record of interview he was asked as to the incidents.  He told the police that he rubbed them up and down and realised that if it went any further, that would be it, so he stopped.  He denied any sexual feelings.  He said he did not know why he did it, he realised he was an idiot and had gone too far.  He said he realised that what he did with the complainant in charge 1 was wrong and he tried to channel his sexual urges away from the children.  He said that was successful for 12 to 14 months and then when the complainant in charge 2 jumped on his lap saying she loved him, he lost it, and to use the phrase he used, lost the plot. 

21In the second record of interview he said he wanted to do what was right for the victims.  Although he denied the allegations earlier, he decided to tell the truth.  He said he had suicidal thoughts and had attempted suicide.

22As to Charge 3, the child pornography offence, on 8 November 2015 Mr Sharman’s computer drives were voluntarily given to the police by members of his family and the contents of the hard drive were identified as 330 Category 6 images, 13 Category 1 images and 13 Category 7 images.  I was provided with a copy of the still images from those videos for perusal, as was Mr Yang.  The Category 6 images are animated or virtual images showing sexual activity.  However, no human is involved in any of those.  As to the other categories, there are young children exploited in them.

23In a recent decision Director of Public Prosecutions (Commonwealth), Director of Public Prosecutions (Victoria) v Lesly Albert Garside [2016] VSCA 74, the Court of Appeal of this State, comprising of Redlich, Priest and Beach JAA, stated this in a decision about child pornography to guide sentencing judges. The court had been referring to a decision of the DPP v D'Alessandro [2010] 26 VR 477, then at paragraph 25 the court said this:

"Since then, these principles have been frequently repeated in different appellate courts.  The matters relevant to sentencing for child pornography offences were further expanded upon by the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal in the recent decision of De Leeuw [2015] NSWCCA 183 in these terms:

Appellate courts throughout Australia have consistently stated that the following propositions apply to sentencing for child pornography offences."

24I will now refer to the principles of law.  However, I will not set out, as the Court of Appeal did, the many decisions that are referred to:

"(a)      unless exceptional circumstances exist, a sentence involving an                immediate term of imprisonment is ordinarily warranted;

(b)      the objective seriousness of the offending is ordinarily determined                by reference to the following factors:

(i)    the nature and content of the material, in particular the age of   the children and the gravity of the sexual activity depicted;

(ii)   the number of items or images possessed;

(iii)  whether the material is for the purpose of sale or further   distribution;

(iv)  whether the offender will profit from the offence;

(v)   in the case of possession of child pornography for personal use,    the number of children depicted and therefore victimised;

(vi)  the length of time for which the pornographic material was    possessed."

25Moving to the next general principle, the third one, which was:

"(c)      general deterrence is the primary sentencing consideration for                   offending involving child pornography;

(d)       less or limited weight is given to an offender's prior good character;

(e)      offending involving child pornography occurs on an international                   level and is becoming increasingly prevalent with the advent of the              internet as a means of allowing people to access and obtain child                    pornography;

(f)       offending involving child pornography is difficult to detect given the        anonymity provided by the internet;

(g )      the possession of child pornography creates a market for the              continued corruption and exploitation of children;

(h)      there is a paramount public interest objective in promoting the              protection of children as the possession of child pornography is not             a victimless crime.  Children are sexually abused in order to supply        the market;

(i)        the fact that an offender does not pay to access a child    pornography website or is not involved in the distribution or sale of         child pornography does not mitigate the offending."

26In this case I accept the submission made on behalf of the accused that the number of images involving child pornography was relatively small, 26.  In the circumstances, I accept there was a limited amount of images and few images in the worst category.  Consequently, I sentence him on the basis that the appropriate sentence is at the lower end of the sentencing range for the offence. 

27Most members of any civilised society would consider the images abhorrent.  As I stated, I viewed some of the images, because it is my duty as a sentencing judge to do so.  There were poses of children that were grossly inappropriate that sexualise them. 

28The possession of child pornography condones, as I stated the Court of Appeal said, the exploitation of children and continues to provide a market for predators.  It is for these reasons general deterrence, that is, deterring other likeminded people, denunciation of this behaviour and just punishment must be given weight.  Also, special deterrence that is, deterring Mr Sharman, as he well knew what he was viewing as he was not a young man.

29As to the offence of child pornography, Mr Sharman told the police in the record of interview that he and his wife had grown apart substantially and there had been no intimacy for many years.  He said he possessed child pornography as he needed an outlet and used the child pornography for masturbation and had let himself get carried away.  He agreed there was no excuse.  He said he deleted material over the preceding six to eight months and he probably looked at the images in that timeframe.  He downloaded Anime, and actual images of underage girls, some from a Russian website.  He said the ages of the girls were between seven or eight and 11 years.

30In relation to Charges 1 and 2, victim impact statements were tendered.  I take into account the relevant contents of the following victim impact statements from the father of the Complainant in Charge 1 and he read his statement in court, the mother of the Complainant in Charge 1, and the Complainant in Charge 1, and I will read part of her victim impact statement, the brother of the Complainant in Charge 1; as to Charge 2, the father of the Complainant in Charge 2, and he read his statement in court, and the mother of the Complainant in Charge 2 as well as the wife of Mr Sharman.

31Victim impact statements are of assistance for sentencing judges.  Each victim impact statement provides the judge with an account from the author of each statement, being the victim or members of the family, as to the effect on the victim as well as the family at the time of the offending, as well as present time.  Each victim impact statement is made from the personal perspective of the order of that statement as to the effect of the offending on the family and the victim.  They are invaluable to a sentencing judge who would otherwise make assumptions or rely on statements made by each victim to investigating police, at which time the investigators are focused on setting out the offending in the course of an investigation. 

32I have taken into account the contents of the victim impact statements.  I will read the victim impact statements of the Complainant in Charge 1, and it is in answer to this question, "try to remember when the crime first happened, how did you feel?":

"As being so young, my mind did not easily adjust to these circumstances.  I felt confused and didn't have an idea what to do.  I didn't want anyone to touch me and to be left alone.  I only let my parents hold me.  I lost a lot of trust with people and started to doubt.  At other times I felt lost and had awkward feelings, and now I feel less self-concerned."  

Question: "Did you feel anything else when the crime first happened?"  "No, not really, since I was really little and didn't know what was happening, so confused covers it well."

"Were you still able to do things?"  And there were examples: eating, sleeping, going to school, and she said, "Yes, this didn't affect me in the way in which I neglected the world."

33Then there was another part where she was asked whether she had she spoken to anyone since, and she said counsellors and the police.  I thought I would read this because I thought she was very articulate. 

34Mr Sharman’s son is the father of the complainant in Charge 1.  In his victim impact statement he referred to the degree of trust the family placed in his father, the prisoner in this case, at the time he left his daughter, who was a little child, in the care.  He said in his victim impact statement that he had previously not believed that his father would be the type of man to abuse these children.  Now at that stage there had only been an allegation made by the Complainant in Charge 2.  Mr Sharman’s son said at that stage he was angry that this allegation was made against his father and at the time, his view was that his father should fight it.  He said at the time his daughter made the disclosure, his thoughts were that he did do it but had previously not believed that his father was the type of person to do such a thing.

35In the victim impact statement of the father of the Complainant in Charge 2, he said this:

"My daughter had been sexually abused by someone we'd placed in, someone I trusted to allow my son to spend time with, someone I drank beer with, someone who was invited into the lives of my immediate family, someone who was my family, someone we had trusted to take care of our kids for only one night." 

36He described quite correctly his daughter, the complainant in Charge 2, as a defenceless baby and that she was only six. 

37The fact that each of these families left their young children in the care of Mr Sharman and his wife, their grandparents and great aunt and uncle, overnight confirms the degree of trust placed in him. 

38In the circumstances, I have given weight to general deterrence, just punishment, denunciation and, in particular, general deterrence.  That is, deterring other people from carrying out such offences.  Each of the little girls was vulnerable.  Each was totally reliant on Mr Sharman and his wife to care for them.  Each looked to him as a person in a position of authority, as an older person and as a grandparent or great uncle and was entitled to assume that he would nurture her. 

39The offending in Charge 1 and Charge 2 was serious.  A matter of aggravation is the gross breach of trust of the families of these children.  The position of authority he held, as I stated, not only as an older person in his early sixties, and these children were under ten, six years and seven to eight years, but also he was the grandfather of one and the brother of the grandmother of the other. 

40In a recent decision of the Court of Appeal, DPP v DJK [2003] VSCA 109, Vincent AJ, as he then was, said this, which I consider apposite to this case and cases similar to this:

"In consequence of an increasing awareness in our society of the incidence of the sexual abuse of children, a much greater understanding of the potential destructive impact that it has had and is continuing to have on the lives of so many people in our community, this court has, on a large number of occasions, emphasised two fundamentally important considerations."

41His Honour was referring to sexual penetration, which is not alleged in this case, however, His Honour's remarks are relevant to these offences.  His Honour stated that sentencing judges must recognise the personal damage that is occasioned by such offending; and secondly, the rehabilitation of the victim may be far more difficult to accomplish than that of the perpetrator.  He said courts must impose sentences to protect future possible victims against such damage by deterring those who may be inclined to engage in such activity.

42Given the material before the court, Mr Sharman was confident that he would not be detected, as he knew each of these children and their families trusted him.  This is supported by the fact that the Complainant in Charge 1 did not complain for some two years and that the Complainant in Charge 2's mother only found out through a girlfriend’s mother conveying that information to her.  Neither child told a parent or a person in authority such as a teacher or a police officer. 

43Further, the offending conduct escalated from Charge 1, touching on the vagina, to Charge 2, kissing the vagina.  I accept the submissions made on behalf of Mr Sharman that the offending in Charge 1 and the offending in Charge 2 is limited to a discrete occasion on each charge.  Each charge is not in the context of committing sexual offences on other occasions with either of the complainants.  Further, I accept that each incident was of short duration.

44Further, I accept the submission made on behalf of Mr Sharman that the prosecution relies on the details given by Mr Sharman in the second record of interview in relation to the offence committed which is the subject of Charge 1, as the Complainant in Charge 1's account was very limited as to detail.  She was six years of age of at the time it happened and then she was recalling it later.  The material before the court, as I stated, was that she was asleep in her bed, she woke up and he was touching what she referred to as her butt.  He tried to turn her over but she woke up before he could do that and the touch was sort of like a rub.  Clearly that alone is inappropriate, waking a young child by moving his hand around her posterior area, rubbing her.  I take into account in his favour that in the record of interview he provided further detail, as he then said he touched her on the vaginal area.

45However, the situation in this case differs from the decision of The Queen v. Doran [2005] VSCA 271 and the more recent authority of JBM v The Queen [2013] VSCA 69. In Doran's case the appellant had been investigated by police for taking a young girl into bushes in a park and taking photographs of her naked buttocks and her vagina and found photographs of young girls.  He also moved clothing aside so he could take the photos.  However, a month later he voluntarily attended a police station and confessed committing indecent acts and sexual penetration of children as well as the child pornography.  There had not been evidence of the touching offences or the penetration, of indecent acts and sexual penetration, until he made those admissions to police. 

46In the matter of JBM v The Queen, a three-year-old complained of sexual offending.  She was, not surprisingly, unable to provide the necessary particulars of each incident.  Consequently the matter could not have proceeded at all had the accused not provided the details that he did.

47In this case I take into account in his favour that he has no prior criminal history and no subsequent convictions.  I take into account in his favour that he has pleaded guilty and, by such plea, has saved the court the time, inconvenience and expense of a trial.  Importantly, neither of the young girls who were the complainants nor their family members have had to come to court to give evidence and be cross-examined.

48I take into account in his favour that although he denied the allegations in the first record of interview in relation to the Complainant in Charge 2, when interviewed the second time, he made full admissions in relation to each complainant and it was clear at the time that second record of interview was conducted that the case would not proceed by way of a trial. 

49Consequently, I take into account in his favour that the plea of guilty was indicated at an early stage, from the date of the second record of interview and then formally at the committal case conference on 6 May 2016.  I take into account in his favour that he provided important details in relation to the offending alleged on Charge 1 on the indictment.  However, I disagree that the matter could not have been proceeded with in court.

50Mr Yang appeared on behalf of Mr Sharman.  He set out his personal particulars and delivered a plea in mitigation.  He tendered a document headed "Defence Outline of Submissions", the contents of which I have taken into account. 

51Mr Sharman is married to his wife, Mrs Sharman.  They were estranged at the time these allegations came to light and that has continued to be the case.  Until I remanded him in custody, he was living under the same roof as his wife.  There are two sons of the marriage, one of whom is the father of the Complainant in Charge 1, to whom I have referred.

52As to his personal history, Mr Sharman was a member of the Royal Australian Airforce from 1969 to 2000 when he was medically discharged.  He was diagnosed with a dilated cardio myopathy and a left bundle branch block.  The medication he had been prescribed for those conditions is Digoxin, which is the medication he took, on which he overdosed.  At the time of the offending he had marital difficulties., which had been the situation for the past 20 years. 

53Mr Yang relied on a psychological report, which he tendered from forensic psychologist, Mr Jeffrey Cummins, dated 29 August 2016, and a psychiatric report from Dr Rahul Khanna, dated 9 August 2016.  Dr Khanna has treated him at the Maroondah hospital and had continued to do so every two to four weeks prior to his remand.  Dr Khanna, in that short report, stated that Mr Sharman met diagnostic criteria for major depressive disorder which had acutely worsened since the charges had been laid.

54Mr Cummins referred to the fact that Mr Sharman had attempted suicide on several occasions since being initially questioned by police.  I note that two of those occasions was after his wife had confirmed that the marriage was over as far as she was concerned.  Clearly his depressed state at that time was in the context of these allegations coming to light and his decision to admit his involvement as well as his wife ending the marriage. 

55In the second record of interview, the reason given for the offending in Charge 1, Charge 2 and Charge 3 was that the relationship with his wife had broken down for many years and that in fact there had been limited sexual relations in recent years.

56Police found adult pornography at Mr Sharman’s home, which is not illegal.  Mr Sharman told Mr Cummins that around 2012 he drifted into viewing child pornography.  He said his interest in child pornography increased to the point where he would masturbate while viewing child pornography.  Mr Cummins reported that he developed an interest in paedophilia as a result of the breakdown of his marital relationship.  He said such a late onset of paedophilia is a relatively infrequently diagnosed condition.  In Mr Sharman’s favour, he stated that Mr Sharman appears to be very motivated to persevere with specific treatment. 

57Mr Cummins reported that the arrests have had a significant impact on
Mr Sharman and, therefore, on the issue of his risk of reoffending, which he considers low/moderate.  However, he reported that it is imperative that he continue to receive offence specific treatment which is a combination of one-on-one offence specific treatment and participation in a group-based sex offender program, which he considers would be the most appropriate form of treatment.

58Mr Cummins reported that he is severely depressed and if he is incarcerated, prison authorities should be immediately notified that he has made a number of attempts to take his life and he could readily decompensate in a custodial sentence.

59It is not submitted that his depressive state contributed to the commission of these offences.  It has been submitted, which I consider correctly so, that
R v Verdins, Buckley and Vo [2007] 16 VR applies in Factors 5 and 6, given his current psychological state of severe depression, which is the diagnosis of his psychiatrist and the forensic psychologist.

60I accept that these factors apply as submitted by Mr Yang. 

"(5)      The existence of the condition at the date of sentencing ( or its                   foreseeable recurrence) may mean that a given sentence will weigh            more heavily on the offender than it would on a person in normal                  health."

(6)      Whether there is a serious risk of imprisonment having a significant           adverse effect on his mental health."

61Mr Sharman is also affected significantly by the fact that his family, namely his wife, two children, their partners and grandchildren as well as the parents of the complainant in charge 2, no longer wish to associate with him or have any contact with him.  He stated to Mr Cummins that he has nothing to live for.  The only friendship he has is with his 65 year old sister who lives in Western Australia.  The depression suffered by Mr Sharman is in the context of his isolation and concern for his situation.  In the report at paragraph 36, Mr Cummins reported that he spoke in an apologetic, remorseful and an extremely embarrassed and ashamed manner concerning his offending behaviour. 

62The answers given in the record of interview, the submissions made on his instructions and the matters that he raised in answer to Mr Cummins' questions in the psychological report seem to indicate that Mr Sharman is more focused on his own position, in particular his loss of liberty, his financial position in relation to marital property and being ostracised by his family rather than on the effect of his offending on the two little children and their families.  Having said that, I accept that he regrets what he has done.  He stated to Mr Cummins that he was concerned as to the exploitation by his wife if he is in custody. 

63I agree with the submission made on behalf of the prosecution that in the second record of interview his answers reflect that he was concerned about his own position and that he does have limited insight. 

64It has been submitted on behalf of Mr Sharman that the appropriate sentence is a community corrections order and the decision of Boulton & Ors v The Queen [2014] VSCA 342 was relied on. I take into account that decision and I also take into account s.4C of the Sentencing Act, which commenced on 29 September 2014, which provides:

"A court must not impose a sentence that involves the confinement of the offender unless it considers that the purpose or purposes for which the sentence is imposed cannot be achieved by a community corrections order to which one or more of the conditions referred to in s.48F, 48G, 48H, 48I and 48J are attached." 

65In the circumstances of this matter, the seriousness of the offending is such that it can only be reflected in a term of imprisonment to be imposed immediately, notwithstanding that the offending was of short duration on two discrete episodes and that the accused provided further details as to Charge 1.  I also refer to the context of committing Charge 3, the child pornography charge. 

66As to Charge 1 and Charge 2, I refer to the gross breach of trust as the grandfather and great uncle who was trusted implicitly with the care of the children, given they were left with he and his wife overnight, the age of the children, also the trust each child reposed in him, the age difference, as well as the young age of the children.  The indecent act on each occasion included touching by Mr Sharman’s hand on the skin around the vaginal area of each child with one hand, and later, Charge 2 was the escalation into kissing her on the vagina.

67In the circumstances, general deterrence must be accorded much weight, and I do so, as does justice punishment and denunciation of this sort of behaviour.

68I have given limited weight to specific deterrence, as I consider in the circumstances it is unlikely he will reoffend on Charge 1 and Charge 2.  I consider that it is less likely he will reoffend on Charge 3.  However, he has indicated some insight, but it is limited, as his main concern is his predicament.  I have given weight to rehabilitation, as he is currently undertaking treatment, and that is necessary.

69The matters raised in mitigation comprehensively on his behalf, I take into account and impose a lesser sentence than had they not been present.  I take into account in his favour that he is in his sixties and suffers from physical conditions requiring medication.  I also take into account in his favour that serving a sentence of imprisonment will be harder for him than a person who has served a term of imprisonment before.

70His rehabilitation depends on him successfully completing sexual offending programs in the prison and upon his release from prison, be it after the end of the sentence or on parole, to relapse prevention. 

71I also note that it will be isolating for him in prison, as he will have communication with his sister but no other members of his family and that his sister lives in Western Australia, so it may be there is no visits.  However, given the victims of the offending, it is not surprising that they do not have any contact with him.

72I take into account current sentencing practices which are relevant to the factual situation of this case, as to indecent act with a child under 16, where there is a gross breach of trust and the children are very young.  So I sentence as follows:

73Charge 1, 12 months' imprisonment.

74Charge 2, 15 months' imprisonment.

75Charge 3, ten month's imprisonment.

76I will make orders for cumulation.  Charge 2 is the base sentence.  I order that five months of the sentence imposed on Charge 1 and two months of the sentence imposed on Charge 3 be cumulative with the sentence imposed on Charge 2.

77The total sentence is 22 months' imprisonment, and I order that he serve 15 months' imprisonment before he becomes eligible for parole.

78I take into account the nine days pre-sentence detention as having actually been served.

79Pursuant to s.6AAA, had he pleaded not guilty to the offences, I would have sentenced him to 36 months' imprisonment and ordered a minimum term of 20 months before he becomes eligible for parole.

80Pursuant to the Sex Offenders Registration Act 2004, he has pleaded guilty to three Class 2 offences. Therefore, it is mandatory that he register for life.

81Very well.  Do you have that document?  Thank you.  Could you hand those, please?

82Mr Sharman, Mr Yang will explain that to you.  It is set out in that document.  If you could serve that on your client now, perhaps.

83MR YANG:  Thank you, Your Honour.

84HER HONOUR:  Mr Yang will talk to you later in the cells about it.  There is quite a bit in there.

85MR YANG:  Do you wish me to talk to him now?

86HER HONOUR: No, I think later in the cells, but give him the document now. Is that okay, Mr Prison Officer, that he has that document? That is what I normally do. Just hand it to him now. All right. So that means that Mr Sharman is subject to the Sex Offender Registration Act for life.

87Now are there any other matters?

88MS RUSCHENA:  I'm sorry, Your Honour, I was talking to my instructor.  I beg your pardon.

89HER HONOUR:  No, are there any other matters?  I think we've dealt with it.

90MS RUSCHENA:  No.  No, Your Honour, they're all the matters. 

91HER HONOUR:  Very well.  The protocol now is that the prisoner leaves before I leave the Bench.  So would you now go to the cells, thank you, Mr Sharman, with the prison officer.

92Thank you for your assistance, Ms Ruschena and Mr Yang. 

‑ ‑ ‑