Director of Public Prosecutions v Craig (a pseudonym)
[2024] VCC 975
•28 June 2024
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| ELIZABETH CRAIG (A PSEUDONYM) |
---
JUDGE: | HIS HONOUR JUDGE LYON |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne |
DATE OF HEARING: | 22 May 2024 |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 28 June 2024 |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Craig (a pseudonym) |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2024] VCC 975 |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Subject: Criminal Law
Catchwords:
Legislation Cited: Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic)
Cases Cited:Ash v The Queen [2011] VSCA 112; DPP v OOMS [2023] VSCA 207; DPP v Henderson (a pseudonym) [2023] VCC 2273; DPP v Cooper (a pseudonym) [2022] VCC 1867; DPP v Hawkins [2017] VCC 1943; DPP v Korczynski [2022] VCC 1278; [1] DPP v Buhagiar and Heathcote [1998] 4 VR 540
Sentence:18 months' imprisonment; 12 months suspended
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Director of Public Prosecutions | Ms B. Goding | Office of Public Prosecutions |
For the Accused | Mr S. Norton | Stary Norton Halphen |
HIS HONOUR:
1Elizabeth Craig,[1] you have pleaded guilty to the following charges which carry the following maximum penalties:
[1] A pseudonym.
| Charge No. | Offence | Maximum Penalty |
| 1 | Indecent assault of a person under 16 years pursuant to Section 44(1) Crimes Act 1958 (as amended by Crimes Sexual Offences Act 1980) | 5 years imprisonment |
| 2 | Sexual penetration of a 16 or 17 year child under care, supervision or authority pursuant to Section 48 Crimes Act 1958 (as amended by Crimes Sexual Offences Act 1991) | 3 years imprisonment |
| 3 | Sexual penetration of a 16 or 17 year child under care, supervision or authority pursuant to Section 48 Crimes Act 1958 (as amended by Crimes Sexual Offences Act 1991) | 3 years imprisonment |
| 4 | Sexual penetration of a 16 or 17 year child under care, supervision or authority pursuant to Section 48 Crimes Act 1958 (as amended by Crimes Sexual Offences Act 1991) | 3 years imprisonment |
| 5 | Sexual penetration of a 16 or 17 year child under care, supervision or authority pursuant to Section 48 Crimes Act 1958 (as amended by Crimes Sexual Offences Act 1991) | 3 years imprisonment |
| 6 | Common law assault pursuant to the common law | 5 years imprisonment |
2Terms of imprisonment will inevitably be imposed on at least charges 2 to 5; as such you will be declared a serious sex offender on some of the charges. I will explain more about this later in these sentencing remarks.
3You are required by law to be registered as a sex offender for life. Again, I will explain some of the obligations later in these remarks.
4You have no previous or subsequent criminal history and you have no matters outstanding.
Circumstances of Offending
5The Crown tendered the summary of prosecution opening as Exhibit A. A summary of your offending is as follows:
6The victim was born in April 1976.
7You were born in August 1961.
8The offending occurred in your time as a teacher at a secondary college, where you commenced teaching in 1986. You taught arts and textiles. The victim of your offending commenced at the school in 1988, aged 11 or 12.
9The span over which the offending occurred is from 1 January 1990, when the victim was about 14 years old to about 10 August 1994 when the victim was 18.
10You were aged between 28 and 33 over this period.
11In 1989 at age 13, the victim became interested in dance and music events offered by the school. You oversaw costume creation and you met the victim in this role. She joined the costume committee and you spent a lot of time together creating costumes. Your interest in the victim grew and you began to spend more time together, and with her friends. You would take her and others on outings to different arts and theatre productions, and you had the victim and her friends over for sleepovers and other out of school hours activities.
12As your interest in the victim grew, your relationship and endeavours at intimacy also grew. You hugged her, you held her hand and made other signs and displays of affection, sometimes in public. You played jokes on each other and you wrote her letters (some of which were long). By communicating your feelings you called to her emotions so that sometimes she felt bad if you felt excluded.
13You spoke to her mother to ensure that you could spend time together, with you. Of course, all this took place in the context of you as the victim's teacher, and the age disparity between you was that of about a 13/14 year old teen and you as a married 27/28 year old adult.
14In 1990, you taught the victim as her textiles teacher. In April of that year, the victim turned 14.
15It is against this background that you seemed to perceive yourself to be in some sort of relationship with the victim and which led to the offending.
16The first offence occurred in the year 1990 at your home in Moonee Ponds. Although you were married, your husband was not present. The victim thinks you arranged a sleepover of other students, but she was the only one present. You asked her to sleep in your bed and she agreed. You were both fully clothed in bed when you kissed the victim and placed your tongue in her mouth. That is Charge 1.
17Over the span of your offending, the charged acts were accompanied by uncharged acts of sexual offending and other conduct which sets the context and background against which the charged offending occurred:
18These included matters such as:
(a)you told the victim you loved her and wrote letters expressing your love;
(b)you said 'You can't tell anyone, I could go to gaol for this';
(c)you held other sleepovers with other students present. You slept next to the victim and held her hand secretly;
(d)you took the victim to Blairgowrie with your husband and other adult friends. You shared a bed with the victim on that occasion;
(e)on another occasion with friends, you took the victim on a trip. The pair of you slipped away from the group in the middle of the night and your interactions became 'physical';
(f)after you separated from your husband, you moved to a unit in Essendon. The victim spent more time with you and 'sexual activity occurred regularly between the accused and the victim at this address';
(g)at some point after your separation from your husband, you and the victim got undressed and were naked together; and
(h)on another occasion you sketched a drawing of the victim whilst she posed naked.
19The second charge occurred between April 1992 and 17 December 1993 after the victim had turned 16 and was between the age of 16 and 17 years. On the occasion charged, the victim slept over at your house. You had dinner together, watched a 'lesbian movie' (according to the opening) and kissed on the couch. Following the dialogue of the movie, you inserted three fingers in the victim's vagina and asked if she could accommodate a fourth finger. The victim went quiet. That is Charge 2 of sexual penetration of a child 16/17 years of age under care, supervision or authority.
20Sometime in 1992, your victim asked if she could tell a friend of the relationship. The victim told her friend in your company in your office at the school. The friend recalls you stating that it was not a normal relationship and you two could not be affectionate in public. The victim also told another friend of the relationship and of the importance to keep it secret.
21Increasingly, you spent time with victim's parents, having dinner on some occasions; you knew her siblings and you had been on trips to the coast with her family.
22Charges 3 and 4 involve acts of oral penetration. As context, the victim states that you would perform oral sex on her and requested she did the same to you.
23The first occasion for this occurred between June 1992 and December 1993. On the first occasion you performed oral sex on the victim, at the same time you moved your body into position and asked the victim to perform oral sex on you. That is Charges 3 and 4 of sexual penetration of a child 16/17 under care, supervision and authority.
24On a further occasion both you and the victim would perform oral sex on each other simultaneously. The victim managed to penetrate you but felt smothered and found the act too difficult. That is Charge 5 sexual penetration again in the same terms.
25Charge 6 is a charge of common law assault. I note the disconnect between the prosecution opening and the indictment for this charge. The indictment specifies the period January to August 1994, after the victim had completed Year 12 and had left school. She turned 18 in April of that year. As you pleaded guilty to committing the offence in this date range, I conclude that the offending occurred after the victim had left school. She began to distance herself from you. As the victim limited her contact with you, you threatened suicide on occasions. When she stated she was going to leave, you slapped her face.
26After the relationship ended, you maintained a friendship with the victim. You gave her a job cleaning your unit; you continued to correspond with her; and you attended her 21st birthday party.
27I was told (although the victim does not remember such an occurrence) that in 1997 you paid for the victim to receive counselling to deal with what had happened.
28The victim disclosed the offending to a friend at university, a previous partner, in about 1995 and gave some details to her sister in 2001. In 2022 the victim disclosed the offending to her siblings, her husband and her parents. She made a complaint to the police in May 2022.
29The victim made a pretext call to you in October 2022. You stated:
(a)that you really loved her back then;
(b)it was a shame about the age difference; and
(c)you were attracted by her brain and not by the fact that she was a student or the age difference.
30You were arrested by police on 19 October 2022. Police seized a dozen photographs of the victim from her school days from your possession. You admitted knowing the victim and socialising with her and her family but denied teaching her. You otherwise made no comment to the allegations of criminal charges.
31The Education Department and the school were notified of the charges. Your employment was terminated and you were deregistered. You will not be allowed to teach through the Education Department again.
32You were charged on summons on 18 August 2023. The matter resolved to a plea of guilty on 8 December 2023.
Objective Gravity and Moral Culpability
33I now turn to a consideration of the objective gravity of your offending and an assessment of your moral culpability.
34The criminal law prohibits sexual offending and specifically sexual offending against children, with the objective of upholding the fundamental right of every person to make decisions about their own sexual behaviour and to choose not to engage in sexual activity.
35The law specifically prohibits sexual conduct between adults and minors (that is, children under the age of 16) and between adults and young persons (that is 16 and 17 years) in the care of those adults; and in doing so the law makes it clear that the issue of consent is irrelevant to the consideration.
36Consent is irrelevant because even if given, the experience of the law shows it is illusory or diminished. In this case, the victim's apparent participation in the relationship with you must be put in perspective: you were a married, adult woman, who at the time of your first attention paid to the victim, were double her age.
37Moreover you were working as a teacher and the victim was your student – you were therefore in a position of authority. In other words, the responsibility and trust you owed to the victim can never be obviated or even mitigated by expressions of love, affection and friendship which accompanied the sexual offending. Charges 2 to 5 are charges of penetration of a child who was under your care, supervision or authority, which emphasises the seriousness of your offending.
38Charge 2 was a grossly invasive penetration of your young victim. That will be reflected in the sentence I impose.
39Harm to the child or young person is presumed, even where the harm is not immediate or manifest. The harm caused to the victim has been real, deep and lifelong. She speaks of the shame, grief and guilt she has carried through her life. She speaks of the effect it has had on her adult relationships, especially with her parents. Fortunately, your victim has been solidly supported by her husband, her parents and her counsellor.
40I acknowledge the courage and integrity of the victim in coming forward and participating fully in the court proceedings, including reading her victim impact statement to the court. It gives a true insight into the turmoil she has lived with, all without overstatement or playing for sympathy.
41An eminent Victorian judge once observed that the rehabilitation of the victim of childhood sexual offending may be often harder to achieve than the rehabilitation of the offender. I hope that the victim is able to heal after these proceedings come to an end.
42The Crown submits that the objective seriousness of your offending is marked by:
(a)the breach of trust of the student‑teacher relationship;
(b)the age difference between you, one of 15 years;
(c)the duration and frequency of the offending, especially taking into account that the charged acts were not isolated incidents;
(d)the planning and premeditation; and
(e)your motivation.
43I accept that each of these informs the objective seriousness of your offending. Mr Norton, who appeared ably on your behalf, acknowledges the seriousness of your offending. I conclude that your offending is indeed objectively very serious.
44The Crown also refers to the secrecy and the failure to engage in safe sex. I am less persuaded by these factors. It is apparent that, at best, your relationship with the victim was disclosed by her to some of her friends and that you told at least one other teacher. I have read statements in the depositions and I consider it is open to conclude that the relationship, whilst marked by secrecy, was known beyond those few to whom it was disclosed. Moreover, others considered it likely to be sexual in nature. Unlike many cases that come before the court, the secrecy was not marked by threats or intimidation although there were other aspects to it which I have commented on.
45Further, given your circumstances at the time, I am not persuaded that the submission as to failure to engage in safe sex should be given significant weight. Rather, it is a factor I will take into account in the whole mix.
46I consider your moral culpability for your offending to be high.
47It is apparent that you and the victim became friendly from the time she joined the costume committee at aged about 14. The period of time in which you were friendly but before you engaged in sexual activity was marked by lifts home, the victim being marked by peers as something of a 'favourite' of yours, trips to the theatre, to art exhibitions, to the circus, sleepovers, letters, giving of nicknames, holding hands, hugging, intimate conversation and gifts. These are matters only of context and background but serve as the foundation from which the sexual offending was launched.
48Moreover, before and by the time of the sexual offending, you ingratiated yourself into the victim's friendship group and you had an established and trusted relationship with the victim's parents. You spent time at the beach with them.
49In her victim impact statement, the victim states that you groomed and manipulated her. Whether your conduct was actually premeditated and lascivious, or whether it developed from your genuine feelings of intimacy and affection influenced by immaturity and true confusion about your own gender sexual preference, I can only come to the conclusion that ultimately, your friendship and attention on a young girl from the age of 14 years was constructed towards sexual conduct initiated by you. You recognised the wrongfulness of your actions and you told her you could go to gaol for what you were doing. Later, as the victim began to mature, your threats of suicide, telling the victim that she could not leave, were utterly unconscionable. You groomed and manipulated her in these ways. The prosecution submitted (and it was adopted by Mr Norton) that your conduct was 'manipulative rather than predatory'. The acts committed by you and the manner in which you committed them make your moral culpability very high.
50As your counsel set out in his submissions, you must be sentenced according to current sentencing practices – that is, according to the law now, and for what it understands of the repugnant nature of this type of offending and the effect it has (and has been shown to have had) on the victim.
51Of course, I must sentence according to the maximum penalties in place at the time; and I cannot completely ignore that there has been an evolution of attitude to, and understanding of, sentencing practices since you committed these offences. Nevertheless, your offending must be met by principles of deterrence, denunciation, just punishment and a measure of protection of the community.
52The assault should not escape unnoticed. You assaulted the complainant when she exercised her right to end the relationship.
Serious sexual offences
53For the fact that you will be sentenced as a serious sexual offender, that fact will be noted on the records of the court. Two factors flow from that.
54The first is that protection of the community becomes a dominant feature of the sentencing consideration that is mandated by law.
55The second is, in order to achieve that there is provision that I can impose an inordinate sentence. That is not sought by the Crown and I do not intend to impose an inordinate sentence.
Personal Circumstances
56You are now 62 years old being born in August 1961.
57You are the oldest of two children, having one younger brother seven years your junior.
58Your father worked as a jockey and in accountancy and finance and your mother worked as a receptionist. Your family endorsed conservative morals due to their Catholic faith. You describe their parenting as strict, with corporal punishment administered 'quite severely at times'.
59Despite this, you report a relatively normal childhood and describe your earliest years as happy. You remain on good terms with your brother and keep in contact with your parents who now reside interstate. As I understand it you have not told your parents of your current legal situation.
60You report no significant issues during your schooling at either of the schools you attended. You state that you enjoyed school, excelled in creative subjects and had a strong circle of friends.
61After obtaining a creditable result in Year 12, you completed a Bachelor of Education (Secondary) from Melbourne State Teachers College, eventually returning to the school you attended as a student; this time as a teacher, where you worked for 36 years until being suspended in light of the charges you now face.
62Notwithstanding a sexual experience at 14 years of age, wherein a stranger contacted you by phone and groomed you to engage in sexualised conversations with him, your first sexual experience was at age 16 with your then boyfriend.
63You pursued a number of relationships with men until marrying your husband, with whom you remained from 1985 until 1992. It was during this relationship that you found yourself increasingly attracted to other women. This culminated in your separation from your husband after telling him that you were 'pretty sure you were a lesbian'.
64You told Mr Newton, psychologist, it was during this period of sexual exploration that you pursued the relationship with the victim.
65Since the offending you have engaged in three significant relationships with women and had a number of partners. You are currently single and have remained so for about 10 years.
66It is apparent on all of the material I have received that your work, or perhaps more correctly your vocation as a teacher has been, to a large extent, your life.
67I received the reference of Jane Mitchell[2] who has been your closest friend for over 30 years. Ms Mitchell describes the effect of the charges and losing your position and licence to teach as devastating for you. Ms Mitchell notes that you have suffered many difficulties in life, especially in your relationship with your mother. It seems to have been either a lifelong, or at least for the last 30 years, a very difficult relationship. Your mother did not accept your disclosure of your sexuality. Your relationship remains difficult with her to this day. Ms Mitchell describes you as a loyal, moral, loving, empathetic, kind and generous person. She says you have suffered depression and anxiety at times and you have been medicated for this. As I note later, Mr Newton does not consider these diagnoses currently appropriate but Ms Mitchell has relied heavily on you as a friend and as a carer in her ill health. She considers that you have expressed considerable remorse for your offending.
[2] A pseudonym.
68Your brother also notes the social and familial difficulties you endured when you disclosed your sexuality. He also notes the difficulties especially centred on your relationship with your mother. Your brother describes you as a good, dedicated teacher and a good person. As your brother, he has had considerable difficulty reconciling your offending with the person he knows.
69I received two medical reports about your current and past medical illnesses. You suffer from a number of complaints which detract from your overall health, but none of which are debilitating.
70I received your letter of apology to the victim. This was written after you had read the victim impact statement. You describe your conduct as selfish and you regret implicating your young victim in a web of lies to keep the relationship alive and relatively secret. Whilst I accept your apology and expressions of insight as genuine, it is apparent from Mr Newton's assessment that you still have work to do before it could readily be concluded that you are entirely empathetic and completely understand the implications of your offending.
Psychological Report
71I have read the report of Patrick Newton dated 14 May 2024.
72Mr Newton opines that your thought processes are generally free from disorder, that you have a normal capacity for judgment and insight and your moral reasoning is not impaired. Mr Newton notes that you are mildly downcast and currently prescribed Zoloft. You described mild depressive symptoms over the years, often in the context of relationship loss or personal stress. That being said, Mr Newton considers that your symptoms have never reached proportions where a diagnosis of depression would be warranted. Mr Newton concludes your current state has developed as a reaction to your legal problems.
73Mr Newton considers that you typically set high standards for yourself and there are no indications of problems with impulse control or a propensity to act out. You do not 'manifest behavioural pathology or a tendency towards risk-taking behaviour'. He notes that you have a 'clear and prosocial code of ethics' by which you attempt to live.
74Mr Newton notes:
'Nevertheless, Ms [Craig] could demonstrate only a surprisingly superficial understanding of issues associated with the age of consent and sexual decision‑making by young people. Thus, she had some difficulty discussing the emotional, psychological and interpersonal aspects of adolescent development and tended to view her interactions with the complainant more through the lens of coming out to a new novel sexual identity rather than in the context of the complainant's age and stage of development.'
75Mr Newton considers that you continue to have some difficulty outlining a clear understanding of the normative sexual development of young people, perceiving the complainant at the time as being more sexually mature than was accurate. Mr Newton considers that you are developing insight and that you would have good prospects of benefiting from further offence specific therapy. You have been characterised as a low risk of sexual reoffending.
76Mr Newton states that due to your age, specific offending, demographic divergence from the general prison population and naiveite to the prison system, you would be classified as a vulnerable prisoner. I will take this into account.
Sentencing Submissions
77Mr Norton, who appeared on your behalf, submitted that the following factors should operate to mitigate your sentence:
(a)the plea of guilty was entered at the earliest possible time. He submitted the plea carries significant utilitarian benefit. Moreover, as the plea is accompanied by significant remorse, it is submitted the plea facilitates the course of justice;
(b)the effluxion of time: from the end of your offending to your dismissal from your position, you worked without blemish in a life of 'decency and service';
(c)you have no prior convictions and no matters pending. You are a person of positive good character;
(d)you have suffered extra‑curial punishment in that teaching was much of your life and your identity and yet now you can never teach again;
(e)you have been assessed as a low risk of reoffending. Your reoffending was he submits, situational and in fact the likelihood of reoffending is minuscule;
(f)it was submitted your health and personality makeup likely render you to a 'significant depressive reaction' after sentence. You would be a vulnerable prisoner given your health issues, background and vulnerability. Prison would weigh more heavily on you than the ordinary prisoner; and
(g)your prospects for rehabilitation have in fact already been demonstrated by your conduct over the last 30 years.
78Mr Norton handed up several sentencing decisions of this court. One from 2017, and the balance from 2022 and 2023; and the Court of Appeal decisions of Ash v the Queen[3] (‘Ash’) and DPPv Ooms[4] (‘Ooms’).
[3] [2011] VSCA 112.
[4] [2023] VSCA 207.
79Ms Goding who appeared for the Crown submitted that the only appropriate sentence is a term of imprisonment with a head sentence and non-parole period. Further she submitted that a wholly or partially suspended sentence is not within range. The Crown principally relies upon its submissions as to the objective seriousness of the offending (which I set out when dealing with that topic) to support this submission on sentence.
80The Crown concedes that your plea of guilty has utilitarian value and is indicative of remorse; that your health and vulnerability to a custodial setting are accepted and that you have no prior convictions.
81Ms Goding addressed s 5AA of the Sentencing Act,[5] submitting that there was no good character available to you after the commission of the first crime and that there was concealment of prolonged criminal offending for decades. Nevertheless, the lack of further offending and your positive work history was she submitted relevant to the assessment of your prospects for rehabilitation.
[5]1991 (Vic).
Analysis
82I accept the plea of guilty was made at the earliest time and that your plea has considerable utilitarian benefit and facilitates the course of justice. I accept that your plea is accompanied by remorse, particularly through your acknowledgement of the victim impact statement.
83After reading Dr Newton's report, I am satisfied that there are still issues which you must address in order to complete your understanding of the wrongfulness of your actions. However, I consider it is unlikely that you will ever offend again.
84Overall, I accept that your rehabilitation has been demonstrated and your prospects going forward are very high.
85I do take into account however, that just as you have had the benefit of the last 30 years to prove your rehabilitation and continued good service to the school and the community, the victim has spent that time, her whole adult life, carrying guilt and shame for your offending, when she was responsible for none of it. I will not overlook that the effluxion of time in this matter carries two stories.
86The real issue for consideration is not whether you should receive a period of imprisonment for your offending, but whether it should be served immediately, partially or wholly suspended, that being an option available to me because of when the offending occurred.
87Mr Norton submits that I should wholly suspend the sentence of imprisonment which he expects I will impose. He provided a range of sentences from this court and decisions of the Court of Appeal which broadly support this submission. The cases relied upon are cases of sexual penetration of a 16 or 17 year old child under care, supervision or authority. I will refer to some of them:
(a)there is the case of Ooms which is a case from the Court of Appeal which considered s 5AA of the Sentencing Act. In that case the female teacher had a relatively brief sexual relationship with a 16/17 year old male student. The accused had significant and traumatic mental health and childhood issues. She was sentenced to a four year CCO which was upheld on appeal;
(b)there is the case of Ash in the Court of Appeal. The appellant was a teacher at the school the victim attended. She was living with the appellant and his wife for a period of time. The appellant was found guilty of one count of sexual penetration. He was sentenced to 18 months with 12 months suspended. The sentence was affirmed on appeal;
(c)DPP v Cooper (a pseudonym)[6] was a sentence of this court where there was one charge of penetration. The Crown in that conceded that a suspended sentence was appropriate;
(d)DPP v Hawkins[7] the accused pleaded guilty to 10 charges involving two complainants where the maximum penalty for the sexual penetration was 10 years' imprisonment. He was sentenced to a CCO with 400 hours unpaid community work;
(e)DPP v Korczynski[8] pleaded guilty to one charge of sexual penetration in 2004 of a 17 year old student. The Charges were laid in 2020, three years after his arrest in 2017. The matter went to committal. With COVID delays, the matter resolved in 2022. The accused was sentenced to 19 months' imprisonment, wholly suspended; and
(f)DPP v Henderson (a pseudonym)[9] a plea of guilty to one rolled up charge of sexual penetration of a child 16/17 years. The accused was sentenced to a 12 month CCO.
[6] [2022] VCC 1867.
[7] [2017] VCC 1943.
[8] [2022] VCC 1278.
[9] [2023] VCC 2273.
88Ms Goding submitted I should impose a sentence of imprisonment with a head sentence and non-parole period. When I invited the Crown to provide any comparable cases, none were supplied. Of course, that is not the end of the matter. The principles of sentencing require me to look beyond comparable cases and to make my own assessment of the circumstances of this case.
89The four principal charges of penetration are not charged as a rolled up accounts or representative counts. I must therefore treat them as single offences. That does not mean that I ignore the background against which these offences occurred. I can take into account that these were not isolated, 'out of the blue' instances of offending and in that way the background informs the seriousness of these charges.
90I consider that the overall circumstances are as or more serious than the cases to which I have referred:
(a)the offending was preceded by sustained grooming which amounts in my view to a complex infiltration by you of the victim's peer group, family, and most importantly, her perception of herself. This commenced and was maintained for years before sexual offending occurred and from a time when the victim was about 14 years old; and
(b)throughout the period of the offending, I considered you maintained your manipulation of the victim through friendship, emotional blackmail and lies, by imploring secrecy and love in order to keep the sexual relationship going.
91As I have already observed, when the victim was old enough, had left school and was no longer in your thrall, you reacted by slapping her.
92I consider that in the whole of the circumstances, as a teacher and as an adult, your behaviour amounts to an appalling transgression of boundaries. As you said candidly to Mr Newton, these were boundaries to which you gave no thought at the time.
93In my view, Ms Craig, your offending must be met by a term of imprisonment. I do not agree with the Crown submission that a head sentence and non‑parole period is appropriate. Nevertheless, I do not consider that a wholly suspended sentence is appropriate. Ms Craig, I intend to impose a partially suspended sentence which will require you to serve a period of imprisonment immediately and then the balance of your sentence in the community. In my view, in taking into account the principles enunciated by the Court of Appeal in the case of DPP v Buhagiar & Heathcote,[10] the imposition of a suspended sentence is not an exercise in leniency. It is an order made in the community's interest and can still prevent reoffending and it may act as a general deterrent.
[10] [1998] 4 VR 540.
94I have however in the sentencing process endeavoured to give weight as the law allows to the matters mitigating your sentence.
Orders
95I therefore make the following orders:
96On the Charge of indecent assault with a person under 16, you are convicted and fined $1,000.
97On Charge 2 of sexual penetration of a child 16/17 years under supervision, authority and care, you are sentenced to eight months' imprisonment and that is the base sentence.
98On Charge 3 of sexual penetration, you are convicted and sentenced to six months and I order that three months of that sentence be cumulated on the base and other sentences.
99On Charge 4, you are convicted and sentenced to six months' imprisonment and I order that three months of that sentence be cumulated. On that sentence, there being two sentences of imprisonment imposed, I declare you to be a serious sexual offender and I order that fact be entered on the records of the court.
100On Charge 5, a sentence is imposed of eight months and I cumulate four months.
101On the charge of common law assault you are convicted and sentenced to one month imprisonment which is concurrent.
102The total effective sentence is a sentence of 18 months' imprisonment. I order that 12 months of that sentence be suspended. I therefore order that you serve a period of six months, with 12 months suspended.
103I note there are no days pre-sentence detention served.
104The 6AAA declaration is that but for the plea of guilty I would have imposed sentence of three years with two years to serve.
105Ms Craig, there are onerous reporting conditions now imposed upon you for the fact that you have been convicted of these offences. The reporting conditions limit your ability to travel, they impose reporting conditions on you and there is a swathe of paperwork. Regrettably at this time when you would no doubt prefer to have a moment to reflect on other things, I have to ask that you are shown the paperwork by Mr Norton and you are required to sign it to acknowledge that you have received the paperwork.
106MR NORTON: Your Honour, could I just raise one matter?
107HIS HONOUR: Yes please, Mr Norton.
108MR NORTON: Your Honour has indicated that you have suspended the 12 months. You have not indicated and announced how long for.
109HIS HONOUR: The 12 months is suspended for a period of 12 months.
110MR NORTON: As Your Honour pleases.
111HIS HONOUR: Thank you, Mr Norton.
112Now in a moment I have to stand down so that, Mr Norton, you have the opportunity to speak to Ms Craig about the SORA.
113Before I do that, I want to acknowledge again the courage and integrity of the victim in coming forward. I cannot imagine the strength it requires to not only come forward and make a report but to participate in the proceedings with the dignity that you have, and I can only imagine that a deal of your strength comes not only from within but from the support you have received from your husband. Thank you both for coming to court today.
114I will stand down, I will come back on in 10.
115MR NORTON: Thank you.
(Short adjournment.)
116That has been done, Your Honour.
117HIS HONOUR: Thank you, Mr Norton. Ms Craig, thank you for the acknowledgement being made, that brings the proceedings to an end and I'm going to ask if you'd be good enough to go with the prison staff.
118All right, thank you. Nothing further?
119MR NORTON: No, Your Honour.
120HIS HONOUR: All right I'll adjourn.
0
6
0