Director of Public Prosecutions v Didulica

[2023] VCC 982

IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA

AT Melbourne

CRIMINAL DIVISION

Revised
Not Restricted
Suitable for Publication

Case No. CR-19-02357

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

v

MARIO SIMON DIDULICA

---

JUDGE:	HER HONOUR JUDGE GAYNOR
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	16 May 2023
DATE OF SENTENCE:	16 June 2023
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Didulica
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2023] VCC 982

REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---

Subject:CRIMINAL LAW

Catchwords:              Indecent act with a child under the age of 16 – Sexual penetration with a child under 16 – Attempted sexual penetration with a child under 16

Legislation Cited:      Sentencing Act 1991; Sex Offender’s Registration Act 2004

Cases Cited:The Queen v Verdins (2007) 16 VR 269

Sentence:                  3 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 16 months’ imprisonment

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the DPP	Mr T F Danos	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Ms G F Connelly	Adrian Paull Criminal Lawyers

HER HONOUR:

1Mario Simon Didulica, a jury has found you guilty of two charges of sexual penetration of a child aged under 16 years.  The facts underlying your offending are as follows.

2At the time of the offending, which occurred between 1 April and 31 May 2010, you were 38 to 39 years of age.  The complainant was aged 14 and 15 years of age.  Both your family and the complainant’s family socialised together.

3In short compass, a relationship developed between the two of you from mid to late 2009 when the complainant contacted you, at which time you were employed as a police officer, to look into a security issue that had arisen at her work.  The prosecution scenario was that you sent her a message while the two of you were at your home, telling her she had nice underwear, and communication increased from there.

4In November 2009, at a birthday party at the complainant’s house, when she was angry because of her parents’ expectation that she help clean and help during the party rather than socialising, you approached her and said you would get her out of there and take care of her, and you put a passport application on the bench before walking outside, having told her the two of you could move to France where it was legal for you to be together.  The complainant hid the application under her bed and took it to school and put it in her locker.

5The relationship continued to develop, and indeed it was conceded by you on the trial that you developed an inappropriate infatuation for the complainant.  The two of you texted frequently.  Telephone records show that you and the complainant communicated by mobile phone over 30,000 times.  You also communicated via letters, emails, and MSN Messenger.  You each had multiple telephone numbers you used to contact each other, and you supplied the complainant with mobile phones and SIM cards, encouraging her to delete any messages she sent or received, and advising her to change her phone provider to Optus, as they stored data for the shortest period.

6As the emotional relationship developed, you and the complainant began to become more physically involved, hugging and kissing and “grinding”: that is, mutually pressing against each other’s genitals whilst clothed.

7Charge 6 on the indictment, sexual penetration of a child under 16, related to an occasion which occurred in the complainant’s bedroom.  The two of you would meet at her home during the day when her parents were at work, either when the complainant skipped school as a sick day or had a student-free day and when your roster allowed.  On the occasion underlying Charge 6, you performed oral sex on the complainant as she lay on her bed with her thighs on your shoulders.  You licked her clitoris, and your tongue penetrated the external genitalia of the vagina.  There were discussions between the two of you about having penile/vaginal intercourse, which the complainant did not want to do; you indicating you wanted to have sex with her in this way when she was ready.  On some occasions at the complainant’s house the two of you got close to having sex, but you told the complainant you should not do so as she was 15 and it was her bed.

8Charge 7 related to an occasion at the complainant’s home when you performed oral sex on her – this being led as other misconduct evidence – and then penetrated her vagina with your penis.  You did not fully penetrate her vagina, but the knob of your penis did enter it, causing her pain and bleeding.  This was one of the last sexual incidents between you.  At the time of this offending, you were having marriage difficulties, which you spoke to the complainant about.  You proposed to her by SMS and gave her a ring, which the complainant subsequently threw into a river.

9On other occasions you told the complainant that if the relationship between you was ever discovered you would have to quit the police force, and things would be worse for you as a police officer than a civilian.  You also told her you would deny everything and fight any allegations.

10On 20 June 2010 the complainant’s father saw a naked photograph the complainant had taken of herself on her mobile phone to send to you and confiscated her phone.  The complainant’s mother also confronted her about the amount of phone contact she was having with you, as shown in the telephone bill for the home phone.  Around this time, you arranged to give the complainant a second passport application via a friend, Amelia Rule[1], leaving the application at Amelia Rule’s house.

[1]        A pseudonym.

11On 21 June 2010 you went to the complainant’s school, meeting her at the front gate and giving her a third passport application to complete and a new mobile phone.  Another friend of the complainant’s, Rylie Kovic[2], waited with the complainant at the gate and saw you arrive.

[2]        A pseudonym.

12Rylie Kovic and Amelia Rule became concerned about the complainant’s relationship with you and told their mothers; the complainant having told both of them and another friend, Sara Soh[3], of her relationship with you and some of the things you had done.

[3]        A pseudonym.

13On 22 June 2010, Rylie Kovic, Amelia Rule, and Amelia Rule’s mother spoke to the principal of the school they all attended and told him of their concerns.  The principal subsequently relayed those concerns to complainant’s parents.  They then spoke to the complainant, and the principal reported the matter to police, as required by mandatory reporting laws.

14You and the complainant continued communicating after the school and her parents became aware of your contact.  The complainant’s mother caught her speaking to you on the phone on 23 June 2010, and the next day with another mobile phone you had given her.  You last had contact with the complainant on 14 and 15 July 2010 when you emailed her from Croatia.

15At the trial you faced five other charges of offending which, due to the requirements pursuant to the extradition order by which you were brought back to Australia from Bosnia, necessitated the prosecution prove the alleged dates of offending beyond reasonable doubt, which it conceded it could not do, and of which you were then acquitted by direction.

16The maximum penalty for sexual penetration of a child under 16 is 10 years imprisonment.  The standard sentencing scheme does not apply, and you do not fall to be sentenced as a serious sexual offender.  You have no prior convictions.

Personal Circumstances

17I now turn to your personal circumstances.

18You are 52 years old, the eldest of three boys born to your parents, who migrated to Australia from Croatia in the 1960s.  You continue to enjoy the support of your brothers.  Your parents worked in factories.    You now have a strained relationship with your parents because of this prosecution, conviction and incarceration.

19You completed Year 12, where you socialised normally and were an average student.  You then completed a four-year fitter and turner apprenticeship, working at the Ford factory, where you continued to work for a further five years after completing your trade qualifications.  You disliked working at Ford, leaving when you became entitled to long service leave, and took up work as a croupier at Crown Casino.

20You married in 1993 and have a son and a daughter.  Your wife, who is a qualified draftsperson, remains supportive of you.

21Returning to your history, your work as a croupier involving shift work at a time when your son was born, and was physically punishing.  You then applied to the police force, completing your final exam soon after your daughter was born in April 2001.  You worked as a police officer until 13 June 2010 when you resigned.

22Your counsel informed me that you began work as a trainee constable at Sunshine Police Station in general duties, where you remained for about two years.  You apparently found the work tough and frightening.  You then transferred to Werribee Police Station on general duties, which was a similar environment, although not quite as difficult as at Sunshine.  You then joined the prosecution team at Sunshine Magistrates’ Court, and then Geelong.

23You then transferred to general duties in Werribee, where you obtained a Leading Senior Constable position.  At this time your family was building a home in the area.  You found this work difficult, involving a lot of domestic violence and emotionally complicated work with members of the public, which affected your mental health.  You worked at Werribee Police Station general duties in 2008 and 2009, transferring to the Operations Response Unit in March 2010.  This, your counsel told me, involved a more straightforward engagement with the public, providing a presence on the street, and was less emotionally fraught than your previous work.  However, it also involved regular deployments to various places around Victoria, so that you were often away from your family.

24Your counsel informed me that you dealt with the work difficulties you encountered by withdrawing emotionally, rather than talking about them to your wife or seeking therapeutic help. This affected your relationship, and she said you became paranoid about whether your wife still loved you.

25You withdrew even further, ultimately seeking solace for your emotional distress in multiple extramarital affairs with other adult women.  Your counsel, Ms Connelly, said this all occurred in the context of you being frightened at work, not able to discuss this with anyone, internalising it, becoming emotional and needy, withdrawing as a result, and not seeking any treatment, but instead turning to extramarital affairs.

26It was in this context, she said, that you allowed yourself to be flattered by the attentions of the complainant.  She said you would spend hours on the phone with the complainant, drawing some sense of self-esteem from her admiration.  Matters became worse and worse between your wife and yourself, until your mother became aware of the strains in your marriage and paid for you, your wife, and two children to have a holiday in Croatia, which lasted from 22 June to 28 September 2010.  This apparently gave you time together, and you were finally able to talk to your wife about your behaviour, and the two of you began restoring your relationship.

27You were arrested at the airport on your return from Croatia on 28 September 2010, served with an IVO, and released.  You attended on police for a record of interview by appointment, and on 10 May 2011 attended for a forensic procedure in relation to a scar from an operation which was described by the complainant to police.  You last worked as a police officer on 13 June 2010, and after a period of rec days and leave, during which time you tendered your resignation, it became effective from 10 October 2010.

28You then returned to work as a fitter and turner on a contract basis for a company which conducted oil refinery shutdowns.  This was intense work for short periods of time, and very well paid.  You also worked delivering bakery products, which you enjoyed as peaceful work requiring little contact with the public.  You continued in this work until January 2013, when you moved to Croatia with your son, who is apparently a talented soccer player and who was offered a position with a Croatian soccer team on a professional basis. Where you lived until 13 October 2018.  You essentially lived with and supported your son, who played with his club in Croatia and across Europe, until 13 October 2018, and did not otherwise work during that time.

29You were arrested in Bosnia on 13 October 2018, where you had crossed the border in order to attend a funeral with your wife.  As a Croatian-born national you were unable to be extradited from Croatia; however, this did not apply once you were in Bosnia.

30You were then placed at Zenica Prison in Bosnia for 99 days.  This was a period of extraordinary hardship for you.  Zenica Prison is infamous as one of the world’s worst prisons.  Local media publicity around your arrest, which revealed your former occupation as a police officer and the charges you faced involving sexual offending against a child.  You were placed in the mainstream prison, where you were subjected to such persistent violence to the point that you twice tried to commit suicide by hanging.  Ultimately, to protect yourself, you simply isolated yourself in your cell but where you continued to be tormented by your cellmate.

31Eventually you were extradited back to Australia, where you were held in the observation cells at the Melbourne Assessment Prison.  You were granted bail on 25 January 2019 and were released on an inpatient assessment order by Forensicare to Barwon Hospital for psychiatric treatment.  You were released that day.

32You then returned to live at the family home with your wife and daughter, and your son returned from Croatia also to live with you and your family.  Your wife has continued to work as a draftsperson; however, you, due to your fragile mental state, were unable to work until January this year, when you began working as a driver at Uber Eats, using your own car.

Psychological Material

33On your release from custody, you began attending on treating psychologist Suzanna Copp, from whom I received two reports.  The first covered her treatment of you from February to March 2019.  She diagnosed you at that time as suffering both Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and a Major Depressive Disorder, which she attributed to your traumatic experiences within Zenica Prison.

34In a second report, dated 3 May 2023, she noted you had attended psychological therapy with her on 33 occasions between 8 April 2020 and 17 October 2022.  Ms Copp administered both cognitive behavioural therapy and trauma-informed therapy, including Eye Movement Desensitisation and Reprocessing (EMDR).  She stated:

“Mr Didulica has been consistently engaged in therapy with a clear motivation to manage symptoms and find relief whilst waiting on closure/‌completion of the case.  The alleviation of his anxiety and depression was minimal with significant exacerbations resulting from the length of the legal proceedings and related uncertainty.  The onerousness delays in the legal proceedings (including COVID) maintained Mr Didulica’s poor psychological state – delays which were out of his control.  The adverse effects of this include a sustained sense of anguish and anxiety to such an extent that Mr Didulica’s functional capacity was compromised, and he was unable to work; life for him was on hold.  This period of time could be perceived in and of itself as punishment.”

35She said that on 17 October 2022 you presented with symptomatology pertaining to a diagnosis of a Major Depressive Disorder and Anxiety Disorder not otherwise specified.  She said that the symptoms associated with PTSD had decreased but your anxiety had remained high; the anxiety and depression both being secondary to your PTSD triggered by your experiences from your time in Zenica Prison.  You had expressed suicidal ideation in that time.

36It was her view that further incarceration was likely to retrigger past trauma, and that subsequent re‑emergence of PTSD was likely.  She stated:

“Re-incarceration will require Mr Didulica’s mental state to be closely monitored ... due to the likelihood of a relapse in his PTSD.  He will require psychological treatment and support as well as protection whilst in prison, due to the charges and the lengthy time he served as a policeman.”

37She concluded that your mental disorder meant that you would be significantly vulnerable with any further incarceration.

Delay

38There has been significant delay in this matter.  Whilst on holiday in 2010 in Croatia, you received a call from police advising you they were conducting a search on your house in relation to allegations by the complainant.  You last had contact with police in so far as their investigation was concerned in May 2011.  At that time you were apparently advised you would not be hearing from police again.

39The prosecutor informed me that following the forensic examination the investigation stalled for about a year and could provide no satisfactory explanation for this.  The case was then reallocated on 11 April 2012.  Eight months later, on 3 July 2012, a statement was obtained from the complainant’s parents.  On 21 June 2012 the file was taken over by another investigator.  On 11 July 2012 your medical records were obtained.  On 30 August 2012 the file was handed over to another investigator.  On 5 March 2013 police discovered you had again gone overseas to accompany your son.

40A brief was prepared by 1 June 2014.  An Interpol Red Notice was eventually issued but was unable to be acted upon because you were a Croatian citizen and could not be brought back to Australia pursuant to extradition proceedings.  You were unaware of this or that police had continued to investigate the complainants’ allegations. Indeed, you had been told by police in 2011 that they did not expect to have contact with you again and you believed the matter had resolved.

41There was a further delay once you were returned to Australia.

42You arrived back here on 21 January 2019 and were granted bail on 25 January 2019.  Committal mentions in April, May and June were adjourned firstly to facilitate plea discussions, and then to address funding issues.

43On 24 June 2019 the matter was listed for a contested committal on 25 November of that year.

44Eventually, on 26 November 2019, the committal proceeded by way of straight hand‑up brief and you entered a plea of not guilty.  On 27 November 2019, at an initial directions hearing, a trial date was fixed for 1 March 2021.

45Ultimately, on 27 November 2020, the trial date was vacated and relisted to 11 October 2021.  Witnesses were examined at a section 198B hearing, and then the trial date was vacated due to lockdown conditions.

46On 7 and 8 March 2022 two days of pre-trial argument were heard before his Honour Judge Lacava of this Court.  A pre-trial ruling was delivered on 15 March, and a new trial date of 16 March 2022 was listed.  On that date the trial was adjourned to 21 March 2022, to allow discussions to resolve outstanding pre-trial issues.

47On 21 March 2022 the Court was advised you had tested positive for COVID and the trial was adjourned until 29 March 2022, but on that date you were unwell and the trial was unable to proceed and was adjourned to 29 August 2022.

48The trial was then further adjourned to commence on 1 September 2022 due to defence counsel unavailability.  A trial was then heard before Judge Lacava between 1 and 9 September but was aborted due to a media issue on 9 September 2022.

49Ultimately the trial before me was held between 2 and 17 March 2023.

Victim Impact Statement

50I now turn to the victim impact statement.

51In her victim impact statement, which she read to the Court, the complainant said she continues to suffer guilt at the stresses the case brought on her family, stating:

“They have lived under a cloud in relation to what I have gone through.”

52The complainant had to move schools as a result of the offending becoming known there and suffered also from the response of her community.  She said that it was very important in her community to have a name of good reputation, and that she felt the community blamed her for bringing shame on her family name, and as a result she was not able to continue with things she loved within the community “as I was slandered and bullied everywhere I went”.  She was instructed throughout the investigation process not to speak about the offending with her family, so could not talk about how she felt and what she was going through, which made her feel isolated and shut off.  She stated:

“My innocence was taken from me; I was forced to grow up a lot earlier than I needed to and was exposed to things that no young teenager should be exposed to.  For a long time, my idea of somebody that was a father and a father figure/authority was warped by the offender.”

53She said she turned to smoking, drinking and other substances, in order to numb a feeling of being different and broken and damaged.  She stated:

“I was left to deal with the shame and blame for over ten years.  I had to deal with the rumours I was hearing back that I was a homewrecker.”

54She lost her school friends and felt “watched and talked about all my adolescent life”.

55The complainant said she now has two daughters, but fears people taking advantage of them, and lacks trust in people with authority such as teachers and police.  She stated:

“It cripples me with anxiety, the thought of leaving with them with someone that has a duty of care to protect.”

56The complainant said that as a result of being exposed to sexual abuse when she was so young, she never had the chance to “develop a healthy understanding of what a sexual relationship should be in a trusting relationship”.

57It is clear from the victim impact statement that the complainant continues to suffer the emotional fallout the Court so often sees in young adolescent girls who have entered into a sexual relationship with a much older, mature adult man, which you were, while far too immature to handle the emotional and physical impacts of such a relationship. Superior courts have made it clear that in such situations a presumption of harm to the victim exists.

Submissions

58The prosecution submitted this was serious offending involving a then 38-year-old adult man and a 14-year-old adolescent girl. The prosecutor submitted that your previous good character should not be taken into account as a mitigatory factor if I was satisfied that pursuant to s5AA of the Sentencing Act that good character played a part in your ability to have a sexual relationship with the complainant. He made no submissions in relation to this point; however, stating that this was a matter for the Court.

59The prosecutor also submitted that the other five charges the subject of a directed acquittal could be used by the Court to conclude that they did occur and then be used as context for the offending of which you were found guilty. 

60Mr Danos, for the prosecution, conceded the prosecution could not argue against the effects of delay on you and the extra curial punishment suffered by you as a result being placed in Zeneca Prison. He also conceded that limbs 5 and 6 of Verdins[4] had application in your case: that is, that prison was likely to be more difficult an experience for you because of your psychological conditions, and that those conditions were likely to be worsened by a term of imprisonment.  He stated that the prosecution conceded that external events had a greater than usual part to play in the sentencing exercise to be undertaken in this case.

[4]The Queen v Verdins (2007) 16 VR 269

61Ms Connelly, for the defence, conceded that the only appropriate response to this offending was a term of imprisonment involving both a maximum and minimum term.  She submitted that delay in this matter, which in effect was a delay of 13 years after the offending, was a significant mitigating feature in this case.  She submitted under the heading of ‘Unfairness’ that there was a serious incongruity between the assertion of the seriousness of the offending and the need for general deterrence principles to be applied in such cases and the failure of police to pursue this matter in a timely fashion following the complainant’s complaint.  In the 13 years, she said you had reordered your life and had not offended again.  Ms Connelly submitted the delay had resulted in additional anxiety for you, as following the forensic procedure in 2011 you reasonably thought there would be no prosecution and went about reordering your life.

62She submitted that since your arrest on 13 October 2018 you lived in the shadow of a trial and the prospect of imprisonment and faced the anxiety of an imminent trial three times before your trial concluded.  She submitted the anxiety and depression directly related to delay were clinically significant and debilitating.

63Ms Connelly also pointed to the rehabilitation you had received in the 13 years since this offending and submitted that fairness required that weight be given to your rehabilitation and your being left in a state of uncertain suspense for a protracted period.  She submitted that in this case delay was a powerful mitigatory factor which allowed a degree of leniency that would otherwise be undue, relating in particular to delay by the prosecution rather than a delay in complaint by the complainant herself.

64Ms Connelly submitted your time in Zenica Prison was particularly difficult, both because of the conditions of the jail, which were primitive, and because your status as a police officer and alleged child sex offender were widely known as a result of media reporting.  You have been assessed by Ms Copp as suffering PTSD and a Major Depressive Disorder directly as a result of your experiences at Zenica Prison.  That trauma was exacerbated by the delay in this matter.

65While now being held in Hopkins Prison you are working five days a week.  You consult a psychiatric nurse fortnightly and take an anti-depressant medication.  You are unable to take melatonin for sleep because it must be administered before lockdown at 4pm, which has the effect of inducing sleep only between 5pm and midnight.  You therefore do not take this medication. You are visited by your wife and children.

66Ms Connelly submitted that in so far as rehabilitation, specific deterrence, and community protection were concerned, you have no other prior convictions, and have the protective factor of ongoing support by your family, comprising your wife, children, and brothers.  She submitted that in the circumstances, specific deterrence and community protection were matters of lesser weight.

67Ms Connelly also referred the Court to several cases involving sentencing for sexual penetration of children under the age of 16, to which I have had regard.

Conclusions

68I accept the offending in this matter is serious, involving as it did a significant age discrepancy between yourself and the then 14-year-old complainant, and I am satisfied that your offending against her has had a significant ongoing negative effect upon her.  It is clear from the authorities that general deterrence is the primary principle to which a court must have regard in sentencing in such case.

69I do note that the trial was conducted on the basis of an admitted inappropriate romantic relationship between yourself and the complainant, but that the acts of alleged sexual penetration were denied.  The fact that you denied the offending means that you have shown no remorse in this matter but it is not an aggravating factor in this sentencing exercise.

70In so far as the issue of good character is concerned, I am not satisfied that this played any particular role in your capacity to carry out the offending. Rather, it would seem, the friendship that existed between your families, and the complainant’s own immaturity which led her to be flattered by your attentions towards her, were the most prominent features surrounding the formation of this inappropriate relationship. Again, I note the prosecution did not urge that I should discount your good character pursuant to s5AA, submitting only that it was a matter for the Court.

71There was no dispute that the only way in which I can sentence you is by way of a term of imprisonment to be immediately served and comprising a maximum and minimum term.

72I am satisfied offences 1 to 5, which were subject to a directed acquittal, can serve as context for the offending of which you have been found guilty, but may not be treated by me as an aggravating feature, the requirement being their proof beyond reasonable doubt, of which in the circumstances I cannot be satisfied.

73I am satisfied that the extracurial punishment you have suffered in the process of being charged and brought to trial has been more than ordinarily severe.

74There is no evidence that you lived in Croatia between 2013 to 2018 for any reason other than to support your son’s soccer career.  That you should have been arrested in Bosnia and then subjected to the hardships that you were in Zenica Prison, such that you twice sought to commit suicide, and then, I am satisfied on the psychological material, developed a reactive Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and Major Depressive Disorder which are ongoing despite significant psychological therapeutic treatment, I regard as a particularly severe examples of the effects of external circumstances not of your making, and additional to any punishment this Court may impose. In my view there should therefore be a significant discount in the sentence I impose which would not otherwise be warranted in cases of this kind.

75Further, I am satisfied that the delay in this matter has been extraordinary.  I accept that the 13‑year delay arose from the slow process in the prosecution of this matter, rather than the more ordinary cause of delay in cases of this kind where there has been a delay in complaint.  There was a further delay in the prosecution of this matter once you had been arrested and charged, due to the lockdown conditions arising from the COVID pandemic.  These delays were entirely due to external forces beyond your control, and I regard as proper the prosecution concession that those external events should have a greater than usual part to play in the sentencing exercise before me.

76The effects of the delay have been serious.  The delay in coming to trial, I am satisfied, has had an exacerbating effect upon the serious mental health conditions you developed as a result of your imprisonment at Zenica Prison.  Your resultant fragile mental health, I am satisfied, was worsened by this delay, and the cause of much suffering by you.

77I am further satisfied that in those 13 years you have undergone substantial rehabilitation, particularly in the restoration and maintenance of your marriage, your involvement with your family, your engagement in appropriate employment, and the fact that you have not offended in any way in the substantial period of time that has elapsed since this offending occurred.

78I regard your prospects of rehabilitation to be most positive, and, in the light of that, the need to attend to principles of community protection and specific deterrence falls away.

79I am also satisfied that the serious psychological conditions you suffer are such that a term of imprisonment is likely to be more difficult for you than for a prisoner not suffering such conditions, and that the psychological conditions are also likely to be worsened by a further term of imprisonment.

80Further your former occupation as a police officer means you will need to be held in protective custody for the entirety of your term which brings its own restrictions, and that fact will also cause you greater anxiety and fear in relation to other prisoners. 

81In all the circumstances, I therefore propose to impose a term of imprisonment with a minimum term which is significantly less than would otherwise be the case, because of what I regard as the unique features surrounding the process leading to your conviction on the two charges for which I must now sentence you.

82I therefore sentence you as follows.

83On Charge 6 you are sentenced to two years’ imprisonment

84On Charge 7 you are sentenced to two years’ imprisonment.

85I order that 12 months of the sentence imposed on Charge 7 be served cumulatively to the sentence imposed on Charge 6 giving a total effective sentence of three years. I order you serve a minimum term of 16 months before becoming eligible for parole.

86As I have said you have undergone uniquely severe extra-curial punishment, that is, punishment outside this court in additional to this sentence of imprisonment and may suffer the psychological effects of it for much of your life. Further, these charges represent the only offending you have ever engaged in, and in the 13 years since you have lived a responsible and prosocial life. In my view you present no threat to the community. In sentencing you, I in no way condone this serious offending or the damage you inflicted on the complainant but take into account a combination of external circumstances rarely encountered.

87I declare that 196 days of the sentence has been served by way of pre-sentence detention. As required by the provisions of the Sex Offender’s Registration Act 2004, you will be registered  for life.