Director of Public Prosecutions v Doherty
[2025] VCC 1008
•16 July 2025
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA AT MELBOURNE | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
CR 24-00275
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| PHILLIP WAYNE DOHERTY |
---
JUDGE: | HIS HONOUR JUDGE DEMPSEY | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 24 February 2025, 19 June 2025 | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 16 July 2025 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Doherty | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2025] VCC 1008 | |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Subject:CRIMINAL LAW - sentencing
Catchwords: Multiple charges of sexual penetration of a child under 12, breach of SORA obligations, child abuse material offending, relevant criminal history, plea of guilty, victim impact, terminal illness of a victim, mental health, psychological assessment of the accused, Verdins application, Bugmy considerations, standard sentencing regime, rolled-up charges, representative charges, serious offender provisions, comparative case collection, statistical data, age of offender, crushing sentence, cumulation, totality.
Legislation Cited: Sex Offenders Registration Act 2004, Serious Sex Offenders (Detention and Supervision) Act 2009, Serious Offenders Act 2018, Sentencing Act 1991.
Cases Cited:DPP v Doherty [2016] VCC 639; Fichtner v The Queen [2019] VSCA 297; Clarkson v The Queen [2011] VSCA 157; McPherson v The Queen [2014] VSCA 59; Garside v The Queen (2016) 50 VR 800; De Leeuw v The Queen [2015] NSWCCA 183; Chenhall v The Queen [2021] VSCA 175; McPherson [2021] VSCA 53; Brown v The Queen (2019) 59 VR 462; DPP v Conos [2021] VSCA 367; Gordon v The Queen [2013] VSCA 343; DPP v Patil (a pseudonym) [2020] VSCA 337; DPP v Arnold [2021] VCC 1943; McPherson v The Queen [2021] VSCA 53; Tobin (a pseudonym) v The Queen [2021] VSCA 180; DPP v Sutcliffe [2024] VSCA 63; Director of Public Prosecutions v Dalgliesh (a pseudonym) [2017] HCA 41; DPP v Roe (a pseudonym) [2025] VCC 533; DPP v Purcell (a pseudonym) [2020] VCC 757; DPP v Greene (a pseudonym) [2023] VCC 942; The Queen v Kilic [2016] HCA 48; Kamal v The Queen [2021] VSCA 27; Director of Public Prosecutions v Tewksbury (a pseudonym) [2018] A Crim R 205; DPP v Herrmann [2021] VSCA 160; Bugmy v the Queen [2013] 249 CLR 571; Verdins [2007] VSCA 102; Stewart v The Queen [2015] VSCA 368; Dennis v The Queen [2017] VSCA 251; R v Imadonmwonyi [2008] VSCA 135; DPP v O'Neill [2015] VSCA 325; 47 VR 395; R v Zakaria (1984) 12 A Crim R 386; Long [2025] VSCA 15; R v Gregory [2000] VSCA 212; Cobiac v Liddy (1967) 119 CLR 257; Crowley v The Queen (1991) 55 A Crim R 201; R v Beck [2005] VSCA 11; R v Zaydan [2004] VSCA 245; Gill v The Queen [2019] VSCA 92; Barbaro v The Queen (2012) 226 A Crim R 354; Kerbatieh 395; R v Cumberbatch (2004) 8 VR 9; R v Whyte (2004) 7 VR 397; Vaitos v The Queen (1981) 4 A Crim R 238; R v Kerbatieh (2005) 155 A Crim R 367; Power v The Queen (1974) 131 CLR 623; [1974] HCA 26.
Sentence: TES: 14 years and nine months imprisonment, with a minimum term of 11 years and three months imprisonment before being eligible for parole.
PSD: 639 days pre-sentence detention reckoned as served.
6AAA: 17 years and eight months imprisonment, with a minimum term of 14 years and six months before being eligible for parole.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Director of Public Prosecutions | Ms M. Arceri (Plea) | Office of Public Prosecutions |
| Ms A. Liantzakis (Further plea and Sentence) | ||
| For the Accused | Mr J. Brancato | Gallant Law |
HIS HONOUR:
Introduction
1Phillip Doherty, you have committed 20 offences, half of them actively sexual in nature and all of which occurred whilst you were subject to the conditions of the Sex Offenders Registration Act, otherwise known as SORA.
2All of the offending occurred within a period between 19 July 2023 and 26 September 2023, with the exception of Charge 20, which is a SORA breach, which occurred years ago on 14 July 2015.
3There are five separate primary victims in total, being Casey Stanley,[1] then eight,[2] Nancy Stanley,[3] then 10,[4] Joanne Stanely,[5] then 12,[6] Kristin Stanley,[7] 14,[8] and Kathy Stanley,[9] 15.[10]
[1] A pseudonym.
[2]Casey Stanley was born in 2015.
[3] A pseudonym.
[4]Nancy Stanley was born in 2012.
[5] A pseudonym.
[6]Joanne Stanely was born in 2011.
[7] A pseudonym.
[8]Kristin Stanley was born in 2008.
[9] A pseudonym.
[10]Kathy Stanley was born in 2007.
The charges and penalties
4Your offending is set out in the following way. You have pleaded to Charge 1, failure to comply with the reporting obligations, 11 July 23 to 24 Sept 23 by having contact with Lindsey Stanely.[11] That carries a maximum of five years.
[11] A pseudonym.
5Charge 2 is the same charge with the same date range but this time relates to contact with Kathy. It has the same maximum.
6Charge 3 is the same charge with the same date range and the same maximum. This relates to contact with Kristin.
7Charge 4, same charge, same date range, same maximum, relating to contact with Joanne.
8Charge 5, same charge, same date range, same maximum, contact with Nancy.
9Charge 6, same charge, same date range, same maximum, contact with Casey.
10Charge 7, same charge, same date range, same maximum, contact with Russell Stanley.[12]
[12] A pseudonym.
11Charge is failing to comply with your reporting obligations under SORA on 10 September 2023, namely fail to report a change of address. That has a maximum penalty of five years.
12Charge 9 is sexual penetration of a child under 12 between 21 July and 26 September 23, the penetration of Casey namely be penetrating her vagina with your finger. That is a charge that is punishable by 25 years' imprisonment. It is a category 1 offence, it is a standard sentence offence of 10 years and it is a serious sexual offence for the purposes of the Act.
13Charge 10 sexual assault of a child under 16 between 21 July 2023 and 26 September 23 by licking Casey Stanley's nipples while in her bed. This carries a maximum penalty of 10 years. It is a category 1 offence, it is a standard sentence of four years and it is also a serious sexual offender offence.
14Charge 11, sexual penetration of a child under 12 between 21 July 2023 and 26 September 2023, penetrating Casey Stanley's vagina with your finger whilst in her bed, again 25-year maximum, category 1 offence, standard sentence of 10 years. Serious offender provision applies.
15Charge 12, sexual assault of a child under 16 between 21 July and 26 September 2023, rubbing your fingers between Casey Stanley's buttocks while in her bed. This carries a maximum penalty of 10 years' imprisonment. It is a category 1 offence, it is a standard sentence of four years and it is a serious sexual offender offence.
16Charge 13, Sexual penetration of a child under 12 between 21 July to 26 September 2023 by penetrating Casey’s vagina with your finger. This carries a maximum penalty of 25 years, it is a category 1 offence. It has a standard sentence of 10 years and it is a serious sexual offender offence.
17Charge 14 is failing to comply with SORA, namely by failing to provide details of eight various usernames and internet names on 19 July 2023. This carries a maximum penalty of five years.
18Charge 15 is produce child abuse material on 19 July 2023. This carries with it a maximum penalty of 10 years' imprisonment and is a serious sexual offender offence.
19Charge 16 is sexual assault of a child under 16 between 21 July and 26 September 2023 by rubbing Nancy Stanley genital region under her clothing. This carries a maximum penalty of 10 years. It is a standard sentence of four years. It is a serious sexual offence.
20Charge 17, sexual assault of a child under 16 between 21 July and 26 September 2023, rubbing Joanne Stanley’s back, stomach and upper thighs while lying in her bed, at least twice. This is a representative charge, as was the previous charge. It carries a maximum penalty of 10 years' imprisonment, is a standard sentence of four years and it is a serious sexual offence.
21Charge 18, sexual assault of a child under 16 between 21 July and 26 September 2023, kissing Kristin Stanley on the lips two times. This is a representative charge. It carries a maximum of 10 years' imprisonment. It is a standard sentence of four years, it is a serious sexual offence.
22Charge 19, sexual assault of a child under 16 between 2 July 19 July 2023 using force to turn Kathy Stanley face towards you and kissing her on the lips three to four times. This is a representative charge, carries with it 10 years' imprisonment as a maximum. It is a serious sexual offence and it has a standard sentence of four years.
23Finally Charge 20, failure to comply with reporting conditions under SORA, on 14 July 2015 by having contact with Lindsay Stanley. This carries with it a penalty not exceeding five years.
24By the sheer number and nature of charges and victims alone one could discern that these are serious offences, but that does not do the full picture justice. As will be seen, your offending represents one of the most egregious breaches of trust one could imagine. Moreover, you are a serious offender whose offending has only escalated in gravity as you approach your 70s. Your prospects for reform are bleak.
25Your counsel, in a well-considered and realistic plea, conceded that there is very little that can be said in mitigation in this matter. Heavy reliance was placed on your dysfunctional upbringing, your plea of guilty and the need to avoid imposing a crushing sentence upon you.
26Having regard to the relevant matters concerning both the offending and you as an offender, and implementing the various statutory and other sentencing considerations, you will be sentenced to a total effective sentence of 14 years and nine months' imprisonment with non-parole period of 11 years and three months. My reasons for imposing a sentence of that duration that is structured in that way follow. I will commence with the matters relevant to the offending.
Matters relevant to the offending [13]
[13]Taken from Exhibit A: Summary of Prosecution Opening dated 23 January 2025, which was an agreed statement of facts.
27You were born on in June 1956. You were 67 years of age at the time of the offending and living notionally with your sister in Wheelers Hill. You have just turned 69.
SORA obligations
28On 27 November 2009 you were sentenced in the County Court for sex offences, that were mostly child pornography and grooming related. You were sentenced then to five years with a non-parole period of two and a half years. As a result of these convictions, you were registered as a sex offender under Sex Offenders Registration Act 2004 (SORA) with the reporting period being for the rest of your life.
29One of the conditions and obligations of being registered as an offender is to report to police within seven days of being released from custody and also for annual interviews, where you are reminded of your obligations, conditions of the order and restrictions attaching to the registration. At both the initial and annual interviews you were required to sign an acknowledgment that you received the relevant notices setting out your obligations and conditions attached to the order. There is no suggestion that you did not understand what was required of you under SORA.
30On 2 July 2014 you were released from custody having served the above sentence. On 14 July 2015 an annual review was conducted and during that interview you did not report any contact with children.
31On 18 May 2016 you were again sentenced in this court, this time by Deputy Chief Judge Sexton.[14] Again you were sentenced principally for child pornography and grooming type offences, with the added dimension that you admitted a number of offences relating to breach of a supervision order made under Serious Sex Offenders (Detention and Supervision) Act2009, known as the acronym SSODSA,[15] which had been imposed on you on 16 September 2015.
[14]DPP v Doherty [2016] VCC 639, which I have had regard to. There were also reports from Ms Matthews in February 2016 and Ms Uren in 2013 referenced in that sentence that I have read, though they are now quite dated of and of lesser utility here.
[15]Since repealed, now the Serious Offenders Act2018.
32On 26 June 2023 you were released from prison, having served the entirety of the head sentence of seven years and 20 days for those offences.
33As per your reporting obligations under the SORA, on 28 June 2023 you attended the Box Hill police station for interview. At this time you were provided with a copy of the notice of reporting obligations under SORA.
34At this time you signed the document, acknowledging that you understood your obligations. Significantly, part of the reporting conditions required you to notify your compliance manager of the Sex Offender's Registry of any contact with children not previously reported within 24 hours of such contact.
35As I understand it, after you were sentenced by Deputy Chief Judge Sexton in May 2016 no further application was made to have you placed on a supervision order under SSODSA or its legislative successor.
36Consequently, upon your release from prison in June of 2023, having served more than seven years in prison, there was no active monitoring, supervision or mandated treatment imposed on you. You offended within weeks of release.
Offending against Stanley children
Charges 9 to 13 and 16 to 19 inclusive
37You first met the mother of all of the victims, Alison Lawson,[16] in either 2014 or 2015, having befriended the children's father, Steve Stanley.[17]
[16] A pseudonym.
[17] A pseudonym.
38Between 2015 and 2023, you sent birthday and Christmas presents to all of the children and would have telephone contact with them and Ms Lawson.
39Ms Lawson at this time was aware you were in prison but did not know what offences you had been sentenced for, believing it was for fraud or something in connection with a photograph of a niece wearing bathers.
40In May 2021 Ms Lawson and Mr Stanley separated.
41On 2 July 2023, which is to say about a week after your release from prison, you attended the victims' home in Harkness. You were thereafter a regular visitor to the address from this time onwards and assisted Ms Lawson in taking the children to and from school, to social outings such as to the zoo or bowling.
42And at this time Ms Lawson was understandably appreciative of your assistance. She was a single mother of six young children but, not only that, at that time Joanne was undergoing treatment for a brain tumour. The treatment required Joanne to be admitted to the Royal Children's Hospital and Ms Lawson would stay overnight with her terminally ill daughter. On those occasions you would stay overnight at the family home.
43You would also help Ms Lawson with delivering or packing up equipment associated with her party hire business whilst she was with Joanne at the hospital. On occasions the other children would also assist you with this task.
44The children referred to you as 'Uncle Phil', as testament to the way in which they viewed you.
45The first time you stayed overnight at the family home was on 21 July 2023, that is to stay within a month of your release. You of course did not report this to SORA, nor did you accurately or truthfully report any other contact with the Stanely children.
46Ms Lawson had directed you that you were to sleep on the lounge room couch or on a mattress in the lounge room when she was away.
Offending against Casey Stanley
47Casey, only eight, recalls that on an occasion between 21 July and 26 September 2023 when you were staying over at her house she was in her bed on her side and you were in the middle. She recalls her siblings Joanne, Nancy and Russell were also in the room and they were watching TV. After her siblings fell asleep, you started touching her arms and legs.
48On the second night you were again in her bed. You touched her vagina under her pants and underwear, rubbing up and down using two of your fingers with your fingers penetrating her vagina. This is Charge 9, sexual penetration of a child under 12.
49As well as touching and penetrating her vagina, you also rubbed your two fingers in between Casey’s buttocks, an uncharged act.
50In the morning when she woke up, she took off her shirt and started - and you started licking her nipples, Charge 10, sexual assault of a child under 16.
51Casey can recall the last time the sexual offending occurred was the day after you had taken her bowling. On this occasion she was in the bed with Nancy, Russell and Joanne. She recalls you started touching her body, including her arms, legs and bottom. You also touched the inside of her vagina with your fingers, Charge 11, sexual penetration of a child under 12.
52During this occasion you also used your fingers to rub in between her buttocks, Charge 12, sexual assault of a child under 16.
53She recalls a third occasion where you sexually penetrated her vagina with your fingers. This occurred again in her bed, but this time only Nancy was in the bed with her. Casey recalls that you were lying in between her and Nancy and you started touching her legs, arms and vagina. She recalls that you rubbed the inside of her vagina with two fingers, describing it as hard. Charge 13, sexual penetration of a child under 12.
54She also recalls on this occasion that you touched her 'bum' as well, which is an uncharged act.
Offending against Nancy Stanley
55Nancy, then aged 10, recalls receiving cards from you for Christmas and a birthday and also that you would draw her pictures. She recalls seeing you after a few years, in about August of 2023, when you would come by the home. She recalls going bowling with you about five times with Casey, Russell and Joanne and taking her to sport. She also recalls you helping her mother with her party hire business and going alone with you on some occasions to help.
56During the period 21 July to 26 September 2023 she thinks you would have taken care of her and her siblings probably five times a week. She recalls that if you spent the night you would get into bed with her and Casey, which made her feel uncomfortable.
57On some occasions at night while in bed with her you would use her hand and fingers to touch her on her vagina, under the underpants, while on others the touching would be over her underpants.
58The last time you touched her on the vagina under the underpants was when the other children were sleeping in her mother's room and she was in her bed with you and that this was the last time she saw you. Charge 16, sexual assault of a child under 16, representative charge.
Offending against Joanne Stanley
59Joanne, then 12, made her VARE on 26 October 2023. That is to say about six months before she succumbed to cancer on 22 March 2024. In her VARE she told police that you would take her and her siblings, being Nancy, Casey and Russell, to mini golf and bowling and play games with them at home.
60She said that you had slept over at the family house on occasions, sometimes when her mother slept at a friend's house. Joanne said if you slept with them, referring to herself, Casey, Nancy and Russell, you would 'Like, touch.'
61Joanne told police that you would usually sleep in the bed next to her and cuddle and hold her in one spot. She also said that if you fell asleep first, she would move because she felt uncomfortable.
62Joanne told police that in the bed you would touch her on her stomach and back area, down to the start of her underwear line. This occurred on a number of occasions, Charge 17, sexual assault of a child under 16, representative charge.
63You also touched her on the top of her thighs from behind once, with the touching on her back being the only area that touched her underneath her pajamas. While you were touching her, you would not say anything and it made her feel weird. On two occasions after the touching she got up out of bed and returned to a different spot on the bed.
Offending against Kristin Stanley
64She confirms that you would look after the youngest four children when her mother was busy. She was aware that you would play games with the younger children and that on occasions you slept on the couch, as you lived about an hour away from the house.
65She recalls that you would put your hand on her thigh and rub it on occasions when you were sitting on the chairs in the kitchen. She also recalls that when you would leave their home and she would go to kiss you on the cheek you would turn and kiss her on the lips. She recalls that this occurred a couple of times. This is Charge 18, sexual assault of a child under 16, representative count.
Offending against Kathy Stanley
66Between 2 July to 19 July 2023 Kathy was 15. She recalls that you started coming over to her house in July 2023. About two weeks prior to this time you started messaging her on her mobile phone. Some of your messages implied that you were coming over just to see her and that you could go do stuff together without anyone else. You also sent her messages via Snapchat.
67Kathy recalls you would come to her house almost every day and would stay overnight. You would take her to the shops, school and to soccer training or to games in your car. About a month after the first visit, you would arrive on Friday and stay the whole weekend. Kathy believed that when you slept over you would sleep on the couch.
68She recalls that you would get close to her and try and hug her and that you would try to hold her hand when walking or pick her up and hug her whenever you saw her and these actions made her feel uncomfortable.
69During the period of 2 July to 19 July 2023, when greeting each other and saying goodbye, you would kiss her on the lips about three to four times. You would do this by using your hand to turn her chin so that she was facing you and then you would kiss her. Charge 19, sexual assault of a child under 16, representative charge.
Complaint Evidence
70As a result of information received on 26 September 2023, officers from the child protection service contacted Ms Lawson on 27 September 2023. At the time of the call, Ms Lawson was at the Royal Children's Hospital. As a result of this conversation she first became aware that you were not allowed to be around children.
71The following day, being 28 September 2023, Ms Lawson received a second call from Child Protection officers, who were at her address. During this call, Ms Lawson provided her consent to having her children spoken to by Child Protection officers. Ms Lawson returned home while Child Protections officers were still present. Victoria Police were also notified of the situation.
72After the Child Protection officers left, Casey told her sister Kathy what you had done to her, including that you had penetrated her vagina with your fingers. She was crying and she told her sister what had occurred. Kathy then spoke to Ms Lawson and told her what Casey had said.
73Upon hearing this information, Ms Lawson contacted Child Protection. The following day, police attended.
74Meanwhile, at 1.02 pm on 27 September 2023, that is to say the very day Child Protection had informed Ms Lawson of your history and by which time the police were involved, you sent an email to Detective Sergeant Simone Carter from Eastern Region Division One Registered Sexual Offenders Team stating the following:
'I will be helping a friend with her party hire business cleaning the machines for her. People who helped her left. So on weekends I may be there helping. She has adult children and teenagers. I will only be there when an adult is there. I will be going until November when sells the business
It is in Melton.
Do you need the address?'
75Detective Carter responded at 1.16 pm that day and advised that she did need the address as well as the names and dates of birth of all of the children. She also queried as to whether it was actually employment.
76You replied as follows:
[Judy Stanley].[18] 30/1/2004 (19)
[Lindsay Stanley] 30/9/2005 (18)
[Kristin Stanley]. 25/11/2008 (15)
[Kathy Stanley] 20/7/2007 (16)
All live at [Address], West Melton.
[18] A pseudonym.
77The identities and ages you provided, with the exception of Kathy's name and address, were specific, although not accurate or true. No details of any other children were provided, notably Joanne, Nancy or Russell.
Police Investigation
78On 28 September 2023 checks conducted on your mobile phone location revealed that your phone remained in the Melton area 19 out of 30 nights throughout the month of September 2023 alone.
79On about 9.30 am on 16 October 2023, police members attended at your address in Wheelers Hill. You were in the toilet at the time of entry. Police seized your mobile phone and put it on aeroplane mode. You were arrested and taken to Ringwood police station for interview.
80During that interview, you confirmed that your mobile phone number ended in 332 and that you had had that phone for two and a half months, but in relation to the allegations of contact and offending with the members of the Stanely family you exercised your rights not to comment.
SORA offending
Charges 1 to 8 and 20
81Charges 1 to 7 on the indictment refer to you failing to report to your compliance manager of the Sex Offender's Registry that you had contact with a child.
82Each of those charges represents a failure to report contact with the Stanley children between the period 11 July 2023 and 24 September 2023:
83The contact that you had with each child was both in person, as detailed in the offending described above, and via messaging, which is described below.
84Another obligation you were under is that you were required to report any details of the change of address of where you sleep on a regular basis. As per the notice, sleeping on a regular basis was defined to be sleeping at a different location more than once in any period of 14 days. At no time did you report that you had slept at the Stanely’s house in Melton. This is Charge 8, failure to comply with reporting conditions.
85But an analysis of your phone revealed the following:
(a) Snapchat conversations between you and Kathy commencing on 11 July 2023;
(b) Snapchat conversations between you and Joanne commencing on 12 July;
(c) Photographs of the various complainants with the files created between 6 July 2023 to 22 September 2023, showing photographs being of the complainants at their home, bowling centres, play centres, karate tournaments and at the Royal Children's Hospital;
(d) Various videos of the various complainants created on 3 September 2023, and them being deleted on 27 September 2023;
(e) Various usernames and accounts which had not been reported were also on that phone.
This represents Charge 14, fail to comply with reporting obligations, which is rolled up.
86Internet searches conducted by you on the various dates, that is commencing at a time commensurate with police involvement, were on 27 September, 29 September, 11 October, 12 October, 15 October, 16 October. Counsel, they will appear in my written reasons, but I do not feel compelled to read them out for present purposes.
27 September 2023 [19]
[19]That is to say the day of 'self-report' until day of your arrest in October 2023.
(i)7.03 am - Criminal offences to improve responses to child sex abuse - DFFH Service Providers;
(ii)7.07 am - Reporting child abuse - DFFH Services
(iii)1.23 pm - Sex Offenders Register in Victoria | Go To Court Lawyers
(iv)3.43 pm - Antilibidinal drugs - Google Search
(v)4:09 pm - Victorian sex offenders won't be forced to undergo chemical castration | Herald Sun
(vi)5.01 pm - Sex Offence Lawyers - Leanne Warren & Associates
29 September 2023
(i)8.45 am- get help with sex offending - Google Search
(ii)8.45 am - Sex offender therapy: A battle on multiple fronts - Counselling Today
11 October 2023
(i)4.06 pm - Children's fantasy - Wikipedia
(ii)4.07 pm - Child sex offences - Google Search
(iii)4.42 pm - Sexual offences and child abuse
(iv)4.44 pm - Sexual offences against children - Fitzroy Legal Service
(v)7.59 pm - What Parents Need to Know About Sexual Grooming | NSPCC
12 October 2023
(i)8.01 am - Therapists' Experiences in Their Work With Sex Offenders and People With Paedophilia: A Literature Review - PMC
(ii)8.01 am - psychologist for paedophiles - Google Search
15 October 2023
(i)1.54 pm - Why no help for child sex offenders - Google Search
(ii)3.27 pm - The long-term effects of child sexual abuse | Australian Institute of Family Studies
(iii)3.29 pm - why does child sex fantasy turns turn physical - Google Search
(iv)3.50 pm - diversion program's first child sex offenders - Google Search
16 October 2023
(i)7.23 am - Preying on Children: The Emerging Psychology of Pedophiles - The New York Times
(ii)7.24 am - Think All Child Molesters are Pedophiles? Think Again. - The Mama Bear Effect
(iii)7.34 am - Child sex offenders generally lack remorse: Psychiatrist - TODAY
(iv)7.39 am - What happens if my therapist reports me for being a pedophile? - Quora
Child abuse material (CAM) offending
87In addition, police located 13 photographs and 60 videos that contained child abuse material. Five of the videos and 13 of the photographs were categorised using Interpol Baseline 4 Classification Model as being category 1.[20] In this case the child abuse material was footage or images of the anal or genital region of a real pre-pubescent child under the age of 13.
[20]Category 1 – Baseline - Images depicting a real prepubescent child (under the age of 13 years approximately); and the child is involved in a sex act, witnessing a sex act or the material is focused/concentrated on the anal or genital region of the child.
88The other 55 videos located were classified as category 2 child abuse material.[21] In this case, the child abuse material was footage concentrated on the anal or genital region of a child between 13 and 17.
[21]Category 2 – Other child abuse material - Material that is not included within category 1 and such material includes a person who is, appears to be, or is implied to be a child and is depicted or described in a way that reasonable persons would regard as being, in all the circumstances offensive who:
• is a victim of torture, cruelty or physical abuse, or
• is engaged in or apparently engaged in a sexual pose or sexual activity (alone or in the presence of others), or
• is in the presence of another person who is engaged in or apparently engaged in a sexual pose or sexual activity, or
• Is exposing the genital area or anal area or the breasts of a female child
89The images or footage produced by you are screenshots or videos taken on your phone from another phone. The footage and images produced or recorded by you are from social media videos of pre-teen and teenage females where you have zoomed in or focused on the underwear of the young females.
90The footage and images capture when the children have lifted their legs, exposing their underwear or standing with the shape of their vagina visible through their clothing. The original videos are not sexual in nature, but the content on the phone is either focused on or paused at a point with a focus on the genital area or the buttocks of the child.[22] This represents Charge 15, production of child abuse material.
[22]I did not view any sample of the images as the parties accepted the content as adequate described above.
91Back on 14 July 2015, you attended an annual interview and denied having contact with any children. You had, though, contacted Lindsey Stanley before this time and failed to notify police of same. For clarity, this is the first event in time even though it is the last charge on the indictment, Charge 20, fail to report contact with a child.
Case history
92I have included a more expansive chronology that is available to counsel now hopefully as to where this matter fits into your forensic history and to outline the course this matter has taken once you were charged. I will note read that into the transcript. It is lengthy and detailed and I will deal with it in other ways during the course of the sentencing remarks. Suffice to say as of today, 16 July 2025, you have served 639 days pre‑sentence detention, or around 21 months.
Victim impact
93Victim impact statements have been provided by Alison Lawson[23] and her children Kristin,[24] Nancy,[25] Kathy[26] and Casey.[27]
[23]Exhibit F: VIS of [Alison Lawson] dated 8 December 2024.
[24]Exhibit E: VIS [Kristin Stanley] dated 8 December 2024.
[25]Exhibit D: VIS of [Nancy Stanley] dated 9 December 2024.
[26]Exhibit C: VIS of [Kathy Stanley] dated 8 December 2024.
[27]Exhibit B: VIS of [Casey Stanley] dated 3 December 2024.
94They were not read in open court. I sense that this is all very raw and painful and they do not wish to have their pain vented in open court. It is, however, necessary for me to note what effect the offending has had on them is. It has been catastrophic.
95You sexually abused all five of Alison Lawson's daughters. She feels that the system has let her and her family down. She speaks of the severe effect the offending has had on her and her surviving children. She struggles to comprehend what has occurred and blames herself. She should not, of course. Her victim impact statement is restrained but still full of pain and anguish.
96The offending has affected each child, though not uniformly because of their ages and the manner in which you abused them. One can anticipate long-term consequences for all of them.
97Casey described the ongoing sense of fear that manifests when she tries to sleep and when she is around older men. She is unable to enjoy playing outside for fear that she might be subjected to something similar. She describes the comfort that her older sister provides her and is able to enjoy playing with her friends.
98Kathy explained the extreme discomfort she would feel engaging with you and the nauseating disgust at learning of the other offences perpetrated against her siblings. She explained the impact this had after the fact, detailing depressive symptoms, distraction at school and a distrust of any new person in her life. She is no longer able to enjoy activities that used to bring her joy, such as soccer, and describes herself now as anxious and depressed. She is able to find comfort in her cat, her family and being around her boyfriend and friends.
99Nancy describes a sense of concern that you might return, despite admitting that she knows that that will not happen. She explained that she has strategies to cope when she feels the need to calm down, including listening to music and taking deep breaths. She is unable to enjoy drawing anymore and she says it reminds her of you.
100Kristin describes her fear that you could be released from prison and cause more damage. She states that she wishes she had never met you. She expressed a sense of sadness after learning what her younger siblings were enduring alone. She explained that she struggled to sleep after the offending and could not concentrate at school due to overwhelming thoughts of you. She described struggling to enjoy time out in public, as someone visually comparable to you will cause her stress to the point where she needs to leave.
101Joanne did not author a victim impact statement. She succumbed to her illness in June 2024. In her VARE[28] she says you made her feel weird and uncomfortable. One does not need much imagination to sense the fear and confusion in a child who is in and out of hospital with a brain tumour. That she had to endure your violations as well as that is grotesque.
[28]See Depositions at 100 dated 26 October 2023.
102The effect of your offending, Mr Doherty, is this: in selfishly satisfying your own depraved sexual needs you have caused immeasurable, and I expect enduring, harm effectively to an entire family.[29]
[29]See Fichtner v The Queen [2019] VSCA 297 at [66] acknowledging sexual offending cause profound harm to a child, and to their family and is likely to be severe and long lasting.
Findings about the offending
103My findings about the offending are this. In assessing the objective gravity of your offending, the following features are noted:
(a) you were in a position of trust, in that the victims' mother trusted you. You were permitted to sleep in the house to care for the children when their mother was not at home, which was reasonably frequently given Joanne's illness;
(b) there are five primary victims of the offending, with the youngest being only eight and the oldest 15;
(c) those victims referred to you as 'Uncle', as evidence of the way in which you were viewed by them;
(d) one of the victims, 12-year-old Joanne, had a brain tumour at the time of the offending and you knew full well of this condition at the time you offended against her. You knew of her fragility and the obvious fragility of the family unit as a whole;
(e) the offending was anything but isolated but instead was sustained and repeated not just against one child but each female child of that family;
(f) the contact offending varies in nature, of course, from digital penetration of one victim's vagina at the highest end of seriousness of the offences you committed, to touching another's genitals under her clothes, another's over her clothes but still making contact with intimate areas, to kissing others on the mouth;
(g) the offending occurred in the victims' own home, a place that they all had the right to feel safe in;
(h) you were fully aware that you were unable to control your sexual desires and behaviours yet placed yourself in a position to be around children;
(i) you were not candid with the victim's mother when you entered their lives;
(j) you failed to remove yourself from the situation after the first offending on the first victim was committed;
(k) you did not stop offending voluntarily, it seems, but rather you were forced to as the police investigation commenced and the victim's mother became aware of who you really were and what you had really done in the past;
(l) you persistently and deliberately avoided your obligations under SORA by having contact with children, by not telling the authority where you were effectively living and having usernames unknown, it seems, to the authorities, but moreover actively misled them in the email I referenced earlier once it seems questions were asked about and of you by the police;
(m) you offended against some the five victims less than one month after being released from custody, having served more than seven years straight for non‑contact sexual offences;
(n) there was no gratuitous or additional violence in the offending, that you did not threaten any of the victims or use any weapons, but I add nor did you need to;
(o) overall your culpability is high. It is only mitigated by virtue of your deprived background, which I will come to now.
Matters personal to the accused
Details
104Your personal history is taken largely from the outline of submissions,[30] Dr Matthew Staios' report[31] and Dr Simon Vincenzi's report, the latter's whose report came into existence as a result of my request for assistance from Forensicare.[32]
[30]Exhibit 1: Submissions on Sentence dated 13 January 2025.
[31]Exhibit 2: Report of Dr Mathew Staios dated 9 February 2025.
[32]Exhibit 3: Report of Dr Simon Vincenzi dated 28 May 2025.
105You are 69, having been born in June 1956. You were born and raised in Melbourne. Your childhood was far from idyllic. You recall being physically abused by both parents; however, the abuse from your father was far worse. You recall witnessing your siblings being abused by your father and being fearful of him. You recall being hospitalised at the Royal Children's hospital after being physically assaulted by him.
106You are the second youngest in a sibship of four. You have two older brothers, who are deceased and a younger sister that you have contact with.
107You recall that when your parents disciplined you, you were physically beaten and there were occasions where you would be kicked out of the family home. You told Dr Staios that on at least one occasion you were made to sleep in the shed in the backyard.
108In your teen years your relationship with your parents became very distant and you spent time living on the streets and socialising with negative peers.
109This would lead to your first interaction with police at age 14. It would also lead to your first period of detention, where you recall being sexually abused repeatedly when confined.[33]
[33]There is further reference to this in the report of Dr Staios at paragraph 3.2.
110Your life began to spiral further upon your release from youth detention and Larundel Hospital, where you were treated for a psychiatric disorder, where you were also sexually abused.
111You did not return to school after leaving in Year 7 and throughout your later teen years and adult life maintained regular employment holding various jobs in construction or as a truck driver.
112Your only prior intimate relationship was with a woman named Christine for three years and then continued to live together as friends for an additional 12 years before she died from cancer. You report that she ended the relationship because you were in an open relationship and you were in your words 'too clingy'.
Mental Health
113You have attracted a number of mental health diagnoses over the course of your life, including PTSD, ADHD, depression, OCD and Asperger's.[34]
[34]Vincenzi at [17] and following
114You appear to have been diagnosed with PTSD in custody, stemming from a history of child abuse and trauma and I will say more about that diagnosis in due course.
115I am informed that you have previously engaged in, however have never fully have engaged in psychological intervention in the community.
116While in custody I am told you have engaged with counsellors and other psychological services; however, they have been sporadic, as it is difficult to maintain a regular engagement with them whilst on remand.
117It seems to me that there have been plenty of targeted interventions in your life, as your forensic history demonstrates.
118You apparently recognise the need for ongoing intervention to manage your mental health challenges and control your sexual preferences for underage children, though your insight about this is limited.[35]
[35]Exhibit 2: Report of Dr Mathew Staios dated 9 February 2025 at 5.1.
119Dr Staios says this of your psychosocial history at 3.5 and 3.6:
'3.5: Mr Doherty reported regular use of pornography for sexual gratification, dating back to 18 years of age. He stated he initially commenced with accessing age-appropriate pornography and subsequently commenced viewing child pornography in about 2001. Mr Doherty reported experiencing sexual gratification from child pornography and stated he continued to access materials, as he was not able to control his sexual impulses. Mr Doherty did not believe that the children depicted in these sexual acts were experiencing any form of pain or exploitation and believed that they were enjoying themselves. He stated that he often accessed child pornography in times of crisis and as a means of escapism. Interestingly, Mr Doherty stated, while he can understand that engaging in such behaviours is out of keeping with that law and appropriate social/sexual boundaries, he has not been able to control his sexual behaviours.
'3.6 Mr Doherty reported meeting the victims listed in his current offences through their father after they became acquainted during a present term. He reported making contact with the mother of the victims and stated they were in a vulnerable position, as one of the children was undergoing treatment for cancer. Mr Doherty stated that, despite being aware of his reporting obligations and conditions as they relate to the sex offender registry, he engaged with their family and inserted himself into their lives as a friend and eventually a caregiver. He reported temporarily residing with the family and having access to the children on an unsupervised basis, particularly in instances where one of the children was being treated for at the hospital. Mr Doherty stated that he did not report his sex offender status to the mother or any other members of the family. Consistent with the views described above when accessing child pornography, Mr Doherty reported becoming excited when engaging in sexual acts with the victims of his present offences. He did not believe that what he was doing was causing them any distress and that they were enjoying themselves.'
120Dr Vincenzi says this of your psychosexual and offending history:[36]
'Mr Doherty has reported difficulties with sexual performance and satisfaction in age-appropriate relationships. He has described being unable to achieve orgasm with adult partners and compensating by engaging in masturbation to child exploitation material or fantasies. Previous assessments have noted his tendency to mistakenly believe that children depicted in sexual abuse material were consenting or enjoying the abuse; however, this was not present in the current assessment.
Mr Doherty has been assessed as having paedophilic disorder based on his persistent pattern of sexual interest in children. His pattern of offending has escalated over time from possession of child pornography to online grooming, to actively participating in live video sessions involving the sexual abuse of children and then to the present contact offences'.
[36]Exhibit 3: Report of Dr Simon Vincenzi dated 28 May 2025 at [28] – [29]
121To your credit, Mr Doherty, you speak frankly about what your thought processes are, but your lack of insight is disturbing.
122I was informed that you are now prescribed medication that deals with some of the more troubling nightmares and flashbacks you have regarding your abuse in institutions and you also take dexamphetamine for ADHD.
123You appear stable in custody, something which your counsel notes is consistent with your institutionalisation. The bulk of your contact, of course, now is with other prisoners in custody for matters similar to those you have committed.
124I am told you were not paroled for your last sentence for want of accommodation. I am told that you have been eligible for the NDIS in the past but cannot seem to organise yourself well enough to take advantage of those supports.
Substance abuse
125You have used illicit substances in the past and been a social drinker, but there is no attribution to the use of those substances in this offending.
Forensic history
126You have been in and out of custody or care since the mid-1970s. Your offending does not become sexual in nature until about 2001. You have spent significant periods of time in custody. You spent most of your 60s in custody.
127Thereafter it is a disturbing and recent and relevant criminal history that seems to naturally follow for someone with your psychosocial make-up - sorry, psychosexual make-up.
128I have outlined your most recent matters already when dealing with your SORA obligations.
129You have now been convicted of two charges of failing to comply with your obligations under SORA, with the offences concerning the failure to report email addresses, usernames, a mobile phone number and access to the internet.
130You now have three prior convictions for possessing child abuse material, two of transmitting child abuse material, two of accessing child abuse material and one charge of make or produce child abuse material.
131The prosecutor took me to relevant prior offences detailed in 2001, 2009 times three, 2016 times four and the sentences imposed therein.
132You have previously been sentenced as a serious sexual offender on two previous occasions and again will be sentenced as a serious sexual offender on 10 of the 20 charges I am dealing with.
133As part of the sentence imposed back in 2001, you were required to complete the sex offenders program during a CCO. It is not clear if that program was completed. You were convicted of failing to comply with the CCO in 2003, with the only penalty being imposed was a fine.
134I have dealt with your relevant recent history earlier. All of your previous sexual offence convictions were for non-contact offences. This present offending therefore represents a significant escalation in both type and number of victims. This is extremely troubling as you enter your 70s.
135While you are not to be repunished in respect of this criminal history, they are relevant in assessing your prospects for reform and gauging in what kind of danger you still pose to the community.
Forensicare assessment
136Dr Staios found you to be an above-average risk of sexual reoffending,[37] but in order for me to get a more complete picture of the risk you pose, which itself involved considerations of Bugmy and other matters concerned with your potential PTSD diagnosis, I had you assessed for by Forensicare. I was very much assisted by the report that was provided to me.
[37]Exhibit 2: Report of Dr Mathew Staios dated 9 February 2025 at 7.2.
137Dr Vincenzi says that you perhaps over-report the extent of your symptoms, which does not itself disturb the finding of your potentially having PTSD but does make it more difficult to be certain about that. The possibility you experienced significant trauma and meet the criteria for PTSD but exaggerated the severity and impact of these symptoms during the psychological assessment cannot be discounted. And this exaggeration may be motivated by various factors, including a desire for treatment, mitigation of legal consequences or access to medications.[38]
[38]Exhibit 3: Report of Dr Simon Vincenzi dated 28 May 2025 at [59].
138You have a history of suicidal ideation that I do not ignore.
139Dr Vincenzi performed a risk assessment using a battery of diagnostic and predictive tools as well as clinical judgement.
Static 99R
140Using Static-99R to the extent that the information was available to Dr Vincenzi to conduct this assessment was valid. Your risk of sexual reoffending based on static factors alone is higher than the average sexual offender, noting that sexual offenders typically have lower rates of recidivism compared to other offence types.[39]
[39]Exhibit 3: Report of Dr Simon Vincenzi dated 28 May 2025 at[44].
RSVP
141Risk assessment under RSVP indicates you present a high risk of sexual reoffending. Risk scenarios include accessing child exploitation material online and potentially attempting to engage in online or in-person sexual interactions with children. Your risk would be particularly elevated during periods of emotional distress, when faced with significant life stressors or during opportunistic situations.[40]
[40]Exhibit 3: Report of Dr Simon Vincenzi dated 28 May 2025 at [51].
Paedophilic interest
142Dr Vincenzi opines the relationship between your potential, and I stress potential, PTSD symptoms and your sexual offending is not a direct one. Your pattern of sexual offending is more closely related to your long-standing paedophilic interests, with emotional distress whether related to PTSD or other factors serving as a trigger for offending behaviour rather than a direct cause. Indeed, the two strongest predictors of sexual offending are sexual deviance and antisociality, both of which apply to you.
143Dr Vincenzi goes on to state that the scientific literature has consistently found that childhood sexual abuse increases the risk of the victim going on to be a sexual offender as an adult. The mechanism through which the early abuse contributes to the later offending can be complex; however, one common possibility is through the early association of physiological sexual arousal with abuse or paedophilic behaviour, leading to the development of deviant sexual interests. Abuse that occurs around the time of puberty, as was the case with you, is known to be particularly damaging in this respect, as it can be significantly reinforcing of an individual's sexual interests. It is not necessarily the case, however, that such experiences lead to ongoing distress in the individual, especially if the deviant sexual interests are ego-syntonic, that is, acceptable to the self.
Conclusions
144Irrespective of whether you meet criteria for PTSD, you appear to have been aware of the wrongfulness of your actions, as demonstrated by your attempts to conceal your behaviour. Your mental health conditions do not appear to have substantially impaired your capacity to understand the nature and wrongfulness of your actions.
145Additionally, your mental health conditions do not appear to have caused you to experience imprisonment more acutely than someone without these conditions. Indeed, you rated your mood quite highly while in custody and significantly higher than when you were in the community.
Treatment needs suggested by Dr Vincenzi
146Dr Vincenzi recommends a number of treatment options including:
• Addressing cognitive distortions regarding sexual offending
• Developing healthy coping strategies for managing distress
• Developing healthy relationship skills and building prosocial support networks.
147You would also benefit from mental health treatment to determine the extent of your traumatic symptoms when not in the current environment and provide ongoing mental health support.
148Your history of reoffending despite treatment and supervision suggests that you would require intensive supervision and monitoring if released into the community. This would likely include strict conditions regarding internet access, contact with children and ongoing treatment. In the past you were assessed for an antilibidinal prescription medication. Given the chronicity of your offending, this may again be appropriate. An antilibidinal assessment can be done via Forensicare psychiatrists.
149I do not consider it overstatement to note just how much work would need to be done to treat and rehabilitate you.
Matters of sentencing principle
Sexual offences against children
150Offences committed against children particularly involving sexual abuse or acts can only be regarded as particularly serious within the criminal legislative framework. Sexual offending against children, particularly those under an offender's care and protection, is a gross breach of trust justifying significant terms of imprisonment. And these instances are no exception.
151Sexual crimes against children are abhorrent[41] and are 'without question' serious offences, particularly when the offending involves a breach by one in a position of care and trust. Courts have consistently denounced these offences as 'inherently evil and depraved', violating the basic norms of civilised behaviour and striking at the value the community places on the lives and wellbeing of the young.
[41]McPherson v The Queen [2014] VSCA 59
152The fact that sexual penetration of a child under 12 attracts a maximum penalty of 25 years with a standard sentence of 10 is reflective of the community's abhorrence of such criminal acts and the seriousness with which those offending against children will be treated. There is no hierarchy of penetration offences making one offence inherently more or less severe than another, for instance, although digital penetration does not involve some of the risks of penile penetration, namely through disease and pregnancy. That does not mean a particular instance of it is less serious. An assessment of gravity, as always, depends on the facts of the case.
153The sexual assault charges alone carry a maximum penalty of 10 years and the contact offences you have pleaded to falling short of penetration carry with them a standard, not mandatory, sentence of four years for similar reasons.
154In assessing the general gravity of the offending I must have regard that the fact that sexual offending against children is now well understood to have the capacity to cause enormous harm to those subjected to it. The legislative scheme means that a child under 16 cannot consent to sexual penetration. This prohibition has the dual purposes of protecting children from harm that can come from premature sexual activity and deterring adults like you who would contemplate having sex with someone under the age of 16. This prohibition is founded on a presumption that premature sexual activity will cause long-term physical and psychological harm and is unaffected by the presence of apparent 'consent', even if such a thing was said to exist here.[42] A presumption of harm, of course, is borne out in this case of course. The full, enduring extent of that harm is unknown.
[42]Clarkson v The Queen [2011] VSCA 157
CAM
155The charge of produce child abuse material covers the material found on your mobile phone. There was a total of 13 photos and 60 videos that constituted child abuse material.
156These offences are considered especially grave. Production and viewing child abuse material is an international problem that is increasingly prevalent. In determining an adequate sentence for these offences, a court needs to be mindful of the fact that the internet is evolving rapidly and provides an easy means of exploiting children, because of the anonymity it affords, and increases the difficulties in detecting such crimes. The expanded breadth of offending involving internet use and the increased maximum penalties for those offences are indicative of their gravity.[43]
[43]I acknowledge it is unclear how you came by these images.
157The matters relevant to sentencing CAM offences are well established and were enunciated by the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal decision in De Leeuw v The Queen.[44] I will not repeat the criteria. They will appear in my written reasons.
[44][2015] NSWCCA 183 at [72]; quoted with approval in Garside v The Queen (2016) 50 VR 800, [2016] VSCA 74 at [25] and in Chenhall v The Queen [2021] VSCA 175 at [42]
158The number of images is not especially substantial in your case when one looks at other examples of this type of offending, but of course the number of images is not the sole measure of gravity.
159Amongst the images and videos were depictions of children with a focus on their genitals. There is no evidence you paid for the images or were to on sell them, nor is there any evidence as to how long you possessed them for, bearing in mind it is a single date offence.
160The charge is serious, though, in the context of your history though. You have many relevant priors for this offending. You have obtained these images presumably a short time after being released from a long sentence for the same thing.
SORA breaches
161SORA is a statutory regime designed to require certain offenders like you to keep police informed of their whereabouts, their contact with children and their activity on devices for the express purpose of reducing the likelihood that they will reoffend and the act accordingly imposes positive obligations on individuals like you.[45]
[45]Sex Offenders Registration Act 2004, section 1.
162Each breach of the Act is punishable by a term of imprisonment of not more than five years. In this case you have breached your obligations in three ways intertwined more or less with the more substantive offending.
163The three ways you have breached your obligations are:
(a) failing to notify police of your contact with the Stanley children;
(b) failing to notify them of the change in address; and
(c) failure to disclose usernames or internet identities.
164The first two species of breaches are largely subsumed with the other offending. You had contact with the children in ways other than the offending conduct and you were effectively living in their home. Each offence would exist independently, though, and be punishable by five years' imprisonment whether you went on to commit contact offences. I have been careful not to doubly punish you for the fact that you committed these offences in contravention of your SORA obligations.
165But I do not want it thought that I will treat these breaches as minor or mere regulatory transgressions. The efficacy of SORA regime depends on the capacity to impose consequences upon its breach. This is a notion you are well familiar with, having breached orders of this kind before. I am constrained by totality given the sheer number and nature of charges before me, but I still intend to have this criminality reflected in very modest orders for cumulation so that the relevant sentencing objectives can be still achieved.
166On the matters to which you pleaded guilty, your first contact with a minor using social media occurred within weeks of your release from prison. You continued to breach the SORA requirements in the way I have detailed in what I regard a complete disregard for your obligations.
Standard sentencing regime
167The sexual offence charges of sexual penetration of a child under 12 are category 1 offences.[46] Sexual penetration of a child under 12 is a standard sentence offence. The standard, not mandatory, sentence for this offence is 10 years.[47]
[46]Sentencing Act1991 – s3(1)(f), Pursuant to section 5(2G), the Court must sentence the offender to an order under Division 2 Part 3 of the Sentencing Act 1991 – namely a custodial order. Such a sentence expressly excludes a sentence combining a term of imprisonment and a community correction order. Sexual Penetration of a Child under 12 is a category 1 offence pursuant to section 3(1)(f) of the Sentencing Act 1991. As such, it is not a designated offence to which s 5(2GA) applies which would allow the Court to make a finding such as to enliven a discretion to impose an order as outlined in section 5(2GA). The Court’s only option therefore is to sentence the offender to an order under Division 2 Part 3 of the Sentencing Act 1991.
[47]Sections 5A and 5B of the Sentencing Act 1991 also apply
168The offences of sexual assault of a child under 16 are also standard sentence offences. The standard sentence for this offence is four years.[48]
[48]Sections 5A and 5B of the Sentencing Act 1991 applies.
169The standard sentence is a numerical guidepost for courts when sentencing specified offences. It is a guidepost not unlike the maximum.[49] It does not permit or involve two-stage sentencing. It does not displace the instinctive synthesis that is so fundamental to sentencing. It must not be given too much weight in the sentencing exercise.[50]
[49]The regime also deals with the setting of non-parole periods, which I will come to later, once matters that concern such a decision have been canvassed.
[50]McPherson [2021] VSCA 53
170The period specified as the standard sentence is 'the sentence for an offence that, taking into account only the objective factors affecting the relative seriousness of that offence, is in the middle of the range of that seriousness'.[51]
[51]Sentencing Act 1991 s.5A(3).
171The court must give reasons for imposing the sentence, any non-parole period fixed under the Act that is shorter than that which is specified in s11A(4) and state how the sentence imposed relates to the standard.[52] This requires me to identify facts, matters and circumstances bearing on my judgment as to what the appropriate sentence is.
[52]Ibid s.5B(5).
172The principles bearing upon the application of standard sentencing were authoritatively considered in Brown v The Queen.[53]
[53](2019) 59 VR 462.
173I am also mindful of the comments made by Priest and Forrest JJA in McPherson[54] which are made in relation to sexual penetration of a child under 12 but obviously have broader application than that. The quote will appear in my written reasons.
[54][2021] VSCA 53 at [31].
174The individual sentences I have imposed on the charges fall below the standard sentence due to my assessment of the nature and gravity of the offences and where I have assessed each offence as falling within the range of seriousness for that offence. I have also had regard to the mitigating effects of other factors that I am required to take into account in sentencing for you such as a plea of guilty and the extent to which I can apply the principles of Bugmy.
175I emphasise the standard sentence is just one of many factors I am to consider under the Act, many of which pull in different directions. It does not represent a starting point for a sentence from which I add or subtract depending on various aggravating factors or mitigating factors, as the case may be.
Rolled-up and representative charges
Rolled up charges
176Charge 14 rolled up. That means it is rolled up by your agreement and simplifies my task. This of course works to your benefit by allowing multiple instances of similar offending to be dealt with as a single charge rather than through numerous separate charges. That is obviously the case here and it confirms the cooperative approach you have taken when resolving the matter.
177When sentencing on a rolled-up charge I must consider all the circumstances of the offence and the offender, including if the offending was carried out over an extended period or victimised multiple people and the totality of harm.
178While the court may consider all relevant circumstances of a rolled-up charge, the pleading must still be treated as presenting a single formal one. The maximum penalty is still limited to the maximum for a single charge.
'A rolled-up count is effectively a collection of counts bundled together in a single count … and the sentence on a rolled-up charge must take into account all of the individual offences it comprises.[55] [A] significantly higher sentence is justified on a rolled-up charge than would be the case for a single offence'.[56]
[55] DPP v Conos [2021] VSCA 367 at [74].
[56] Ibid at [75].
Representative charges
179Charges 16 to 19 are pleaded as representative counts, which are different.
180The charges being framed this way does not increase the maximum sentence, nor does it permit a disproportionate sentence to be imposed. But all other things being equal, a representative charge will generally result in a heavier sentence than a charge relating to an isolated incident. This is because it removes a mitigating factor from the equation in that there can be no argument that the offending was an isolated incident and, furthermore, it puts the offence into context.
181It does not mean you are to be sentenced for uncharged acts but rather that those acts are 'directly and highly relevant to the objective gravity of the particular offence' for which you are being sentenced. The gravity of the offending is heightened because the conduct in question is not isolated and because the impact on a victim is likely to be much greater.
182The conduct stated in a representative charge accurately and explicitly reflects the agreement made between the parties, meaning that it must be identified with some level of detail so that the whole picture can be seen. That is what has happened here and that is the evidentiary basis upon which this plea proceeded.
Serious offender provisions
183You are a serious sexual offender by virtue of your prior sexual offence convictions alone.
184But Charges 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19 are all relevant offences for the purpose of 6F of the Sentencing Act. As such you must be sentenced as a serious sexual offender on each of those charges.
185In sentencing on those charges, the protection of the community must be regarded as the principle sentencing purpose. Unless otherwise ordered, any sentence of imprisonment must be served cumulatively upon other sentences.
186This does not mean, however, that the other sentencing purposes have been excluded. Other sentencing purposes are still applicable and operative. The legislative intent is that the prison term is long enough to protect the community from the risk posed by the offender, but how long that is depends on the assessed risk of reoffending. If it considered that the risk of offending is low, the protection of the community will weigh less heavily than it would if it was otherwise assessed as high.
187The aim of the requirement that a court regard protection of the community as the predominant purpose is to ensure that it gives proper consideration to the question and undertake a 'requisite risk assessment'.
188In this case, your risk of reoffending is high and community protection assumes a real prominence in the sentencing calculus.
189The prosecution does not seek a disproportionate sentence in order to properly prioritise protection of the community. Accordingly, the sentence will be a proportionate one to the gravity of the offending and I am mindful of the principle of totality and parsimony, for that matter.
190I have extracted a quote from DPP v Patil (a pseudonym),[57] where the Court of Appeal referred to the remarks of Redlich JA in Gordon v The Queen[58] further explaining the relationship between 6E of the Sentencing Act 1991 and totality principle.
[57][2020] VSCA 337 (Maxwell P, Forrest T and Weinberg JJA)
[58][2013] VSCA 343.
191I am very mindful of this principle.
192There is tension between the requirement of cumulation and the principle of totality, but as the objective gravity of the total offending increases, so will the degree of cumulation thereby producing a total effective sentence that meets both.
193I have considered the serious offenders provisions carefully and, as I indicated on the plea, I do not consider cumulation of terms of imprisonment on episodes or victims to be appropriate. If I were to do this, this sentence I impose would be perhaps measurable in tripe figures, not double digits.
194The sentence I impose is of such a magnitude that you will be unable to offend for a substantial period of time because of your removal from society at large unless and until you are eligible for parole.
Current sentencing practices
195I have familiarised myself with current sentencing practices for the offences of sexual penetration of child under 12, sexual assault of a child under 16[59] and possession of child abuse material as best I can.
[59]Since the introduction of a standard sentence regime.
196While each case must of course be assessed on its own facts and circumstances, other sentencing cases may be of assistance in guiding the court where such cases bear similar features or where cases deal with relevant sentencing provisions.
197This exercise is complicated by the fact that the totality of your offending is covered by five types of charges all with different maximums, some involving standard sentences, some being rolled up, others being representative and some requiring consideration of the serious offender regime.
Case collections
198I have looked at the case collection available through the Judicial College of Victoria for the offences of:
(a) sexual penetration of a child under 12;[60]
(b) sexual assault of a child under 16; and[61]
(c) child pornography offences. [62]
[60]JCV at 3.4.2 Court of Appeal overview – focussing on those cases dealing with sexual penetration of a child under 12 after the introduction of the standard sentence regime, as well as relevant County Court sentences covered at 3.4.5 (which also has cases relating to CAM)
[61]JCV at 3.4.4 Court of Appeal overview – focussing on those cases dealing with sexual assault of a child under 16 after the introduction of the standard sentence regime
[62]JCV 3.8 Court of Appeal and County Court decisions
Statistical data
199I have further had regard to the statistical data insofar as it is available:
(a) sexual penetration of a child under 12;[63]
(b) sexual assault of a child under 16;[64]
(c) knowingly possess CAM.[65]
[63]SACStat higher court outcomes 1 July 2018 to 30 June 2023.
[64]SACStat higher court outcomes 1 July 2018 to 30 June 2023.
[65]SACStat higher court outcomes 1 July 2018 to 30 June 2023.
200Without unnecessarily focussing on one aspect of the above, I note in very crude terms the following:
(a) between 1 July 2018 and 30 June 2023 the median term of imprisonment for a single charge of sexual penetration of a child aged under 12 under the standard regime was seven and a half years and the most common range of imprisonment was between eight and nine years.[66] The median non-parole period for cases where standard sentences were involved was 6.88 years;
(b) between that same time frame the median term of imprisonment for sexual assault of a child under 16 was 1.83 years and the most common range of imprisonment lengths was between zero and one year.[67] The median non‑parole period for cases was 2.75 years;[68]
(c) between the same time frame the median term of imprisonment for possess child abuse material was one year and the most common range of imprisonment was between zero and one year.[69] The median non-parole period for cases of knowingly possess child abuse material was 1.92 years.[70]
[66]SACStat higher court outcomes 1 July 2018 to 30 June 2023.
[67]SACStat higher court outcomes 1 July 2018 to 30 June 2023.
[68]SACStat higher court outcomes 1 July 2018 to 30 June 2023.
[69]SACStat higher court outcomes 1 July 2018 to 30 June 2023.
[70]SACStat higher court outcomes 1 July 2018 to 30 June 2023.
Comparative cases
201I have had regard to cases said to be comparable in the sense that the Crown referred to me to the following:
(a) DPP v Sutcliffe [2024] VSCA 63, where the offender received 10 years with a non‑parole period of six and a half;
(b) Tobin (a pseudonym) v The Queen [2021] VSCA 180, where the accused received nine years with a non‑parole period of five and a half;
(c) McPherson v The Queen [2021] VSCA 53, where the accused received six and a half with a non‑parole period of four; and
(d) DPP v Arnold [2021] VCC 1943, where the accused received seven years with a non‑parole period of five.
202A common feature of those matters is that they involve sentencing for sexual penetration of a child under 12 offence, but beyond that there is precious little to compare. None appear to have the sheer number of charges that you are facing and the offenders themselves were wildly different in character to you, either by virtue of age or prior criminal history.
203When one looks at other cases such as the ones I am about to refer to one sees where the higher end of the range of sentences lies, where offenders who are older and offend against multiple victims lies:
(a) DPP v Greene,[71]13 years, eight months with a non‑parole period of eight and a half years;
(b) DPP v Purcell,[72] 11 years, four months with a non‑parole period of eight;[73]
(c) DPP v Roe,[74] 16 years, eight months with a non‑parole period of 10.
[71](a pseudonym) [2023] VCC 942.
[72](a pseudonym) [2020] VCC 757.
[73]S.6AAA declaration of 14 years 4 months with a non a prole period of 11 years.
[74](a pseudonym) [2025] VCC 533.
204While sentences of other courts are not binding precedents but merely historical statements of what has happened in the past[75] and current sentencing practices represent just one of the sentencing factors to be considered, I note that sentences for sexual offences against children, particularly in recent years, have involved significant sentences of imprisonment of years' duration.
[75]Director of Public Prosecutions v Dalgliesh (a pseudonym) [2017] HCA 41 at paragraph [83].
205In formulating an appropriate sentence in your case, I have had regard only to the purposes for which sentences may be imposed. Previous sentencing decisions have made clear the importance of general deterrence and protection of the community in relation to sexual offences against children.[76]
[76]Director of Public Prosecutions v Tewksbury (a pseudonym) [2018] A Crim R 205 at paragraph [82].
206As I said, I have familiarised myself as best I can with the range of sentences imposed for similar offending in reference to the case collection and other data that I have mentioned, noting that no two cases are alike and no two offenders are alike, for that matter.
207Generally speaking, higher sentences are reserved for offences where the offender has pleaded not guilty and/or there is breach of trust involved, the offending occurs over a period of time, where there are multiple victims or the victims are especially young and/or the offender has a relevant history.
208Beyond that analysis, one runs the risk of some kind of de facto application of the principle of parity when looking at other cases. I have not approached this exercise this way.
209I have approached the use of statistical data and other cases with the necessary caution.[77] They are certainly informative and instructive, but I do not consider they set the outer limits for the exercise of my sentencing discretion.[78]
[77]Kamal v The Queen [2021] VSCA 27.
[78]The Queen v Kilic [2016] HCA 48.
Plea of guilty
210It is submitted, and I accept, that the plea of guilty in this matter was offered at the earliest available time. The negotiation between the parties centred around other charges which have not, in the end, proceeded.
211By resolving the matter you have spared the complainants and other witnesses from giving evidence and being cross-examined at a trial and that is no small matter. There is a human saving implicit in pleas of guilty to offending of this kind that cannot be overstated. You have acknowledged your wrongdoing and demonstrated a willingness to facilitate the course of justice.
212So in my view your plea warrants real moderation of the sentence that would otherwise be imposed.
213It is said that you have demonstrated some remorse and the development of an emerging insight, although that is perhaps something of a work in progress.
Bugmy
214In Bugmy v the Queen[79] the High Court enunciated a number of principles relating to the relevance of a person's deprived background in the sentencing task, particularly with respect to the assessment of moral culpability. The effects of profound disadvantage do not diminish over time and are to be given full weight in the determination of the appropriate sentence in every case.
[79][2013] 249 CLR 571 at [42].
215An offender's deprived background is also relevant to sentencing by reason of s5(2)(d) of the Act, which requires me to address 'the offender's culpability and degree of responsibility for the offence'.
216In DPP v Herrmann[80] the court reaffirmed the need for an appropriate evidentiary foundation before an offender's disadvantaged background can be taken into account.
[80][2021] VSCA 160 at [44].
217Here, Dr Vincenzi's report notes the following matters raised by you:
(a) your father was an alcoholic who routinely became violent when intoxicated, with particularly harsh abuse directed towards you resulting at age nine in a significant head injury and loss of consciousness for several weeks, requiring hospitalisation;
(b) your mother was often absent and appeared to enable your father's behaviour;
(c) you were made to sleep in a shed in the backyard from the ages of five to nine and 10; and
(d) you were repeatedly sexually abused in youth detention and shortly after at Larundel Hospital, where I am told that you received electroconvulsive therapy for a psychiatric condition, and further by a friend's mother when 15 years of age for a period of six months.
218These matters raised share consistency with previous reports made by you over time to Dr Staios[81] and are reflected in previous sentencing remarks of Deputy Chief Judge Sexton. Though I was asked to be cautious about taking you at your word by way of self-report by the Crown, I do accept these matters concerning your childhood and adolescence as true and accurate. They are consistently described by you and from my perspective I think I can take judicial notice of the abuse historically suffered by many in state care.
[81]And to Ms Uren, Exhibit K: Letter of treatment from Tanya Uren dated 11 March 2016.
219In Hermann the Court of Appeal referred to the 'general way' in which a person's deprived background may be relevant to the assessment of their culpability. The court identified the following principle from Bugmy as being a statement of the general relevance of a deprived background:
'The circumstance that an offender has been raised in a community surrounded by alcohol abuse and violence may mitigate the sentence because his or her moral culpability is likely to be less than the culpability of an offender whose formative years have not been marred in that way'.
220Applying these principles to your circumstances, your deprived background, childhood, periods of living on the streets, experience of familial violence, sexual abuse and neglect, are all relevant to an assessment of your moral culpability.
221There is a caveat to this, though. Even though I have found that the Bugmy principles are enlivened in that general sense, this must be weighed against the seriousness of the offending and the elevated need for community protection.[82] There appears to be little doubt your formative years have shaped you but also that you are particularly dangerous in part because of how you have been made.
[82]Stewart v The Queen [2015] VSCA 368 at [5].
Verdins
222Your mental health issues and the application of Verdins[83] were initially relied on,[84] particularly limbs 1, 3 and 4, that is to say those concerning moral culpability as well as general and specific deterrence.
[83][2007] VSCA 102.
[84]Exhibit 1: Submissions on Sentence dated 13 January 2025.
223Upon receipt of the Forensicare report, Mr Brancato abandoned reliance on those limbs. The totality of the expert material provided did not establish that you have PTSD and/or that such diagnosis reduced your moral culpability.
224Dr Vincenzi concludes that the relationship between your potential PTSD and your sexual behaviour is not a direct one and it is more closely related to your years long-standing paedophilic interests with emotional distress being a trigger rather than a cause.
225Further, there was not a 'proper and informed' consideration of how the impairment materially diminished your capacity to reason appropriately about the wrongfulness of their conduct at the time of the offending or how your condition might make full application of the principles of general deterrence repugnant or where the offender is not a proper vehicle for general deterrence.[85]
[85]DPP v O'Neill [2015] VSCA 325; 47 VR 395 [59].
226Specific deterrence may be moderated where an offender's impairment makes them unable to accept their role in and responsibility for offending. However, if an offender is able to appreciate the wrongfulness of their conduct, specific deterrence is relevant.[86]
[86]R v Imadonmwonyi [2008] VSCA 135, [22]; Dennis v The Queen [2017] VSCA 251, [118].
227It is here that Dr Vincenzi specifically opines that you:
'Appear to have been aware of the wrongfulness of [your] actions, as demonstrated by [your] attempts to conceal [your] behaviour. [Your] mental health conditions do not appear to have substantially impaired [your] capacity to understand the nature and wrongfulness of [your] actions'.[87]
[87]At [63].
228Mr Brancato rightly said that your mental health is still relevant to the sentencing exercise and, to the extent that your mental health is a feature of your life that needs addressing, I agree.
Age and crushing sentence
229You were 67 when you offended and are now 69. These are not historical offences that I am dealing with where your past has caught up with you and I am called upon to sentence a different, older offender than the one who violated these children.
230You are not a frail or fragile first-time prisoner either. You are stable in prison. You have work as a billet. You have spent most of the last decade in prison either undergoing sentence or on remand. You have no physical infirmities that make prison life onerous for you. In fact, your counsel says you feel better than you have in a long time. Likewise, there are no serious mental health issues that would operate oppressively on you.
231Prison will not have an adverse health on your effect [sic], nor will it be more burdensome on you than a young offender. I cannot conclude that, given your age, you represent less of a risk to the community. Quite to the contrary, you appear to represent more of a danger to the community at 69 than you did at 59.
232I am aware that any substantial sentence of imprisonment imposed now will likely represent a significant proportion of your remaining life. You have expressed a desire, understandably, that you do not wish to spend the rest of your life in prison.
233Just punishment, proportionality and deterrence will always remain primary sentencing consideration, regardless of the offender's age.[88] So too it is relevant to an individual's prospect for reform.
[88]RLP 476 [39]. See also Fichtner v The Queen[2019] VSCA 297, [90], [95].
234The mitigating weight of age-based consideration depends on the circumstances of the case and other personal factors such as ill health which might be relevant.[89] Age can never itself excuse punishment.[90] For serious offences a significant period of imprisonment may be appropriate despite an offender's advanced age.[91] Just punishment, proportionality and deterrence always remain primary sentencing considerations regardless of the offender's age.[92]
[89]Cobiac v Liddy (1967) 119 CLR 257.
[90]R v Gregory [2000] VSCA 212.
[91]Iles [17].
[92]Fichtner v The Queen [2019] VSCA 297, see also Long [2025] VSCA 15.
235Allied to this issue is the notion that a court ought to avoid not impose a 'crushing sentence' unless there are special circumstances.[93] A sentence that is crushing is so long that it might provoke a feeling of helplessness in the offender if and when they are released or destroy any reasonable expectation they have for a useful life after release.[94]
[93]R v Zakaria (1984) 12 A Crim R 386.
[94]R v Kerbatieh (2005) 155 A Crim R 367.
236But it is wrong, though, to determine a minimum sentence by the need to ensure 'some measure of life after release'. This approach may lead to an impermissible disregard of the circumstances and other sentencing factors.[95]
[95]Vaitos v The Queen (1981) 4 A Crim R 238, 257. Bazley v The Queen (1993) 65 A Crim R 154, 159.
237Obviously the imposition of a 'crushing sentence' is of greater concern to older offenders, since their age and a lengthy term of imprisonment increases the likelihood of having little useful life left upon release. However, while age advanced or youthful is a factor to be considered, and may be even a significant factor, it cannot support the imposition of an inappropriate sentence.[96]
[96]R v Whyte (2004) 7 VR 397, 405–6; R v Cumberbatch (2004) 8 VR 9,13; Kerbatieh 395 [125]; Barbaro v The Queen (2012) 226 A Crim R 354; Gill v The Queen [2019] VSCA 92, [89]–[90].
238Nor does the extreme length of a sentence by itself justify the label of 'crushing'. 'A richly deserved sentence … is not to be disturbed because the offender may feel crushed by it'.[97] There are no 'hard and fast rules' for deciding when the totality of the sentences is crushing. That depends on the facts but is informed by the nature and circumstances of all the offending.[98]
[97]R v Zaydan [2004] VSCA 245.
[98]R v Beck [2005] VSCA 11, [19].
239'Special circumstances' may include crimes that arouse deep public revulsion or disquiet, crimes committed by a persistent and unrepentant offender or by an offender who has committed multiple crimes of considerable gravity. In other words, there will be cases where an offender has, by their own criminal acts, forfeited the right to expect they will be released from confinement with a useful period of their lifetime left to enjoy.[99] The need to protect the community is also a significant consideration and may similarly justify a sentence that an offender might view as crushing.[100]
[99]Crowley v The Queen (1991) 55 A Crim R 201, 205–6.
[100]Vaitos v The Queen (1981) 4 A Crim R 238; Ibid 301.
240The sentence I impose will be unquestionably substantial. Your serious criminality must be denounced and you must be punished for it.
241You may well be into your 80s by the time you are eligible for parole. You may be in your mid 80s at the conclusion of your head sentence. These are the consequences of offending so seriously in your late 60s, Mr Doherty. I fully understand that I am required to sentence you on the basis that you may be required to serve every day of the head sentence.
Specific deterrence and prospects for reform
242The gravity and nature of this offending and your prior history instinctively calls into question your prospects for rehabilitation. You cannot appear to resist your sexual urges once released from custody and in the community. Not even a straight seven-year sentence appears to have any or sufficient personal deterrent on you.
243I am satisfied in the circumstances of this case the need for specific deterrence and the need for community protection is heightened.
244There is also a need, though, for any sentence to facilitate your rehabilitation as best as that can be achieved if at all. I have my doubts that it ever can be. As I said, I find your prosects presently bleak.
Totality
245I am most mindful of the significance in this case of the application of the principle to totality that requires me when sentencing for multiple offences to ensure that the aggregate term I impose is a just and appropriate measure of the criminality involved.
246There must be appropriate relativity between the totality of all the criminality and the totality of the sentence I impose. That is true when I consider the interaction between the charges on the indictment. I have determined an appropriate length of imprisonment for each charge, taking the applicable sentencing considerations into account, designated the highest term as the base sentence and then I have determined the extent to which there should be any cumulation regarding each count. Finally, I have stood back and considered in light of totality what an appropriate sentence ought to be.
247For most offences a court is less likely to order the cumulation of sentences where they arise out of a single incident involving a single victim or where the individual offences do not involve fresh harm. But in relation to sexual offending it is appropriate to acknowledge by cumulation that acts closely associated in time represent separate and substantial harms. The objective gravity of the total offending is relevant to assessing the need to cumulate sentences for the individual ones.
248The application of the principle of totality has resulted in what at first blush may appear to be very modest orders for cumulation at times, but this has been necessary in order for me to comply with constraints inherent in that principle.
Parole period
249I have had regard to s11A(4)(c), which has obvious application. No submissions were made with respect to imposing a non-parole period of less than 60 per cent of the head sentence.
250It appears to be accepted that proper application of principle results in head sentences and non-parole periods that fall within a common proportional range and that comparisons to these ranges is permissible in exercising the sentencing discretion. While courts have stated that there is 'no usual non-parole period', there is empirical observation that non-parole periods typically fall within the 60 to 75 per cent range, which still 'informs the sentencing task by providing an important guide to sentencing judges'.
251You will be undoubtedly required to undergo supervision, monitoring and assistance upon any release. In affixing an appropriate sentence for you and allowing for a parole eligibility component, I have had regard to the principle of parsimony; that is the requirement not to impose a sentence that is more severe than that which is necessary to achieve the purposes for which the sentence is imposed.
252The period I set pays due regard to your prospects for reform, such as they exist, while maintaining appropriate weight to be given to necessary and important countervailing factors when sentencing. I have allowed for a measure of mitigation of punishment in favour of your reform through conditional freedom.[101] It may be that after close to a decade of treatment and with the advancement of age you can develop insights and strategies and be capable of supervision in the community. This, though, will be for the Adult Parole Board to determine when; that is the determination of the question when and under what circumstances if ever you are to be released.
[101]Power v The Queen (1974) 131 CLR 623; [1974] HCA 26
Sentence to be Imposed
253Given the objective gravity of the offending in this case, denunciation, general deterrence and just punishment are very important sentencing considerations.
254The few mitigating matters set out above, together with the application of the principles of parsimony and totality, operate to moderate the length of the sentence, both head sentence and non-parole periods, I have imposed.
255But I come now, Mr Doherty, to the portion of my sentencing remarks where I formally pass sentence on you.
256As I have said earlier, there is no alternative to me but to impose a substantial head sentence and non-parole period and I have indicated globally what those periods are.
257I sentence you as follows.
258Charge 1, failure to reporting obligations, maximum penalty is five years. You are sentenced to 12 months.
259Charge 2, failing to report - sorry, failure to comply with reporting obligations, that is by having contact with Kathy, you are sentenced to 12 months.
260Charge 3, failure to comply with the reporting obligations, that is having contact with Kristin, 12 months.
261Charge 4, failure to comply with the reporting obligations, having contact with Joanne, 12 months.
262Charge 5, failing to comply with reporting obligations, that is having contact with Nancy, 12 months.
263Charge 6, failure to comply with the reporting obligations by having contact with Casey, 12 months.
264Charge 7, failing to comply with the reporting obligations by having contact with Russell, 12 months.
265Charge 8, failing to comply with reporting obligations by failing to report a change of address, 12 months.
266Charge 9, sexual penetration of a child under 12, that is penetrating Casey's vagina with your finger, seven years, five months. That is the base sentence.
267Charge 10, sexual assault of a child under 16, two years, six months.
268Charge 11, sexual penetration of a child under 12, seven years, five months;
269Charge 12, sexual assault of a child under 16, two years, nine months.
270Charge 13, sexual penetration of a child under 12, seven years, five months.
271All of those charges related to offences committed against Casey.
272Charge 14, failure to comply with the reporting obligations, which is the rolled‑up charge regarding internet usernames, 12 months.
273Charge 15, produce child abuse material, two years, six months.
274Charge 16, sexual assault of a child under 16, these are the offences committed against Nancy, two years, eight months.
275Charge 17, sexual assault of a child under 16, these are the offences against Joanne, representative, two years, five months.
276Charge 18, sexual assault of a child under 16, these are the offences committed against Kristin, representative charges, two years, three months.
277Charge 19, sexual assault of a child under 16, these are the offences committed against Kathy, two years, two months.
278Charge 20, failure to comply with the reporting obligations, that dates back to 14 July 2015, 12 months.
279I make the following orders for cumulation upon the base sentence, which was imposed on Charge 9 and on each other. The following sentences will be served cumulatively on that base and each other: one month on Charge 1, one month on Charge 2, one month on Charge 3, one month on Charge 4, one month on Charge 5, one month on Charge 6, one month on Charge 7, one month on Charge 8, Charge 9 is the base, three months on Charge 10, two years on Charge 11, four months on Charge 12, two years on Charge 13, one month on Charge 14, four months on Charge 15, six months on Charge 16, five months on Charge 17, four months on Charge 18, four months on Charge 19, one month on Charge 20.
280This brings about a total effective sentence of 14 years and nine months, that is to say 177 months.
281I declare that you serve 11 years and three months, that is 1354 months, before being eligible for parole, that parole period representing 76 per cent of the head sentence.
ANCILLARY ORDERS
PSD
282You have been in custody since 16 October 2023. I declare that you have served 639 days by way of pre‑sentence detention and that declaration will be entered into the records of the court.
Serious offender
283I declare that you be sentenced as a serious sexual offender on Charges 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19 and such declarations will be entered into the records of the court.
SORA
284You are registered for life with respect to the Sex Offenders Registration Act. That is a matter I cannot and do not take into account for the purposes of imposing sentence.[102]
[102]s5(2BC) Sentencing Act 1991: In sentencing an offender a court must not have regard to any consequences that may arise under the Sex Offenders Registration Act 2004 from the imposition of sentence. I confirm the following classifications pursuant to the Schedules of the Sex Offenders Registration Act 2004: Sexual assault of a child under 16 – Class 2 - see Schedule 2, item 5A. Sexual penetration of a child under 12 – Class 1- see Schedule 1, item 1. Produce child abuse material – Class 2, see Schedule 2, item 13.
Section 6AAA
285Section 6AAA of the Sentencing Act requires me to state but for your plea of guilty what sentence you would have received. But for your plea of guilty I would have sentenced you to 17 years and eight months with a non‑parole period of 14 years and six months.
- - -
0
42
0