Director of Public Prosecutions v Eccles
[2025] VCC 840
•23 June 2025
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA AT MELBOURNE CRIMINAL DIVISION | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
Case No. CR-23-01511
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| ROBERT CHARLES ECCLES |
---
JUDGE: | CHIEF JUDGE CHAMBERS | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 26 May 2025 & 16 June 2025 | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 23 June 2025 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Eccles | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2025] VCC 840 | |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Subject:Criminal law - sentence
Catchwords: Guilty verdict following trial by jury – three charges of committing an indecent act with a child aged 16 or 17 and one charge of sexual penetration of a child aged 16 or 17 whilst under his care, supervision or authority – exploitation of existing relationship of mentoring a junior football umpire – significant age disparity – no relevant prior criminal history and nothing subsequent – Bugmy principles – delay – extra-curial punishment – general deterrence, denunciation and just punishment sentencing considerations of weight.
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1958 ss 48(1), 49(1); Sentencing Act 1991 ss 5, 5AA, 6B, 6D, 18; Crimes Act 2015 s49C ; Sex Offenders Registration Act 2004 ss 7, 34.
Cases Cited:Cheung v The Queen (2001) 209 CLR 1; DPP v Toomey [2006] VSCA 90; Clarkson v The Queen (2011) 32 VR 361; R v Verdins (2007) 16 VR 269; DPP v Ooms [2023] VSCA 207; Bhatia v R [2023] NSWCCA 12; Wakim v The Queen [2016] VSCA 301; Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571; Marrah v The Queen [2014] VSCA 119; Stasio v The Queen (2012) 46 VR 426; Warren (a pseudonym) v The Queen [2017] VSCA 35; DPP v Scott [2017] VCC 1564; DPP v Walsh (a pseudonym) [2020] VCC 1740; Robbins (a pseudonym) v The Queen [2017] VSCA 288; DPP v Kovac [2017] VCC 1845; DPP v Swingler [2018] VCC 220; Tones v The Queen [2017] VSCA 118; Burgess v R [2017] VSCA 59; DPP v Williams [2016] VCC 269; DPP v Lumsden [2023] VCC 212; DPP v Partington [2017] VCC 1540; DPP v Whitcroft [2017] VCC 1712.
Sentence: Four years, eight months’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of two years, 11 months.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the DPP | Mr A Grant | Office of Public Prosecutions |
| Victoria | ||
| For the Accused | Mr J Blackley | Victoria Legal Aid |
HER HONOUR:
1Robert Eccles, on 17 April 2025, you were convicted by a jury of twelve of three charges of committing an indecent act with a child aged 16 or 17 who was under your care, supervision or authority contrary to s 49(1) of the Crimes Act 1958 (‘the Act’), and one charge of sexual penetration of a child aged 16 or 17 who was under your care, supervision or authority contrary to s 48(1) of the Act.
2On 3 April 2025 you were arraigned and pleaded not guilty to a total of 9 charges on the trial indictment. A jury of 13 was empanelled at the outset of the trial. On 10 April 2025, a juror was discharged as he was unwell and was unlikely to become fit to resume for a number of days.
3At the conclusion of the evidence and arguments in the trial, the remaining 12 jurors deliberated for three days before returning a verdict on 17 April 2025. The jury unanimously convicted you of charges 1 to 4. You were acquitted, again unanimously, of charges 5 to 9. To be clear, you are entitled to the full benefit of your acquittal on those charges and they have no bearing on the sentence I am to impose today.
4You were born in November 1952 and were 59 years of age at the time of the offending.
The offending
5You now fall to be sentenced on a basis consistent with the jury verdict in your trial.[1] In sentencing you, I have proceeded on the basis that the jury accepted the account of the victim, Cameron Bourke,[2] who gave evidence in the trial.
[1]Cheung v The Queen (2001) 209 CLR 1
[2]A pseudonym.
6Before turning to the offending conduct, it is necessary to consider the circumstances in which the offences were committed in some detail.
7At the time of your offending in 2012, you had been an umpire at the Warrnambool & District Football Umpires’ Association (‘the Association’) for approximately 50 years. At that time, you had umpired 800 games, were top of the Association’s leaderboard, and according to the 2012 Year Book, held the position of ‘Trainer’ for that year. The trainer’s role was to assist the umpires in recovery sessions, including by giving massages or ‘rub-downs’ after a training session. Over the years, you had coached and mentored young umpires, including as part of the Green Shirts Mentor Program initiated by the AFL, and had assisted in training and recovery sessions for umpires.
8Cameron Bourke was born in 1996 and was raised in Warrnambool. Mr Bourke did not have an ongoing relationship with his own father, and only saw him on the odd occasion ‘when [his] mother would allow it’.[3]
[3]Trial Transcript at page 35, lines 13-14 (Cameron Bourke).
9When Mr Bourke was in primary school, the head coach at the Association came to his school seeking to recruit new members. Mr Bourke was interested in becoming an umpire as his parents had not allowed him to play football. He joined the Association as a trainee umpire when he was 12 years old.
10From the time he commenced, Mr Bourke attended training two nights a week and would umpire on weekends. Like all young umpires, he began as a boundary umpire for junior games. He then expressed interest in being promoted to a field umpire. You were actively involved in the Association at the time, as a highly-regarded and experienced umpire. It was through your involvement in the Association, including as someone who assisted with training and with recovery sessions, that you first met Cameron Bourke.
11You became a mentor to Mr Bourke as he moved into field umpiring, offering him encouragement, telling him that he would ‘be a superstar one day’.[4] It was around this time, when he was 15, that you first offered to give Cameron Bourke massages at your address in Warrnambool. You told Mr Bourke that the massages would ‘help [him] keep on top of his body’ and ‘help [him] perform better as an umpire’.[5] You had a garage at the rear of your property, separate from the house, which was set up with a massage table, a wood fire burner, a couch, fridge and television.
[4]Trial Transcript at page 40, line 8 (Cameron Bourke).
[5]Trial Transcript at page 44, lines 26-31 (Cameron Bourke).
12By this time, Mr Bourke was attending secondary school. After school, Mr Bourke was usually collected by his paternal grandmother who would then drive him to your address. On occasions, you would come down the driveway and wait at the gate, and wave to Mr Bourke’s grandmother, before accompanying Cameron Bourke to the garage.
13Generally, Mr Bourke was wearing his school uniform when he arrived at your house. Once he was inside the garage, he would remove his school clothes down to his underwear, and climb onto the massage table. You would then begin to give him a full-body massage. Until he turned 16, there was nothing sexual about these therapeutic massages.
14At the conclusion of the massage sessions, Mr Bourke would text his grandmother who would then collect him and drive him home. Mr Bourke attended your house for a massage approximately five times after he turned 15, before you first offended against him.[6]
[6]Trial Transcript at page 50, line 15 (Cameron Bourke).
15The nature of the massages changed when Mr Bourke turned 16, in 2012.
Charge 1 – Indecent act with a child aged 16 or 17 under care, supervision or authority (masturbated the victim’s penis)
16After that date, Cameron Bourke attended at your garage for a massage as he had before his 16th birthday. On one such occasion, the massage began in exactly the same way where, after Mr Bourke removed his school clothes down to his underwear, you began to massage him as he lay face down on the massage table. You first massaged Mr Bourke’s back, before you rolled him over onto his stomach. Up until this point, the massage was no different to the massages he had when he was 15.
17You then placed your hand on Cameron Bourke’s penis over his underwear, and began to massage it. As he developed an erection, you moved his underwear out of the way, and began stroking his penis using massage oil. You continued to masturbate his penis until he ejaculated. When Mr Bourke asked you why you were doing this, you answered with words to the effect of ‘[he] was now 16, [you] can do it’.[7] He then asked, ‘Fuck, does everyone get this?’ to which you replied, ‘Yes’,[8] referring to the conduct as ‘gouting’.[9] You then told Mr Bourke not to tell anyone.
[7]Trial Transcript at page 51, line 25 (Cameron Bourke).
[8]Trial Transcript at page 51, lines 26-27 (Cameron Bourke).
[9]Trial Transcript at page 52, line 14 (Cameron Bourke).
18Mr Bourke is not sure for how long you masturbated his penis on this occasion, but after he ejaculated, he says you ‘wiped [him] off with a towel’[10] before he sent a text to his grandmother to pick him up.
[10]Trial Transcript at page 52, lines 25-26 (Cameron Bourke).
19Mr Bourke did not tell his grandmother what had happened. Nor did he tell anyone else. He says he was ‘a kid’ and ‘didn’t know what to say’, and that he ‘would have been confused’ at the time.[11]
[11]Trial Transcript at page 53, lines 15-19 (Cameron Bourke).
20This is the conduct that is the subject of charge 1 – indecent act with a child aged 16 or 17 while under your care, supervision or authority. I return to the issue of Mr Bourke being under your care, supervision or authority at the time of the offending later in my reasons.
Charge 2 - Indecent act with a child aged 16 or 17 under care, supervision or authority (masturbated the victim’s penis)
21After the first occasion, Mr Bourke says he felt compelled to continue having massages with you, stating that you ‘took control’ by sending him text messages advising that you had booked him in for further massages. He says you told him that the massages would assist him ‘to perform better as an umpire’.[12]
[12]Trial Transcript at page 98, lines 19-21 (Cameron Bourke).
22On an occasion separate to the first instance of offending, Cameron Bourke attended at your garage after school for a message, removed his school clothes down to his underwear and lay on the massage table. You gave him another full-body massage, beginning with him lying on his back. After you rolled him onto his stomach, you told him to relax. The massage finished with you placing your hands into his underwear, and stroking his penis until it was erect. This is the conduct that is the subject of charge 2 – indecent act with a child aged 16 or 17 under your care, supervision or authority.
Charge 3 – Sexual penetration with a child aged 16 or 17 under care, supervision or authority (introduced the victim’s penis into the accused’s mouth)
23The act of sexual penetration immediately followed the indecent act that is the subject of charge 2. After you had stroked Mr Bourke’s penis until it was erect, you then began licking the tip of his penis before placing your mouth over it, performing oral sex on the victim. This is the conduct that is the subject of charge 3 – sexual penetration with a child aged 16 or 17 under your care, supervision or authority.
Charge 4 – Indecent act with a child aged 16 or 17 under care, supervision or authority (took the hand of the victim and guided it onto the accused’s penis)
24During this second incident, you were wearing only shorts. While you were masturbating Cameron Bourke’s penis, you rolled up your shorts and took out your own penis. You than grabbed Cameron Bourke’s hand, lubricated it with massage oil, before you ‘made [him] stroke your penis’,[13] saying words to the effect of ‘Just do it’.[14] At the same time, you continued to perform oral sex on him. This conduct is the subject of charge 4 – indecent act with a child aged 16 or 17 under your care, supervision or authority.
[13]Trial Transcript at page 102, line 8 (Cameron Bourke).
[14]Trial Transcript at page 102, line 19 (Cameron Bourke).
25After he ejaculated in your mouth, you then ejaculated into a towel, saying ‘that tastes good’ and ‘that was fuckin’ brilliant’.[15]
[15]Trial Transcript at page 103, line 4 (Cameron Bourke).
26The offending occurred between Cameron Bourke’s 16th birthday in 2012 and 8 September 2012, being the end of the football season that year. Cameron Bourke ceased attending secondary school at the end of that year.
27The jury, in reaching its guilty verdict with respect to each of these four charges, must have been satisfied beyond reasonable doubt, that at the time of the offending, Cameron Bourke was under your care, supervision or authority. In other words, that you were in a position to exploit or take advantage of that relationship to influence him to take part in the indecent acts and the act of sexual penetration.
28It is necessary for me to make some findings in relation to the issue of Cameron Bourke being under your care, supervision or authority at the time of this offending, consistent with the jury’s verdict.
29As previously stated, the evidence at trial establishes that you were a highly-regarded and experienced umpire at the Association, having officiated at hundreds of games by 2012. Mr Bourke gave evidence at trial that when he expressed interest in becoming a field umpire, you told him the coaches had suggested it would be a good idea to ‘umpire together’[16] and that you could help in the development of his skills. Mr Bourke said that you would umpire with him, and provide him and the coaching staff with feedback. He said that you would encourage him in his performance as an umpire; telling him that he was ‘smashing it’.[17] He said you never gave him negative feedback. Mr Bourke also gave evidence that the coaching staff had told him that you would be his mentor, although the precise timing of this is not clear.
[16]Trial Transcript at page 174, line 19 (Cameron Bourke).
[17]Trial Transcript at page 70, line 8 (Cameron Bourke).
30You were known within the Association as a person who offered massages, and were known by the name ‘Black Hands’ according to the evidence of Mr Gavin Sell who was the Association’s Vice Chairperson in 2012. Mr Sell gave evidence that the role of a mentor was to assist junior umpires with decision-making, to give them ‘game day support’, and ‘little tips and words of encouragement’, at either training or on the day of a game.[18] Mr Sell could not remember whether you had ever been appointed a mentor to any of the junior umpires.
[18]Trial Transcript at page 388, lines 24-29 (Gavin Sell).
31Mr Arno Pennings was a President of the Association in 2011 and Director of Umpiring in 2012. He gave evidence that Cameron Bourke began as a boundary umpire and went through the ‘mentor program’ to become a central, or field umpire.[19] Mr Pennings said the mentor program involved a senior umpire either shadowing the new umpire or assisting them to make decisions during junior games.[20]
[19]Trial Transcript at page 388, lines 28-30 (Arno Pennings).
[20]Trial Transcript at page 441, lines 4-10 (Arno Pennings).
32Mr Pennings’ evidence is that there were numerous senior umpires who acted as mentors and that you were one of the people involved in Cameron Bourke’s mentoring program, amongst others, including himself.[21] Mr Pennings stated that the program worked in such a way that a mentor may have been allocated to Cameron Bourke ‘for a couple of weeks and then he would have a different mentor again’, but that there was no set mentor.[22] Mr Pennings said no record was kept by the Association of the mentoring arrangements.
[21]Trial Transcript at page 441, line 22 (Arno Pennings).
[22]Trial Transcript at page 441, lines13-19 (Arno Pennings).
33According to the Personal Umpires Record for 2011 kept by the Association, there were two occasions you umpired with Cameron Bourke in May of that year. However, the Personal Umpires Record for 2012 reveals there was not a single occasion that you umpired with Mr Bourke in that year, which was the year of the offending.
34I am satisfied that you, amongst others, played a role in mentoring Cameron Bourke as a junior umpire in 2011. At that time, as a highly regarded and experienced umpire with the Association, you were particularly encouraging of Mr Bourke’s performance and skill as an umpire, telling him that he as ‘smashing it’ and ‘would be a star one day’. It was also during that year, 2011, that the extent of your interest in Cameron Bourke led you to offer him, at the age of 15, therapeutic massages at your home address. I am satisfied that it was in the context of a mentoring relationship established through the Association in 2011 that you began performing non-sexual massages on him in your garage, telling him that massages would be beneficial to his performance as an umpire.
35I am not satisfied to the requisite standard however, that you continued to hold any official role mentoring Cameron Bourke as a junior umpire in 2012. Rather, having established that mentoring relationship in 2011, you were then in a position to exploit or take advantage of that established relationship of trust to offend against Mr Bourke under the guise of offering ongoing therapeutic massages in 2012.
36The jury must have been satisfied that this relationship of care, supervision or authority persisted during both instances of offending in 2012.
Complaint
37Cameron Bourke never told anyone about your offending against him until January 2023. It is often the case that with offending such as yours a victim does not come forward for many years after the offending.[23]
[23]DPP v Toomey [2006] VSCA 90 (‘Toomey’)
38On 22 January 2023, you sent a text message to Mr Bourke which read along the lines of, ‘Hey mate, how you going?’ At this point in time, Mr Bourke was at dinner with his partner. Mr Bourke ultimately deleted the texts as he did not want his partner to see them, because he would then have to ‘disclose to her’.[24] He left the hotel and went to the garage of his house, where his partner found him ‘crying hysterically’[25]. Later that night, Mr Bourke told his partner that you had sent the messages, and when asked if you had touched him, he said yes, and went into the shower, crying, and refused to get out.
[24]Trial Transcript at page 139, lines 22-23 (Cameron Bourke).
[25]Trial Transcript at page 128, line 31 (Cameron Bourke).
39The following day, 23 January 2023, Mr Bourke spoke first with his partner about what you had done and then with his cousin, although he did not provide full details to either of them.
40On 24 January 2023, Mr Bourke made a formal statement to police. You were then arrested, after a search warrant was executed at your property and interviewed by police on 3 February 2023. During your record of interview, you effectively denied the allegations, stating that Cameron Bourke continued to see you for massages for years after these alleged events. You were charged on 3 February 2023 and released on an undertaking of bail.
Procedural history
41After being charged, the matter proceeded to a committal hearing at Geelong Magistrates’ Court on 28 August 2023. Earlier trial listings for 27 May 2024 and 13 August 2024 were vacated to accommodate the availability of trial counsel.
42An earlier trial was listed before me on 21 October 2024, and a jury was empanelled. However, before the prosecution case closed, the jury was discharged due to certain evidence being adduced from the informant that I concluded was unfairly prejudicial to your trial. This delay was caused through no fault of yours. The trial was then adjourned to commence on 3 April 2025 and concluded with the unanimous verdict reached by the jury on 17 April 2025. The plea hearing was then listed before me on 26 May and 16 June 2025.
Gravity of offending
43I turn now to discuss the nature and gravity of your offending.
44The law places an absolute prohibition on sexual activity with a child aged 16 or 17 where a relationship of care, supervision or authority exists with respect to that child. The law does so in recognition of the power imbalance that is inherent in such relationships and the corresponding vulnerability of the child where that relationship is abused. The gravity of the offence of committing an indecent act and engaging in an act of sexual penetration with a child aged 16 or 17 in those circumstances is reflected in the maximum penalty of five and ten years’ imprisonment respectively for these offences.
45At the time of your offending, you were 59 years old. There was a significant age disparity between you and Cameron Bourke, who was only 16; 43 years your junior. Cameron Bourke had first come to know you when he joined the Association as a junior umpire at the age of 12. From that age, he attended training sessions twice a week after school, before umpiring football games on weekends. By the end of the 2012 football season, he had umpired 149 games, including six games with the seniors and seven games as a field umpire.
46For many young people living in regional townships such as Warrnambool, football and all the activities associated with the sport, are a central part of their lives. The various clubs and associations form part of the social fabric of the community, and adolescents have the opportunity to learn from and be mentored by adults in senior positions in those clubs and associations. This was the case for Cameron Bourke. After his parents would not permit him to play football, the victim decided to try umpiring which, in his words, gave him ‘an opportunity to be involved in the game’.[26]
[26]Trial Transcript at page 32, lines 29-30 (Cameron Bourke).
47This was the context in which Cameron Bourke came to know you. By this time you were already a senior umpire, with many years of umpiring experience within the Association. In 2011, when he was 15, you became Cameron Bourke’s mentor and, through this role, began giving him therapeutic massages alone in the garage.
48Having encouraged Mr Bourke by telling him that the massages were important for his performance as an umpire – and having created a level of comfort for the victim by performing purely therapeutic massages on him in 2011 – you then took advantage of the opportunity that existed to sexually offend against Mr Bourke on two separate occasions in 2012.
49As highlighted by Counsel on your behalf, the acts constituting the sexual offences were not aggravated by being accompanied by physical force or threats of violence. Rather, it is the profound breach of trust implicit in your offending that founds it gravity. Your offending was also accompanied by aspects of coercion, warning Cameron Bourke not to tell anyone after the first incident of offending, and telling him to ‘just do it’ when you grabbed his hand to masturbate your penis on the second occasion.
50The second episode of offending within months of the first represents a serious escalation in your sexual offending against the victim. You had ample opportunity to reflect on your conduct, and stop after the first incident. You did not.
51There was even time for reflection at the beginning of the second incident of offending, beginning when you again started to masturbate Cameron Bourke’s penis. What then occurred was sustained offending. The sexual abuse on this occasion involved other acts of sexual activity; including mutual masturbation whilst simultaneously performing oral sex on him. This was appalling offending against a child who you had mentored and encouraged, and who had been left alone in your care by his family, trusting that he was receiving nothing more than sports-related massages.
52As the prosecution submissions highlighted, your offending involved a breathtaking breach of the trust that the Association and the victim’s parents and grandmother had placed in you. In making these observations, I accept that a breach of trust is inherent in offences of this kind. Rather, it is important to reflect upon the gravity of the breach of trust implicit in your offending.
53What you did was so egregious that it is nonsensical to suggest that you may not have fully appreciated the wrongfulness of your conduct or misjudged its gravity. You had told Cameron Bourke not to tell anyone on the first occasion, and by your offending on the second occasion, must have been confident that he had not complained.
54It was the opportunity for unsupervised interaction with Cameron Bourke, implicitly granted by his parents and guardians, which left him vulnerable to your offending. He no longer had the immediate protection of his parents or guardians. That the massages occurred in the privacy of your home, amplified his vulnerability. There was evidence in the trial that facilities existed at the Association for trainers to provide massages.[27] But in this case, you chose to offer the victim massages from your address, where he was removed from the protection afforded by such a club setting, and the likely presence of other members of the Association.
[27]Trial Transcript at page 448, lines19-26 (Arno Pennings).
55As stated by the Court of Appeal in the case of Toomey, the corrosive nature of offending in such circumstances is significant:
‘The exposure over recent years of the extent of the incidence of abuse of children in our community by persons entrusted with their care has created such distrust at all levels and threatens the very capacity of adults to interact in a normal healthy fashion with them.’[28]
[28]Toomey [2006] VSCA 90 at [20]
56The law recognises that sexual offences are crimes of violence that can cause significant, sometimes irreparable trauma to the victims. The absolute prohibition on sexual offending against a child aged 16 or 17 whilst under a person’s care, supervision or authority, is aimed at protecting children from the harm that can come from premature sexual activity and to deter adults in such positions from abusing the trust implicit in that relationship[29]. There is a presumption of harm in such cases; a harm that is powerfully borne out by the victim impact statement of Mr Bourke in this case.
[29]Clarkson v The Queen (2011) 32 VR 361
57In his victim impact statement, Mr Bourke describes the multi-faceted impact your crimes have had on his life.[30] Although he bears no responsibility for your offending, he describes the ‘the shame, guilt, dirty feelings’ he experiences every day, saying that sitting on the shower floor crying, was an attempt by him to ‘wash’ those feelings away. He says that he now struggles with living in a small town, believing everyone knows due to the publicity the case has received. The victim describes difficulties holding onto relationships, and how your offending has undermined his ability to trust anyone, leaving him isolated and lonely.
[30]Exhibit A – Victim Impact Statement of Cameron Bourke dated 18 May 2025.
58Mr Bourke’s victim impact statement also reflects on the psychological trauma he has experienced, requiring medical treatment for anxiety and the ‘downward spiral of depression’. He describes sleepless nights and waking from nightmares and panic attacks. Put simply, he states he can no longer enjoy life anymore; that he is ‘numb to life’. Mr Bourke eloquently concludes his victim impact statement by stating:
‘I often sit and reflect on what life could have been but there’s one thing for sure. It will never be the same again as I’ll be here for the rest of my life trying to cure that happy kid that was once me.’
59Mr Eccles, there can be no doubt that your offending has had a profound impact on the life of Mr Bourke. I have taken that impact into account in sentencing you.
60On your behalf it was submitted that the indecent act charges are mid-range examples of these offences, and that the sexual penetration charge is a low to mid-range example. Viewed in isolation, these may be appropriate characterisations of each offence. However, the gravity of the offending cannot be assessed by reference to the particulars of the charged conduct alone.
61In my opinion, all of the offending, across both episodes, is made significantly more serious because of the context in which it occurred, and the breach of trust implicit in the offending. More specifically, the gravity of the sexual abuse that comprises the second episode of offending is made all the worse by the compounding effect of the offending occurring simultaneously, making it a far more intensely physical act of sexual abuse than when the acts are artificially considered in isolation.
62There is nothing before me to indicate that you did not have the capacity to reason and reflect upon your actions at the time of this offending. There is evidence, to which I will return, that indicates you were drinking heavily around this period. However, intoxication does not excuse your conduct. There is no material before me to conclude that you suffered any mental health or other impairment at the time of this offending, such as to enliven the principles in the case of Verdins [31]
[31]R v Verdins (2007) 16 VR 269 (‘Verdins’)
63Viewed overall, I consider your moral culpability for your offending to be high.
No utilitarian discount or discount for remorse
64You did not plead guilty to the charges which the jury found proved beyond reasonable doubt, and still maintain your innocence in relation to these offences. This, of course, is not an aggravating feature and you are not to be punished for running a trial.
65However, there is no indication that you accept responsibility for your offending. You have shown no remorse for your conduct and no contrition for the impact of your crimes on the victim. An offender who pleads guilty to an offence, particularly where the plea is accompanied by genuine remorse, is entitled to a significant sentencing discount. You are not entitled to that benefit or discount.
Personal circumstances
66I have obtained much information of your personal circumstances from evidence you gave at your plea hearing on 16 June 2025 and the information you provided to psychologist, Gina Cidoni when you were assessed for the purposes of your plea on 3 June and 6 June 2025.[32]
[32]Exhibit 3 – Psychological Assessment Report of Ms Gina Cidoni, Consultant Psychologist, dated 10 June 2025 (‘Cidoni Report’).
67You are now 72 years old. You are a Peak Whurrong elder of the Gunditjmara Maar nation. Your aboriginality derives from your mother’s side. Your mother’s parents were Walter and Margaret Ballantyne Dalton (nee Robinson) who were born at Framlingham.
68You have six older siblings born of your mother and father’s relationship, two brothers and four sisters. You lived with your mother, father and your siblings until you were approximately two years old. However, you were removed from your parents and siblings by your maternal grandmother at that time due to her concern that the authorities may remove you. You understand that this was due to her concern that your parents continued to return to Framlingham where they would drink to excess. You then remained in the care of your maternal grandmother, removed from your parents and siblings throughout your childhood.
69You have no memory of your father, who was killed in 1958 while walking to work when he was hit by a truck, and you understand that he was left for dead on the side of the road. You report that your father was extremely violent towards your mother prior to his passing; violence to which you would have been exposed in your earliest, formative years, but of which you have no personal recollection. While Ms Cidoni reports that you were exposed to family violence and substance abuse from a young age, including seeing your father threatening and assaulting your mother, it seems this is not the correct chronology. In evidence before me, you state you became aware of these facts much later in life through other family members.
70Due to the involvement of child protection authorities, your siblings were removed from your mother when they were young, and were placed in residential care in Geelong.
71You were raised by your maternal grandmother and grandfather in Merivale. Your mother was one of 13 children, and as you were growing up with your grandparents, you were the only child in a house filled with many adults, with up to half a dozen family members living in the house at any given time. Your grandparents did not drink, and you were raised in stable but impoverished conditions.
72Your grandfather was often absent from the house, and your grandmother was the dominant presence in your life as you grew up. At one point, when you were around 14 years old, the only income for the large family was that of your uncle, Ray Dalton, who worked at a local abattoir, and would source offal for the family’s meals. Your Uncle Ray became a father figure to you but was evicted from the house due to his alcohol abuse by your grandmother. At the age of 14, you were required to leave school to find employment, given the family’s dire financial situation.
73You report that your isolation from your mother and siblings led to a rift developing between you. When your siblings were ultimately returned to the care of your mother, you remained in the care of your grandparents. You are not aware of the reason why you were not reunified with your mother and siblings at that point in time. You would only see your mother and siblings once or twice a year, and report that you were treated as the ‘black sheep’ of the family.
74You attended primary school in Merivale, where your siblings also attended for a period of 18 months to two years. During that period, your siblings also treated you poorly, leading you to feel ‘cast out’ and alone. You did not enjoy school, but were encouraged by your grandmother to continue until Year 9. In later years, you came to realise the significance of having an education.
75At the age of 14, you had to leave school and found your first job working in spare parts at a local car dealership. When you began work, you were paid $11 per week, and would give your grandmother $8 and keep the remaining $3 for yourself. You continued to work at various car dealerships until you were 20 years old.
76In your early twenties, you left Warrnambool and began work at a factory in Geelong in order to be closer to your mother. It was at this age that, for the first time, you began to know your mother.
77In around 1975, your grandmother became ill with dementia and you returned to Warrnambool to care for her. It took two years for commission housing to be found for her. After caring for your grandmother for 18 months, she entered an aged care home, passing away just before your marriage in 1977 to your wife of 48 years, Lynn Eccles.
78You went on to be employed in various dealerships working as a manager of spare parts, and later, as a hotel manager. Then, in 1992, you became the founding CEO of the Gunditjmara Aboriginal Cooperative (‘the Cooperative’), supporting Aboriginal people in the region in the areas of health, education and welfare. You held this position until 1997. You were also instrumental in establishing a business arm of the Cooperative, offering employment to First Nations people in supported positions in a range of industries. The profits from this venture were then returned to the Cooperative.
79In 2000, you obtained employment with South West TAFE as an apprenticeship field officer, a role you held for 13 years. At the same time you completed a Certificate IV and a diploma to teach indigenous language. You then taught language in kindergartens and schools, whilst still employed at the South West TAFE, at which time you also began working part-time as a Koori Court liaison officer.
80In 2016, you were appointed as an Elder sitting in Koori Court hearings in both the Magistrates’ Court and in the County Court. You undertook this role until 2023, ceasing after you were charged with this offending.
81In 2021, you were recognised with the Victorian Senior of the Year award, in the category of health and fitness. You had also been appointed and served as President and Secretary of the Merrivale Football Club, the Merrivale Cricket Club and the Association.
82Your cultural identity is important to you, and you have been regularly called upon by government agencies and private organisations to engage in cultural awareness programs and as a well-recognised Elder, to deliver Welcomes to Country. However, your cultural identity has not been without complication. As a child, you were not aware of your Aboriginality. Your Grandmother is reported to have deliberately avoided referring to that aspect of your heritage as you grew up, and your Aboriginality was never confirmed until you were an adult.
83You married your wife Lynn Eccles in 1977 and she remains strongly supportive of you. You have two children together, ten years apart. Both children are now adults. As a couple, you struggled financially, but managed to buy your house in Warrnambool in 1980.
84You have a limited history of poor mental health. Approximately 30 years ago you required treatment at a mental health facility following a ‘breakdown’ which, in your assessment with Ms Cidoni, you attributed to stress, long work hours and heavy alcohol use.[33] You were exposed to alcohol abuse as a child, and your own consumption of alcohol increased when you began working as an adult. You report that alcohol has been an issue for you, on and off, throughout your life. However, in 2022 you ceased all consumption of alcohol.
[33]Cidoni Report at [49]
85At the age of 72, you experience a number of medical issues not uncommon for a man your age. In the last two years, you required hip surgery, leaving you with reduced mobility. You have also been diagnosed and successfully treated for prostate cancer, but are currently experiencing urinary difficulties.
Matters in mitigation
86Having assessed the objective gravity of your offending, I now turn to the various matters that were raised on your behalf in mitigation of your sentence. These were outlined in the detailed written submissions made on your behalf, which were expanded upon by Mr Blackley at your plea hearing.
Good character, absence of relevant priors and isolated offending
87You now fall to be sentenced as a man of 72 years of age. Over the course of your life, you have made many significant contributions to the community, both within the Aboriginal community and more broadly.
88Your two prior criminal convictions, now extremely dated, which relate to a charge of behaving in an offensive manner in a public place, for which you were fined $60 in December 1981 and a charge of unlawful assault for which you were placed on a good behaviour bond in 1991. As conceded by the prosecution, these matters have no relevance to your sentence for this offending.
89Since this offending in 2012, you have not committed any other offences.
90Evidence of an offender’s otherwise good character is a factor that is relevant to sentence, other than in specific circumstances which the prosecution argue have application here. It is the prosecution’s submission that you relied on your previous good character to overcome any resistance that the victim or his family would have had to the arrangement which resulted in him attending, unsupervised, at your home for massages, thus facilitating the offending. These facts, it is argued, enliven s 5AA of the Sentencing Act 1991 which the prosecution submits ‘requires the court to sensibly moderate the weight that is placed’ on your good character as part of the sentencing process.[34]
[34]Prosecution submissions on s 5AA of the Sentencing Act 1991 dated 11 June 2025, at [9].
91By its language, s 5AA of the Sentencing Act 1991, prevents a court from having regard to an adult offender’s previous good character or lack of previous findings of guilt or convictions in the following terms:
‘…in sentencing an offender for a child sexual offence, a court must not have regard to the offender’s previous good character or lack of previous findings of guilt or convictions if the court is satisfied the offender’s previous good character or lack of previous findings of guilt or convictions was of assistance to the offender in the commission of the offence.’ (emphasis added)
92The scope of the operation of s 5AA was recently considered by the Court of Appeal in the case of DPP v Ooms,[35] stating:
‘…the provision was intended to alter the common law and displace the law as stated in Ryan and Wakim so as to prohibit the court, subject to the condition expressed, from having regard to identified mitigatory factors personal to the offender. That said, by requiring a causal connection to be shown between the mitigatory factor and the offending, the legislature clearly intended to place a boundary around the application of that prohibition.’
[35]DPP v Ooms [2023] VSCA 207 (‘Ooms’).
93As to the approach to be adopted to the application of the provision, the Court of Appeal cited statements made by Beech-Jones CJ in Bhatia,[36] observing:
“Beech-Jones CJ proposed two sensible guideposts in approaching the provision: on the one hand, the requirement of ‘assistance’ does not establish a particularly high causal threshold but, on the other, it at least requires that the good character or lack of convictions have made some material contribution to the offender committing the offence…It would not be correct however, to adopt some form of ‘but for test’: the word ‘assistance’ connotes a higher level of involvement in the offending.’
[36]Ooms at [64] referring to Bhatia v R [2023] NSWCCA 12.
94In the circumstances of this case, the prosecution argues that the following evidence establishes the requisite nexus between your previous good character and the offending to enliven the provision:
· Evidence that the victim and others in the Association considered you to be a mentor and a highly regarded umpire, with a long history of involvement in the Association;
· Evidence that the victim did not question you when you told him the massages would assist him to be a better umpire;
· Evidence you were an official trainer with the Association during the period of the offending; and
· Evidence of the circumstances in which the victim’s grandmother would leave the victim in your care for the purpose of having therapeutic massages.
95In my view however, care should be taken not to conflate evidence that was relied upon by the prosecution to establish a relationship of care, supervision or authority at the time of the offending, and that of your previous good character. In this case, the evidence certainly established that Cameron Bourke was aware that you were ‘a well-respected umpire and mentor’[37] within the Association. Mr Gavin Sell referred to you as a ‘field umpire with the club at the time’[38] but he was not sure whether you were a mentor while he was Vice-President of the Association in 2012-2013. Mr Arno Pennings, who knew you from the time he first became involved in the Association in 1982, described you as ‘a masseur’, someone who could fix injuries with your ‘magic black hands’ and who had many years of experience as an umpire and mentor to younger umpires, including Mr Bourke. [39]
[37]Trial Transcript at page 39, line 7 (Cameron Bourke).
[38]Trial Transcript at page 389, line 3 (Gavin Sell).
[39]Trial Transcript at page 440, lines 14-17 (Arno Pennings).
96As I have found, it was this established relationship of trust, derived from your extensive experience as an umpire and then as a mentor to the victim, that you were able to exploit to sexually offend against him. However, the fact that you were a well-respected and experienced umpire relates to your reputation in that regard, and not to your good character more broadly.
97For s 5AA to have application, the court must be satisfied of a link between the offender’s previous good character and the offending, such that it assisted the offender to commit the offence.
98In the case of Wakim[40], (which was decided before the enactment of s 5AA) the offender was sentenced for one offence of sexual penetration of a child under 16. In that case, a significant body of material was presented in support of his good character, including the fact he had been appointed a Victorian Multicultural Affairs Commissioner, was a longstanding member of the Maronite Church where he participated in various committees and councils and had been awarded the Order of Australia medal prior to the offending. It was in that context that he became associated with the victim’s parents and family, who knew he was highly regarded in their community. The facts of that case stand in contrast to those here.
[40]Wakim v The Queen [2016] VSCA 301
99In this case, beyond the reputation you enjoyed as an experienced umpire, there was no evidence led of your personal standing in the Association more broadly, such as your honesty, reliability, trustworthiness or integrity. The victim’s grandmother gave no evidence of her opinion of your character or of your standing in the community. While I accept that other evidence may be used to infer a connection between a person’s previous good character and the offending, in this case, I am not satisfied the prosecution has established the required connection either directly or indirectly.
100I have received a number of character references on the plea.[41] These references come from people who have known you for many years in various professional and personal capacities. They speak of a man who has managed, despite a difficult childhood, to contribute to the community through your extensive involvement in local sport, notably as a football umpire, but also as President of the Merrivale Football Club and the Merrivale Cricket Club. Moreover, they also state that you have demonstrated a strong commitment to improving the lives of First Nations people, including being instrumental in establishing the Gunditjmara Aboriginal Cooperative, and in your work to revive the traditional Peak Whurrong language. They describe a person who they know to be kind, generous and caring.
[41]Exhibit 1 – Bundle of Character References
101Melinda Gaye Kennedy, the Deputy Chair of the Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Council, who has known you for fifty years, describes you as a ‘pinnacle’ in her cultural journey, someone she says ‘led and paved the way’ within the Aboriginal community and who she continues to respect, notwithstanding these findings. You also have the ongoing support of your wife, Lynn Eccles.
102Of course, much of your recognition for your community and cultural work occurred after this offending. It was not until 2016 that you were appointed an Elder on the Koori Courts. It was not until 2021, that you received the Victorian Senior of the Year, Healthy and Active Living Award.
103I am satisfied the evidence establishes that you have worked hard and continuously from the age of 14. Throughout your life, you have made a significant contribution to the community, not only through sport but particularly in the area of indigenous recognition and advancement. You have, for a long time, done many good works and continued to do so in the 13 years after this offending.
104I consider that you are entitled to have your previous good character and lack of any relevant prior criminal history, or subsequent offending, taken into account in mitigation of your sentence. As was observed by Callinan J in the case of Ryan, ‘character is not… a one-dimensional feature of any person’.[42] The role of previous good character in sentencing is nuanced. Of course, paraphrasing Callinan J, much of the shine of your previous good character has been taken off by the fact of this serious offending in 2012, but that does not mean I should disregard your life’s contribution and otherwise good character in mitigation of your sentence.
[42]Ryan v The Queen (2001) 206 CLR 267 at [178].
105I make substantial allowance for your good character and act on the basis that these episodes of offending (viewed collectively) constitute isolated offending.
Early childhood disadvantage
106It is accepted by the prosecution that your experience of early childhood disadvantage and dislocation from your mother and siblings, is relevant to your sentence.
107I have previously detailed these circumstances and will not repeat them here.
108Following your removal from your mother and siblings in your formative years, you remained isolated from your parents, family and culture. You report that your maternal grandmother avoided discussing your Aboriginality out of a fear that you, like your siblings, would be removed.
109Ms Cidoni states that her clinical evaluation ‘supports a diagnosis of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder based on your history of exposure to multiple traumatic events, beginning in childhood and continuing into adulthood’[43]. Ms Cidoni is of the opinion that your offending is likely to have been shaped by a combination of ‘longstanding emotional detachment, unresolved trauma, impaired empathy, and distorted boundaries within caregiving relationships’.[44] She considers that your emotional detachment and guarded interpersonal style derive from early deprivation and disconnection from family.
[43]Cidoni Report at [128]
[44]Cidoni Report at [131]
110The relevance of childhood deprivation and disadvantage to sentencing is well-recognised. In this case, it is accepted that the general approach described by the High Court in Bugmy,[45] has application. As stated by the Court of Appeal in Marrah v The Queen:
‘Circumstances of deprivation, abuse and other social disadvantage occurring during an offender’s formative years are more than just matters of historical significance to the administration of justice. The effects of such social disadvantage do not generally diminish with the passage of time, and are likely to have profound and lasting consequences.’[46]
[45]Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571 (‘Bugmy’)
[46]Marrah v The Queen [2014] VSCA 119 at [16]
111I give full weight to the general limb of Bugmy in mitigation of your sentence. No reliance was placed on the specific approach to Bugmy, there being no evidence of any causal connection between your early childhood disadvantage and the offending for which you are to be sentenced.
Delay
112Thirteen years have now passed since this the commission of this offending in 2012. As I have stated, it is not unusual in cases such as this for there to be such a delay in a victim reporting the matter to authorities. Nonetheless, the delay does have some consequences for you.
113Firstly, you now fall to be sentenced as a 72 year old man, with the health issues I have already touched upon.
114Secondly, the delay also means you have been able to demonstrate the capacity since 2012 to lead an otherwise law-abiding life. There has also been some delay associated with these proceedings for which, as I have stated, you bear no responsibility.
115I take these matters into account in moderating your sentence.
Risk of re-offending
116Having administered risk assessment evaluations, in her report dated 10 June 2025, Ms Cidoni assesses that you pose a moderate risk of re-offending. In part, this is due to her assessment that you demonstrate ‘chronic emotional detachment’, ‘externalise blame’ for the offending, and lack insight into the harm caused by your crimes. Ms Cidoni is of the opinion that engagement in specialist sex offender treatment is unlikely to reduce this risk while you refuse to accept responsibility for the offending.
117Against this, you have not offended in the past 13 years, which is a considerable period of time, and have lost any prospect of umpiring or mentoring football umpires ever again. You have been notified by the Department of Education that, following this verdict, your ‘reportable conduct’ will be referred to the Department of Government Services, for the purposes of a Working with Children Check.[47]
[47]Exhibit 6 – Letter of Jane Taylor, Director of Child Safety and Fraud Investigations at Department of Education, dated 22 April 2025.
118You have also been expelled from the Umpires’ Association following a disciplinary hearing conducted on 22 May 2025.[48] You no longer offer massages to any members of the community. Moreover, although you report drinking heavily at the time of the offending, you ceased all alcohol consumption in 2022. These factors all moderate the risk of you offending into the future. The need for the sentence I impose to operate for the protection of the community is correspondingly reduced.
[48]Exhibit 5 – Letter of Andrew Lougheed, President of the Warrnambool and District Football Umpires Association (undated). (‘WDFUA Letter’)
119Noting your age, state of health, previous good character, family support and the ramifications of this verdict for you, including the salutary experience of imprisonment, I assess that you pose little ongoing risk to the community and have good prospects of rehabilitation, despite a clear absence of remorse or insight. This finding lessens the need for the sentence I impose to deter you specifically from future offending.
Post curial punishment
120On your behalf, it was also submitted that since being charged with this offending, you have suffered significantly by the loss of your standing in the community, as a result of extensive media reporting of this case.
121Following the jury verdict, your 2021 Victorian Senior of the Year award was rescinded, and by letter dated 1 May 2025, the Minister for Ageing wrote to you requiring that you arrange for the trophy, certificate and lapel pin, received in recognition of the award, to be returned.[49]
[49]Exhibit 4 – Letter of Ingrid Stitt MP, Minister for Aging, dated 1 May 2025.
122You no longer sit as an Elder on the Koori Court.
123The Umpires’ Association has written to you advising that as a result of your conviction, you are expelled from the Association, your life membership has been rescinded, your image and records of your contribution will no longer be displayed or referenced within the Association and that it will ‘disavow any recognition of your games tally’. [50]
[50]Exhibit 5 – WDFUA Letter
124Whilst the loss of any ability to undertake umpiring or mentoring duties is to be expected as a natural consequence of your offending, I accept that the ramifications for you far exceed this. You have lost the reputation and standing you had established within the Association over many decades. You have lost the public recognition given to you as an Elder in your community, and as Victorian Senior of the Year. Yours has been a spectacular fall from grace. These matters, which operate as punishment over and above the sentence I am to impose, are relevant in further mitigation of your sentence.
Burden of imprisonment
125Finally, I also accept that your experience of imprisonment will be a difficult one for multiple reasons. In addition to your age and health and mobility issues, noting your history of bilateral hip replacements, this is also your first experience of custody, removed from family and other supports. Culturally, this is likely to be an isolating experience for you, given that your previous role as an Elder on the Koori Courts has the potential to cause difficulty for you with other Aboriginal offenders.
126Ms Cidoni diagnosed you with PTSD and with a persistent Depressive Disorder, with anxious stress. Ms Cidoni considers that your history of childhood trauma may make your experience of custody more onerous, particularly having regard to the fact that your loss of status and community role is likely to take a psychological toll, leading to a further deterioration in your mental health, enlivening limbs 5 and 6 of the principles enunciated in Verdins.
127I accept that your various impairments, notably your diagnosed PTSD, persistent depressive disorder, with anxious distress, in addition to your age and cultural isolation, will make your experience of imprisonment weigh more heavily upon you than it would for others without these difficulties.
Other relevant sentencing considerations
128I turn now to other relevant sentencing considerations.
129I have had regard to the purposes of imposing sentence as set out in s 5 of the Sentencing Act 1991. In the circumstances of this case, the prosecution’s submission that general deterrence, just punishment and denunciation are the paramount sentencing considerations must be accepted. In sentencing you, I must send an unequivocal message to those who may be minded to exploit a position of trust or care in relation to children in order to sexually abuse them, that they face grave consequences if convicted.
130In sentencing you, I am also required to have regard to current sentencing practices. The relevant sentencing practices are those currently applied, rather than those applied by the courts at the time of your offending.[51] However, the fact that the offence of sexual penetration of a child under an offender’s care, supervision or authority now carries a maximum penalty of 15 years’ imprisonment qualifies the extent to which I can do so.[52]
[51]Stasio v The Queen (2012) 46 VR 426
[52]See s 49C of the Crimes Act 2015.
131The concept of equal justice also requires that I should have regard to sentencing practices at the time of your offending, if they are ascertainable, on the basis that those practices are relevant to arrive at a sentence that is just in all the circumstances. I have had regard to the 2017 decision of the Court of Appeal in Warren (a pseudonym) v The Queen[53] to which I was referred by the prosecution. This case involved sexual offending against multiple victims, including sexual penetration of a child under 16 who was under the care, supervision or authority of the offender between the years 1988 and 1990. Neither counsel was able to locate comparable decisions involving similar offending committed in or around 2012.
[53]Warren (a pseudonym) v The Queen [2017] VSCA 35
132I have reviewed each of the cases I was referred to by the prosecution and defence,[54] whilst acknowledging that each case must turn on its own facts and circumstances. In particular, I have considered the sentences imposed by this Court in the cases of Williams[55], Lumsden[56], Partington[57] and Whitcroft[58] to which your Counsel referred, whilst noting each of those sentences were imposed following guilty pleas and where, in some cases, different maximum penalties applied. What is clear from these cases is that where a position of trust held by a sporting coach or trainer is exploited to sexually abuse children in their care, that a sentence of imprisonment is invariably imposed, other than in rare cases involving less serious offending than here.
[54]DPP v Scott [2017] VCC 1564; DPP v Walsh (a pseudonym) [2020] VCC 1740; Robbins (a pseudonym) v The Queen [2017] VSCA 288; DPP v Kovac [2017] VCC 1845; DPP v Swingler [2018] VCC 220; Tones v The Queen [2017] VSCA 118; Burgess v R [2017] VSCA 59.
[55]DPP v Williams [2016] VCC 269
[56]DPP v Lumsden [2023] VCC 212
[57]DPP v Partington [2017] VCC 1540
[58]DPP v Whitcroft [2017] VCC 1712
133Finally, it is accepted that if sentenced to a term of imprisonment on charges 1 and 2, you fall to be sentenced as a Serious Sexual Offender on charges 3 and 4.[59] When sentencing a serious sexual offender, I must have regard to the protection of the community as the principal purpose for which you are to be sentenced.[60] I have however concluded that you pose little risk to the safety of the community. Further, the prosecution has not sought a disproportionate sentence and I will not be imposing one.
[59]Section 6B of the Sentencing Act 1991
[60]Section 6D of the Sentencing Act 1991
134The legislative presumption of concurrency is reversed in relation to the charges for which you are to be sentenced as a serious sexual offender, although totality still has a role to play when determining the amount of cumulation to be ordered.
135Ultimately, both counsel submitted that the various sentencing considerations warrant the imposition of a head sentence with a non-parole period fixed. Your counsel conceded that some cumulation was warranted given the two distinct instances of offending, but submitted that when sentencing for charges 2, 3 and 4, the Court ought to have proper regard to the fact these offences arose from the one event, whilst recognising the separate criminality of the various acts.
Sentence
136Balancing the matters to which I have referred, whilst having regard to the maximum penalty for each offence, I sentence you as follows.
137On charge 1 – committing an indecent act with a child aged 16 or 17 who was under your care, supervision or authority, you are convicted and sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment.
138On charge 2 – committing an indecent act with a child aged 16 or 17 who was under your care, supervision or authority, you are convicted and sentenced to 20 months’ imprisonment.
139On charge 3 – sexual penetration of a child aged 16 or 17 who was under your care, supervision or authority, you are convicted and sentenced to 4 years’ imprisonment. This is the most serious offence of which you have been convicted and is the base sentence.
140On charge 4 – committing an indecent act with a child aged 16 or 17 who was under your care, supervision or authority, you are convicted and sentenced to 20 months’ imprisonment.
141As to the orders I make for cumulation, conscious that charges 2, 3 and 4 arise from the one incident of offending, I direct that 4 months of the sentence imposed on charge 1 and 4 months of the sentence imposed on charge 4 be served cumulatively on the sentence imposed on charge 3 and upon one another. The sentence imposed on charge 2 is to be served concurrently with all other sentences imposed.
142This means that I sentence you to a total effective sentence of 4 years, 8 months’ imprisonment. I fix a non-parole period of 2 years, 11 months’ imprisonment. This is the period of imprisonment that you must serve before becoming eligible for parole. Whether you are granted parole is a matter for the Adult Parole Board.
143I direct that the fact you are sentenced as a serious sexual offender in respect of charges 3 and 4 be entered into the record of the Court.
144Pursuant to s 18 of the Sentencing Act 1991, I declare that 67 days of pre-sentence detention be reckoned as already served under the sentence I have imposed.
145Mr Eccles, as a consequence of my sentence, you must also be registered as a sex offender. By virtue of you having committed these offences, your reporting period as a registered sex offender is for life.[61]
[61]ss 7, 34 of the Sex Offenders Registration Act 2004
3
26
0