Director of Public Prosecutions v Farley (a pseudonym)
[2025] VCC 1681
•10 November 2025
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA AT MELBOURNE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| TODD FARLEY (A PSEUDONYM) |
---
JUDGE: | HIS HONOUR JUDGE TINNEY |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne |
DATE OF HEARING: | 6 November 2025 |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 10 November 2025 |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Farley (a pseudonym) |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2025] VCC 1681 |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Catchwords: Rape of 17 year old by 37 year old. Accused had been married to the victim's great aunt who had died. Victim had been viewed by accused as niece and was staying with accused in his house. Earlier admitted improper acts (uncharged) . July 2021 entry into girl's bedroom at night without invitation and removal of her clothes and penile vaginal penetration without any consent. Girl froze and in shock. Payment of money after the event for ‘what had happened’. Police disclosure October 2021.Some admissions in pretext call in October 2021 but complete denials in formal police interview in February 2022. - Short irrelevant criminal history – Late guilty plea - R v Verdins [2007] VSCA 102 – limb 5 only. Disadvantaged background: Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; Delay; Category 1 offence. Mandatory sentence scheme. Sex Offender Registration Act 15 years
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Director of Public Prosecutions | Ms B. Goding | Office of Public Prosecutions |
For the Accused | Ms E. Strugnell | Victoria Legal Aid |
HIS HONOUR:
1Todd Farley,[1] you have pleaded guilty to one charge of the rape of a 17-year-old girl. The offence took place in your home in Ballarat back in July 2021.
[1] A pseudonym.
2You were born in April 1984 and so it follows you were 37 years of age at the time of the offending but 41 now.
3You have admitted a criminal history comprising only a single appearance back in 2004 for an unrelated matter. That prior criminal appearance has no relevance to my task. I mentioned in the course of the plea that that there was reference to a non-allegeable Children's Court matter. That had seemingly been mistakenly included in one version of a criminal history that had been filed in this Court in May of this year. By then you had already been fully arraigned. An earlier filed version of your criminal history had that matter correctly omitted from the record. I act on the correct version and so of course I put that Children's Court matter aside altogether.
4Your crime has a 25 year maximum penalty, is a Category 1 offence and is also subject to the standard sentence scheme.
5The standard sentence for rape is 10 years.
6There is an agreed amended written prosecution summary in relation to this matter dated 3 November 2025 and I will sentence in accordance with that document which was marked as Exhibit A on the plea. There is little utility in my setting out in these my reasons the full factual setting. After all, the agreed summary does that. The written summary refers off to other material within the depositions, for instance the pretext call and your formal police interview and I have regard to that sort of material obviously enough. I have read the full transcripts.
7So I will provide only a brief summary of the agreed facts so that my reasons and the ultimate sentence which I will soon impose upon you might make sense to anyone who happens to access these remarks should they come to be published.
8On that score, as I know the victim is watching on, I make clear that if my reasons do come to be published, there will be no reference to your victim's name or to any material which might actually identify her. I will use her name and the names of any family members when delivering these reasons and that is purely because it is easier for me to do that. However, the law states that no-one can publish any detail which might lead in any way to her identification.
9As the summary makes clear, your victim Lara Campos[2] was 17 years of age at the time. You were 20 years older and you viewed her as your niece. That is because you had been in a long term defacto relationship with the girl's great aunt. Your victim had hence known you for very many years in a family setting, and you her. You had been in her life since she was a little girl of eight years of age and each of you viewed the relationship as familial; like uncle and niece. Your defacto wife, Lara's great aunt, died in late 2020 and it seems plain enough that your life went downhill sharply at that stage.
[2]A pseudonym.
10Now the summary spells out some events that preceded the charged act and they are there by agreement and are not in any way in dispute. They are uncharged acts and so I am not sentencing you in relation to them. I am talking of the incident where you slapped the girl's bottom under her skirt at McDonald's and the incidents of touching which occurred on occasions when visiting the shops. This conduct was obviously quite improper and provides some context for the charged conduct for which you do actually fall to be sentenced.
11Lara had a boyfriend, Barry,[3] and at one point, they lived at Barry's mother’s house in Heathcote. When it became apparent that Barry's mother was not happy with that arrangement, Lara asked you if they could use your spare room to stay in. You said that they could. She was thereafter living with you.
[3]A pseudonym.
12That couple broke up in mid-2021 but Lara stayed living with you. You were to some extent supporting her financially. You were listed as her next of kin when she had surgery to remove her appendix in this period.
13On the evening in question falling in July 2021, she had spoken to you about her $70 phone bill and you confirmed that you would give her money to pay for it.
14She went to bed wearing underpants, a bra and shorts and was drifting off to sleep when you entered the room without any invitation or good cause. Your victim was lying under the blankets facing the window and you lifted the blankets and got into the bed. Nothing was said. You touched her and you removed her lower clothing and then you penetrated her vagina with your penis and it is accepted that the act continued for some decent time. Every now and then you touched her breasts and digitally penetrated her as well. I am not dealing with those acts by way of sentence, it is just part of the context.
15Lara froze and she was in shock. She did not know what to do and so she did nothing.
16After the act was over, you got up and left. She stayed in her bed, frozen and scared.
17Some hours later you returned to her room, it was still in the early hours of the morning, and you handed her a large sum of money, $370, saying 'this is for what’s happened'. You then left the room.
18Your victim made some broad disclosures to her mother on 24 July 2021 and said that she did not want to go back to your house. It was arranged that she would live with her mother. She gave some information to the family friend who drove her to collect her belongings. She also told her then boyfriend Tom[4] some broad detail and provided greater detail to him the following year. That later account included her telling him that you had snuck into her bed and had sex with her wearing a condom.
[4] A pseudonym.
19On 12 October 2021 Lara Campos made a complaint to the police.
20There were pretext calls, one which was made on 19 October 2021 where you made some broad admissions or apology. She, on that same day, made a formal police statement.
21You were arrested on 16 February the following year, 2022 and you were interviewed by the police. You made complete denials to any improper conduct, any touching and having any sexual interest and to having performed any act of sexual penetration. See Q 311-325. You pretended to be hurt, dismayed and shocked by the allegations, correctly though placing before the police the many reasons why such conduct would have been quite wrong and unthinkable to you. You spelt out the close nature of the relationship and the financial support you had provided to her. See Q 82 , 89, 199-204. The girl was after all just 17 years of age and living under your roof and viewed by you as your niece. You told the police ‘you’re supposed to look after family’. See Q37. Your account was to refute the happening of the act, an act which you of course knew had taken place. Your perceptions as to how wrong the act was were of course ‘spot on’, even before factoring in the lack of any consent to it. In that interview you also tried to explain away the apology that had been made in the course of the pretext call.
22Now the account that you gave to the police is not a matter in any way in aggravation. It is just that there was no mitigation to be had from your interview with no acceptance by you of any responsibility at the time of the interview or any semblance of remorse or regret on display at that time.
23There is a procedural chronology set out at the end of the agreed summary. That chronology includes two dates where you failed to appear at a filing hearing and also two dates where the matter was adjourned to consider issues of your fitness to plead, which came to naught. At one stage the matter was also adjourned to permit resolution discussions and on 13 May 2024 you had put a deficient offer to plead which was rejected by the Crown. That offer was to plead guilty to a non-contact offence. The matter was listed for trial, with the trial to commence on 7 February 2025 and you first put the offer to plead to this charge on 23 January. That was the first time you had admitted any sexual act. Your offer was accepted and so no trial eventuated. You were fully arraigned on 7 February and you pleaded guilty on that day but the plea was then adjourned on your application to obtain materials for the plea. The plea was then listed in Ballarat in July 2025 but you were plainly not travelling too well on that day and your legal team applied once again to adjourn the plea. You went into custody on that July date and have been there since.
24This matter really could have been finalised quite some time ago. Happily though, there was no committal and no special hearing was ever conducted and so no witnesses have ever been cross examined.
25Owing to the manner in which the case has been settled, there were some less serious charges which ultimately did not proceed and of course I do not ignore that fact. However, obviously the central impediment to settlement was your reluctance to admit the penetrative act.
26So much then for what is a brief summary of the agreed summary in this matter. That is all it is. As I have said, I will sentence pursuant to the more detailed agreed summary marked as Exhibit A. There is no need for me to mark as exhibits the formal police interview or the pretext calls. I have read those transcripts.
Impact
27I turn now then briefly to the impact of your crime.
28The impact statement from your victim Lara Campos was prepared on 24 October 2025. So we are many years removed from your crime and yet your crime still impacts her life substantially. That is hardly surprising given the nature of the crime and the setting and the relationship. The victim impact statement was read aloud by the prosecutor the other day. I see no need to set out all the details of the impact of your crime in these my reasons, the impact statement does that and I have read it again since the plea.
29Your crime has had a lasting and deep impact on her life. She was a child, a child under your roof and a child betrayed by you. She has had counselling. She has nightmares. She has flashbacks. It has affected her sense of safety and of trust in other people. Of how she feels when out in the community.
30I must not let the impact of your crime swamp the many other considerations that I must also have regard to in this case. But I am required to take into account the impact of your crime. I have set out only some of the detail. Your crime has clearly had a deep and ongoing impact upon Lara Campos and I take that into account.
In Mitigation
31Ms Strugnell conducted the plea in mitigation on your behalf last Thursday. She relied upon a written further amended outline of submissions for the plea dated 31 October 2025, as well as a report from a neuropsychologist Dr March. Ms Strugnell made it clear that para 37 which mentioned the availability of a mandatory treatment and monitoring order was included in error and that as a matter of law, no such option was even open to the court. She also explicitly abandoned any reliance on limbs 1-4 and limb 6 of Verdins.[5]
[5]R v Verdins [2007] VSCA 102 (‘Verdins’)
32There were a large number of contemporaneous documents including for instance the Royal Children's Hospital and from schools. They are listed in detail in the outline. I will not mention them all. They were marked as a bundle (Exhibit 3). They included school reports and letters and reports from paediatricians or speech pathologists or hospital departments back in the day. Reports also from social workers. Finally, there were a couple of course completion documents marked as Exhibit 4, things you have done whilst in custody.
33Either through the oral submissions made on the plea or the written materials filed including the outline of defence submissions, I was provided with comprehensive detail as to your personal history and by that, I mean things such as your family, educational, work, drug use, relationship, and physical and mental health background. I make it clear that I will not be going chapter and verse through all of that detail in these my reasons. I am prepared to act on what I have been told about you.
34Ms Strugnell made some submissions to the court as to your prospects of rehabilitation. She addressed me as to the objective gravity of the offence and as to the relevant sentencing purposes in play here.
35If I may say so, you have been very well served by your legal team who have taken all the steps they could to obtain a large range of contemporaneous documentation including your old Departmental file.
36In Ms Strugnell's customarily excellent and very thorough plea in mitigation conducted on your behalf, she relied principally upon the following matters in mitigation:
· Your guilty plea;
· The presence of some remorse;
· Your disadvantaged background (Bugmy[6]); and
· The application of the 5th limb from the well-known case of Verdins;
· The delay in the finalisation of the matter.
[6]Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37 (’Bugmy’)
37She conceded that this was a category 1 offence and not one of those matters specifically raised in s5(2GA) and that hence such an order as was mentioned in para 37 was not, as a matter of law, even open. She conceded the inevitability of a prison term and one with a non-parole period. It was a matter of the length of each.
Prosecution
38The prosecutor, Ms Goding had prepared some written sentencing submissions dated 3 November which were marked as Exhibit C. I do not see any need to repeat them all in my reasons. She made some brief oral submissions as well. None of the submissions, either written or oral, were in any way controversial. The Crown accepted that the general application of the principles from the case of Bugmy would have some application here, and they did not cavil with the application of limb 5 from the case of Verdins. They came ready to argue against the application of the various other limbs of that case but did not need to as Ms Strugnell had withdrawn any reliance on limbs 1-4 and 6. The prosecutor placed before me a couple of other instances of sentences imposed for rape but made it clear that there were many differences both in offending and in matters in mitigation and aggravation; that the cases that she provided were not on all fours.
39The Director of Public Prosecutions was calling for a head sentence with a non-parole period, but of course so much had been readily conceded as being inevitable by your own counsel.
Background
40I am going to turn to your background. I will only do that quite briefly, for as I have said already, I have no reason not to accept the submissions and the voluminous material placed before me as to your personal background. Nor is there really any live dispute as to the level of disadvantage arising from your background. It is obvious enough. I see no utility in just slavishly repeating it all back to you or traversing every submission made to me as to how I should have regard to it. I said on the plea that I accepted that the Bugmy submissions made on your behalf were made good and nothing has altered.
41There is much coverage in Dr March's report as well as in Ms Strugnell's written outline.
42You were born in April 1984 and so were 37 years old at the time of this serious crime and 41 now. You were the oldest of four children. Jumping ahead you still saw your mother and had a good relationship with one of your sisters, at least as at the time when you entered custody in July of this year. You have not seen your father for many years. It is not clear to me whether he is even still alive.
43It is clear from the material that you sustained a brain injury in the weeks after your birth, one that compromised your development. A shaking mechanism was suspected at the time and that led onto a Care and Protection application and wardship, as it used to be called. Of course in recent times, there has been some level of controversy and dispute about the significance of what were regarded as the classic physical signs of shaken baby syndrome. It is not necessary for me to know how it was you sustained the injury or who was responsible. You undoubtedly did sustain a brain injury, and the view taken at the time was that you were in need of care and protection. The brain injury was really only one of a number of matters of serious misfortune in your early years. I accept that there has been much by way of disadvantage in your developmental years and I will not set out all the detail. The contemporaneous reports and letters as well as the written submissions and Dr March's report does that more than adequately. You were transferred from hospital as an infant into Allambie and then into State care for a couple of years. Your parents who were low functioning separated when you were an infant. You were a ward of State then from infancy until you were discharged in June 1986. You have no memory of your time in foster care but why would you? You would only have been a toddler.
44Your mother repartnered and moved to Kerang. Your father was in and out of custody throughout your childhood.
45There was abuse from your father and also from a stepfather, physical abuse and emotional abuse. There is some discrepancy in the materials as to when you first met your father. It is not critical. When you were in his care, he was both using and selling drugs and introducing you to them as well. There was some sexual abuse at the hands of one of your father's friends and your report of that to your father led to you being physically assaulted seriously by your own father.
46You left home at the age of 15 and were homeless. You received the disability support pension from the age of 16 or so, presumably as a result of your acquired brain injury sustained as an infant, though that is not entirely clear from the materials.
47You had disrupted schooling and you had difficulties with literacy and maths and you left school, again the precise time is not critical, it was either Year 7 or 8, or even perhaps part way into Year 9, it matters not which. You were bullied at school and you had and still have slurred speech.
48You did some work on a dairy farm. You also did some shearing and some work collecting supermarket trolleys. I was told that you had not worked whilst in the community for over 14 years. You are now working in custody five days a week in the bakery which is a positive.
49You were in a de facto relationship with Lara Campos's great aunt from 2010-2020 and she provided support for you, and you for her when she became ill. You became her carer and when she died in December 2020, you relapsed into heavy drug and alcohol use.
50There were some suicide attempts as well as periods of homelessness. There is reference to these things in the submissions and in some of the written materials placed before me.
51I am told that at the time of the offending you had relapsed into heavy use of cannabis, alcohol, heroin and ice after abstaining for many years. That you were living in substandard conditions. That your life had, to a large extent, fallen apart following the death of your partner.
52The written outline sets out the history of drug use. I will not. There is some material before me as to mental health engagement. There was none of that before August 2023. Plainly from the materials provided, there have been a number of suicide attempts and your declining state led to your failure to appear at a filing hearing on 3 August when you were admitted to a mental health facility the very next day.
53You have only a single appearance before the court for aggravated burglary dealt with in the County Court back in 2004 on a without conviction basis. As I said earlier, I ignore the outdated Children's Court matter that had been drawn to my attention. Your criminal history is of no relevance to my task at all. It really is more the absence of criminal history which is significant given the various challenges that you have faced over your life.
54You are doing well in custody. You are in protection, but you have been doing courses and you are working five days a week in the bakery. I was told you are not in need of medication and Ms Strugnell tells me you are in a greatly improved state from the state she saw you in in July of this year.
Bugmy
55I said I would not set out all that I was told of your background, and I have not. I have dealt with it only by way of a pretty broad executive summary.
56An offender's circumstances and their experience during their childhood and in their formative years must be considered in the court's sentencing task, not just out of some historical curiosity, but because the effects of social disadvantage do not diminish with time. They are likely to have profound and lasting consequences, and they can sometimes explain, but not excuse, offending. Taking lifelong damage that is the result of childhood exposure to violence, abuse, or neglect into account when sentencing is just the mark of a humane society.
57Ms Strugnell argued that the principles derived from the High Court decision of Bugmy had some application here. Those principles have been referred to in many other cases in this State, including Herrmann.[7] She submitted that she was relying upon those principles in the general fashion described in the case law.
[7]DPP v Herrmann [2021] VSCA 160 (‘Herrmann’)
58The application of these principles does not depend upon proof of any causal connection between the background and the offending, nor is there actually one in this case.
59It is as plain as day to me that you have grappled with significant disadvantage throughout your early and developmental life. This is not a case where it is just your say so. Your legal team are to be commended for doing the hard work and obtaining as much information as they have obtained. There are a large number of contemporaneous materials placed before me and no doubt there could be far more material taken from your Department of Human Services file were that needed. It is not needed. The Crown do not cavil with the application of the principles from Bugmy. Nor do I. I am satisfied that your early and developmental background had disadvantage at almost every turn. You came into the world and within a short space of time, it was suspected as a result of being manhandled, you were left with a lifelong brain injury. Whatever the cause or mechanism, that was the start that you had in life, a bad one indeed. You were admitted into the care of the Department.
60There was then a level of dysfunction and instability in your developmental years. There was fragmented education. There was a litany of poor role models and bad examples from those whose job it was to love and support and nurture you and they did the opposite. I accept that you were also exposed to emotional neglect as well as to physical and some sexual abuse.
61These things all had a role in shaping the faltering trajectory of your life. You were dealt a very poor hand indeed in the game of life and of course, you had no say in it. It was just the hand that you were dealt. I am satisfied on balance that yours was an unenviable background.
62I give it full weight in the way in which that phrase is employed in the case law, including those cases I have mentioned of Bugmy and Herrmann, but referred also in cases such as Sabatucci[8], Newton[9] and Dhal[10].
[8]Sabatucci v The Queen [2021] VSCA 340
[9]Newton (a pseudonym) v The King [2023] VSCA 22
[10]Dhal v The King [2023] VSCA 289
63This case law makes it clear enough that social disadvantage will not attract the same weight in every case, or in the same fashion. The weight to be given to disadvantage will always depend on the nature and the extent of that disadvantage, the nexus, if any, with the offending, though no causal link is required, and also the nature of the crime or crimes and the relative importance in a particular case of sentencing considerations, things such as deterrence, community protection and rehabilitation. See the case of Terrick.[11] Our backgrounds leave their mark and no doubt yours has left a deep mark on you.
[11]DPP v Terrick [2009] VSCA 220
64I take your background into account, as far as I am able to, including as giving rise to some reduction in your culpability.
Guilty Plea
65I turn now to some of the other matters raised on the plea, the first of those being your guilty plea. It was conceded that this was by no means an early plea with you offering to plead to this charge only really in the ‘shadow’ of the trial.
66I have said already there is a lengthy procedural chronology and I am not going to descend to the full detail of that chronology.
67You pleaded guilty late in the piece, though some pleas are later still than yours.
68Your guilty plea is still highly important.
69You have ultimately taken legal responsibility for your crime. That is important.
70As a result of your guilty plea, the time, cost and the effort of a trial up in this court has all been avoided. Nor was a committal conducted in the Magistrates' Court.
71Importantly, ultimately you spared Lara Campos the experience of giving evidence as well as all the other witnesses who would have been called. Giving evidence can be a stressful experience especially in this sort of matter and for a person in her position and that has all been avoided here by virtue of your plea of guilty.
72You have facilitated the course of justice. A trial has not been necessary. You must be rewarded for facilitating the course of justice.
73I take these various matters into account in mitigation.
Remorse
74As to remorse, not much really was said about that on the plea and for good reason. The chronology I have mentioned a moment ago is not too suggestive of much, if any remorse. Your counsel was not relying upon your utterance in the pretext call as you then went on and made complete denials in the formal police interview. You pleaded quite late in the piece. There is nothing in the neuropsychological report as to remorse as it was a fitness assessment and was well in advance of your decision to plead guilty.
75A guilty plea can be indicative of some remorse but that is not always the position and I have difficulty finding any true remorse in this case.
76I am prepared to treat your guilty plea as indicative of some limited remorse and I take that into account in your favour.
Delay
77I turn to the issue of delay. There is really very little in the delay point and your counsel conceded it was not a large matter on the plea. This is not a case of inordinate delay. There was very little by way of delay between the offending in July 2021 and the police report in October of that same year, merely three or so months which for this sort of matter with a girl of that age and a familial relationship as existed, is swift indeed. Some people delay in reporting for years, if not for decades. Then there was the delay between the police interview and the filing hearing. Well, a brief had to be prepared. Statements had to be obtained from a variety of people. You had, after all, made complete denials in the formal interview. It was your choice to give the account you gave to the police. This matter really could have settled some years ago. I accept that there were some concerns held as to fitness at some stages which your legal team felt had to be explored, but I do note that you were offering to plead to some non-contact offending as early as May 2024. Delay is not a big point here, but I do accept that you have stayed out of trouble and you had some engagement with supports in the interim period and of course that is not to be ignored. I was told it all came a little bit unstuck in the lead in to your going into custody in July with drug relapse and the suspicion of a drug‑induced psychosis. I do not doubt that there has been some anxiety felt by you from the time of your police interview. I take the delay into account in these ways but as I say, it really is not a large matter in my sentencing task.
Verdins
78I deal now with the Verdins submission and in the circumstances, I do not intend to recite slabs of materials or even descend to the full detail of the submissions made. Your counsel withdrew most of the Verdins submissions in recognition of the fact that there was no evidentiary foundation for the application of limbs 1-4 or limb 6.
79You plainly function at a very low level and no doubt you will be having great difficulty following my remarks. You do not have an intellectual disability but you are only a point or so removed from that level. I have the report from Dr March. She is a neuropsychologist but one who was actually engaged to assess your fitness to plead. She assessed you in April 2024, so it is very much a dated report dealing with your then presentation and the ramifications of it for any custodial experience. Her assessment was also conducted a good deal closer to the occasions where you had some active suicidal ideation.
80Over 18 months have since passed and you are travelling pretty well in custody actually, better than expected, as Ms Strugnell conceded.
81It is of course beyond dispute that you suffered a traumatic brain injury when you were an infant. I have all the material touching upon that and so did Dr March. You function at a very low level and it seems clear enough that your injury compromised your development. What role if any did that or any other mental health condition play in your actual offending? That is impossible to gauge and your counsel submitted that there was no realistic connection.
82I do not ignore the report by the way. I just cannot reduce your culpability on a Verdins basis. You were plainly not travelling well at the time of the offending. At para 100 of the report the expert describes how you were functioning at the time of the offending. Your mental health was sub-optimal owing to the death of your wife, your relapse into drug and alcohol use as well as possible drug induced psychosis. That last thing is but a possibility and of course there is not the slightest suggestion you were labouring under such a state at the time from the account of the offending. Your counsel conceded that fact. Dr March concluded that alcohol and drug use would have had a significant impact on your functioning. She did not really have any account from you as to the offending as it was a fitness assessment.
83I am ultimately satisfied that the 5th limb from the case of Verdins is engaged here.
84I accept your counsel's explicit concession that limbs 1-4 and 6 are not engaged here.
85There is reference to some of the mental health issues arising since 2023 with suicide attempts and hospitalisation. There is much water under the bridge since the assessment but your level of functioning is a static matter and I believe it would likely increase your prison burden modestly. You have the Acquired Brain Injury. You present with slurred speech. I am prepared to accept that there will likely be a modest increased prison burden felt by you. I accept your counsel's concession that I am not able to find to the required degree that there is a serious risk of prison causing a significant deterioration in your mental health. The report is dated and you are in fact doing, as I have said, quite well in prison, better than expected at the time of that report being commissioned.
86I accept the Verdins submission made on your behalf. That is the modest application of limb 5 from that case. Of course, I take into account those other matters raised in the report in a non Verdins fashion. After all I am sentencing you, the person spoken of in that report.
Rehabilitation
87I turn now then to your prospects of rehabilitation. This was serious offending by a mature man but one with no relevant criminal history. You knew what you were doing was quite wrong. There is also the prelude with the other uncharged acts that are described in the summary.
88You have had long term serious issues with misuse of drugs and alcohol. There have though been large periods where you have been able to abstain.
89Dr March does not really conduct a risk assessment. She has received no account from you as to the offence or why it happened. You have pleaded guilty though have in my assessment only quite limited remorse. You were engaged with some useful programs prior to going into custody but the wheels fell off leading into your remand in July. You no doubt will, to a degree, be deterred by the very process of being interviewed by the police, charged, imprisoned and now sentenced for this crime.
90You will be the subject of a Sex Offender Registration Act order for 15 years.
91You have some housing support which will ultimately be available but virtually no family support. You do hope to reconnect with your mother.
92This matter has been outstanding for a long time. It cannot have been easy for you to have it hanging over your head, and at least you have stayed out of trouble and I have said already that I take these matters into account. As an aside, it cannot have been easy for anyone else, including Lara Campos or her family, waiting for this case to be finalised.
93I can only be relatively guarded as to your future prospects of rehabilitation. I do not recall your counsel employing an adjective to describe those prospects, but I took her to be submitting that you had reasonable prospects of rehabilitation.
94Having considered the materials, I find that you do have reasonable or realistic prospects of rehabilitation into the future.
Standard Sentence Scheme
95I am dealing with an instance of rape which falls under the standard sentence scheme.
96The effect of that scheme has been discussed in a number of cases.
97The period of 10 years is specified as the 'standard sentence' for the crime of rape. That period 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 seriousness, without regard to purely personal matters.
98What is plain from the Act itself and from the many decisions interpreting those provisions since is that the standard sentence scheme is only one of a number of matters that I am required to take into account. Where it applies, as it does here, I must take it into account as one of the factors.
99This scheme was not intended to interfere with the intuitive synthesis that lies at the heart of sentencing in this State. Nor was it in any way countenancing
two-stage sentencing processes. That style of sentencing is still prohibited.100The scheme does not have primacy over other factors which must be taken into account. The standard sentence scheme introduces an additional factor in the form of this legislative guidepost.
101It does not represent a starting point from which the sentence is to be fashioned. I do not start at that point, 10 years, and then work my way either up or down from that standard sentence figure, making a series of adjustments taking into account matters in aggravation or in mitigation.
102Nor does the scheme otherwise affect the matters that the court must take into account. It does not change the requirement to, or the means and manner of, assessing the seriousness of the offence.
Current Sentencing Practice
103I am required to take into account current sentencing practices. That is not a controlling factor.
104Where the standard sentence scheme applies, as it does in this case, I must only take into account current sentencing practices in relation to cases where the scheme applied to those past sentences.
105Plainly enough, rape is an inherently serious crime.
106The standard sentence scheme of which I have spoken only came into force for offences committed after February 2018. Many offences of rape in the broader statistics would relate to non-standard sentencing exercises. I mentioned in the course of the plea that there is the useful function in the Sentencing Advisory Council online statistics to narrow the search down to sentences imposed for standard sentence offences.
107I have looked at the case collections available on the online Judicial College of Victoria sentencing site relating to rape where the sentence was imposed for a standard sentence offence.
108I have looked at the Sentencing Advisory Council online filtered statistics pertaining to standard sentences for rape.
109That sort of statistical material is inherently limited. It can never greatly assist a court in the sentencing task at hand and that is because I am engaged in an individual sentencing exercise here.
110Statistics provide none of the detail of the offence or of the offender. They do not disclose the nature of the conduct. They do not identify any of the surrounding circumstances. They do not descend into the detail of the impact in a particular case. They do not even describe whether the matter was a sentencing exercise after a trial or after a guilty plea. They do not touch upon aspects of remorse or prospects of rehabilitation or even disclose the nature of the penetration. None of the matters in aggravation or mitigation are disclosed by this bare statistical data.
111I am exercising a sentencing discretion in relation to your crime, and I am acting as a judge, not as a statistician. What has happened in other cases, or as is disclosed in the statistical data, cannot provide the answer to my task.
112What has happened in other cases does not operate as some precedent.
113I mentioned that I was referred to a couple of other sentencing decisions one in the Court of Appeal, a matter of Watkins[12], and one from a single judge, the matter of Poole.[13] Having read the cases, plainly neither case is on all fours. There are differences all over the shop. Some in your favour, some not.
[12]Watkins (a pseudonym) v The King [2023] VSCA 203.
[13]DPP v Zane Poole (a pseudonym) [2020] VCC 340.
114My experience is that one can never find an identical case, and even if one could be found, there is no such thing as one correct sentence. There is instead a range of available sentences open to a court.
115I am well familiar with Current Sentencing Practices for this crime and I take that into account
Gravity of Offence
116The agreed summary describes your offending. I am not going to repeat all the agreed facts.
117I am required to consider the gravity of the offence before the court. Your counsel conceded the seriousness of this offending There was no dispute that this was serious offending, with some serious aspects including the age of the victim and her relationship to you. She was under your roof. There was an aspect of breach of trust engaged here.
118This instance of rape involved penile/vaginal penetration. It represented a gross invasion of her body. It was not a fleeting act. Your counsel argues that you were using a condom and relies upon the complaint that Lara made to her then boyfriend about a year after the event. Lara's depositional statement was silent on the topic and there is no account from you in any of the materials of the act even occurring. Ms Strugnell told me that you instructed her that you were using a condom. On the material before me, given the reference to the account received by the then boyfriend and the instructions placed before me from you, I am satisfied to the required degree (both on balance and indeed beyond reasonable doubt) that you used a condom. There is still the risk of disease and pregnancy, just a reduced risk. Further what does this use say as to the level of planning and deliberation in your act? There is nothing too impulsive going to her room armed with a condom, as you did.
119She was 17 years of age. You were 20 years older and viewed by her as an uncle. You viewed her as your niece. She was under your roof, and she was going to sleep in what should have been the safety of her own bed. She had done nothing to convey any consent to this act. You just took what you wanted and then tried to placate her by providing money.
120It is always easy to construct a hypothetical worse case of any crime. There could be for instance nasty threats and extravagant violence over and above the actual act of penetration. There can be 'in company' offending, or the use of a weapon or injuries being inflicted or even acts that are designed purely to humiliate. The absence of some features of aggravation which might exist is not the best way for a court to assess the gravity of the instant offence, especially as where here, there are ample matters of seriousness in play, as was conceded by Ms Strugnell.
121Where then does this example of rape sit on the spectrum of offence seriousness? I have said already rape is an inherently serious offence. There is always a danger in trying to rank offences by seeking to apply an adjective to describe them.
Low-level, mid-level, high-level or falling towards any of those levels, what does it really mean? It probably means different things to different people, different things to different practitioners, even to different judges. It is a practice that has, to some extent at least, been disapproved of by the Court of Appeal (see the case of Weybury[14]).[14]DPP v Weybury [2018] VSCA 120.
122Yet the Court must strive to reach a view as to the nature and the gravity of this offence, and further, the standard sentence scheme leads me to consider where this instance of rape sits, viewed purely objectively.
123Well the parties each argued that this instance of rape fell at the mid-range. I believe this instance of rape falls at least at the mid-range viewed purely objectively.
Purposes
124I have to consider a number of purposes of sentencing. Rehabilitation is but one of those purposes. I do not ignore it. You do have some realistic or reasonable prospects. But Mr Farley, this sentencing task is not just about you and what is best for you. You have committed a serious crime against Lara Campos. There are many other purposes of sentencing that I must give appropriate weight to.
125One of those is punishment. I am required to punish you justly and proportionately. I must also denounce your conduct, and that is of real importance here. You should be ashamed of yourself, more ashamed than you seemingly are.
126I must pay regard to the need to protect the community from you. That purpose can be moderated owing to the absence of any past relevant conduct and the not unfavourable view I have reached as to your future prospects. Those views also inform the extent to which I must reflect specific deterrence. Plainly community protection would be a more significant purpose if you had a relevant criminal history.
127I have to give adequate weight to specific and general deterrence. I cannot ignore either. Plainly though, specific deterrence, that is deterring you from offending in the future, would be given far greater weight if you had a relevant criminal history or a track record of disobedience to past court orders or if I had reached a less favourable view as to your future prospects. None of those things apply. I still must deter you from such conduct in the future.
128General deterrence relates to the need to deter other future offenders. It must be given some weight in my task.
129This court has to pass a sentence which will cause those considering committing a crime such as yours to reflect on and to hopefully re-consider their position. Future like-minded offenders must understand that if they choose to commit such a crime as you did, that serious sentences will be coming their way.
130I have to pay regard to the impact of the crime, and I have spoken of that earlier in these reasons. There has been large impact here and how could there not be? I must have regard also to the maximum penalty.
Prison last resort
131A court must never impose a sentence more severe than that which is required to achieve the purposes of sentencing. Prison is plainly a disposition of last resort. It always has been. No doubt it always will be. This is a category 1 offence. Prison is required. Your counsel conceded that a head sentence of a dimension requiring me to fix a non-parole period was inevitable in this case. That concession was undoubtedly correct. She argued for what she described as a ‘longer than usual’ parole period. There is no such thing as a usual non-parole period or parole period. She was arguing really that there should be a decent gap between the head sentence and the non-parole period.
132A court must never impose a longer prison sentence than is required to achieve the various purposes of sentencing.
133Plainly a sentence of a dimension requiring me to fix a non-parole period is the only option here. Unless I consider it is in the interests of justice not to do so, I must fix a non-parole period of at least 60 per cent of the relevant head term. I do not consider it is in the interests of justice to fix a lower ratio. There will still be a decent enough gap between your head sentence and the non-parole period.
134I can make no assumptions as to your being released on parole in advance of the expiry of the head sentence which I will soon pronounce. That sort of speculation is prohibited. Whether you are released on parole will be a matter entirely in the hands of the Adult Parole Board. Perhaps more accurately it will, I suppose, be a matter between you and them. I am not allowed to speculate about that.
135I would normally have you stand at this stage as I am going to pass sentence, but I will not, I will have you remain seated as you are appearing by audiovisual link. Let me pass sentence then.
Sentence
136On Charge 1, the single charge of rape, I convict and sentence you to seven years and nine months' imprisonment.
That is the only sentence and hence the total effective sentence.
Non-Parole Period
137I fix a period of five years during which you will not be eligible for release on parole.
Section 18 Pre-Sentence Detention
138You have already served 131 days of this sentence by way of pre-sentence detention, and I am required to enter that fact into the records of the court pursuant to s18 of the Sentencing Act.
6AAA
139I have told you that I have taken into account your guilty plea. If you had pleaded not guilty and been found guilty of this offence after a trial, I would have sentenced you to 10 years' imprisonment. I would have fixed a non-parole period of seven years and three months
Sex Offender Registration Act
140You have been sentenced by me in relation to what is described as a Class 1 offence under the Sex Offender Registration Act 2004. That is because of the age of your victim at the time. It is agreed that this triggers an obligation for you to report under the Sex Offender Registration Act for the period of 15 years.
141So, upon your release from custody, whenever that is, you must comply with your reporting and other obligations under that Act for 15 years.
142I have to advise you about the nature of your obligations under the Act. Now I understand that there will be some written material in the room that goes into great detail in relation to these matters. I am going to be asking you in a moment to sign an acknowledgement of the fact that you have received the details of your obligations.
143Ms Strugnell, you have seen these forms before. It is a very lengthy document. I have already signed it and all I will be doing is getting him to acknowledge that he has received those explanations of his responsibilities. It is a bit awkward in the sense that he is where he is and you are here and I am here as well. It is a very lengthy document.
144The Act imposes a number of conditions upon him. They are serious matters. They include impediments to future employment in a number of areas, also impediments to his future contact with children and the need to report any contact in a timely fashion. He will need to familiarise himself with these matters. Any breach of that Act, or his reporting obligations, is a serious criminal offence often punished by a term of imprisonment.
145Now no-one could sit where he is sitting or down the dock of this court and be expected to read through that level of detail now, and that is not what we are doing here. I am just going to be getting him to acknowledge by his signature that he has received that notification.
146He has heard me say all those things anyway. I am going to ask him in a moment to simply sign that acknowledgment, I believe it is in the room.
147Do you need to speak to him about this at all or not?
148MS STRUGNELL: No, Mr Farley has been advised that this will be coming.
149HIS HONOUR: Yes.
150MS STRUGNELL: But in terms of the actual obligations, some time will be needed to go through it.
151HIS HONOUR: It will need to have a lot of explanation. I mean it is a difficult document for someone to follow at the best of times.
152MS STRUGNELL: That's very true, Your Honour.
153HIS HONOUR: Yes, all right. Anyway look I understand that that document is in the room. Is anyone else in that room please?
154OFFENDER: No, I have to get someone else to come into the room, Your Honour.
155HIS HONOUR: Yes. If you could yes, thanks.
156PRISON OFFICER: Good morning, Your Honour.
157HIS HONOUR: Hello. There's been some material provided to Mr Farley I think for the Sex Offender Registration Act offender acknowledgement. Do you have that with you now or not?
158PRISON OFFICER: I believe so, sir. Hold on a second.
159HIS HONOUR: I'll just get him to sign it, sign it on I think it's the last page.
160PRISON OFFICER: Yes, Sex Offender Registration Act.
161HIS HONOUR: Yes, so I think p11 there's a space for him to sign, just acknowledging that he has received the reporting obligations, and if you could also then witness that, if you would?
162PRISON OFFICER: No problem, sir. So that's for yourself. There's a pen. Just sign on there, Todd Farley.
163Do I need to go through this with him, sir? Or have you been?
164HIS HONOUR: Say again? No, I think if you can just, if you can just sign that as well if you would?
165PRISON OFFICER: Yes, no worries. Yes, that's been signed by Mr Farley and myself.
166HIS HONOUR: Okay, thanks very much. All right, I will just complete the exercise then.
167So the final thing then, Mr Farley, I am required under the provisions of the Sentencing Act to state the reasons for imposing the sentence. See s5B(4) and (5). Section 5B(5) requires me to refer to the standard sentence for the offence of rape and explain how the sentence I have imposed on you relates to that standard sentence. I know that there are some judges in relation to that provision who believe they can simply say that the sentence is either less or more than the standard sentence. I do not believe that that pure mathematical statement, as correct as it no doubt would be, is the sort of statement contemplated by this provision.
168I am required to identify the facts, matters and the circumstances which bear upon the judgment I have reached as to the appropriate sentence for this crime.
169My lengthy reasons to this point will explain the reasons why the sentence imposed sits below the specified standard sentence. I regard this offence as falling at least at the mid-range, looked at purely objectively, in terms of seriousness.
170However, my sentencing task is not limited to an examination of the objective seriousness of the offence. There are subjective matters, including a variety of matters in mitigation, which have to be factored into by task.
171I have arrived at what I regard as the appropriate individual sentence by a process of instinctive synthesis, taking into account all the matters I am required to take into account, including the existence of that standard sentence scheme. It is, as I have said, but one of many factors that I must have regard to.
172Let me just see if there are any other matters that I need to attend to.
173Anything else from your perspective, Ms Goding, at all?
174MS GODING: No, nothing Your Honour.
175HIS HONOUR: Ms Strugnell?
176MS STRUGNELL: Nothing further, Your Honour.
177HIS HONOUR: You will organise some sort of conference with your client in due course will you? I will get these back from VGRS and when I get them back, I generally revise them on the day. So that completes the matter then, Mr Farley. Ms Strugnell and your legal team will be in touch with you to discuss what has occurred here today and your rights in relation to that, but otherwise the task is at an end. So I will disconnect the link now then, thank you.
- - -
0
10
0