Director of Public Prosecutions v Harris
[2025] VCC 523
•29 April 2025
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA AT MELBOURNE CRIMINAL DIVISION | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
Case No. CR-23-00535
Indictment No. M12639075
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| BRADLEY HARRIS |
---
JUDGE: | His Honour Judge Trapnell | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 18 October 2024 | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 29 April 2025 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Harris | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2025] VCC 523 | |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Subject:Criminal Law
Catchwords: Sentence – Rape – Conviction following 7-day trial – Standard sentence offence – Examples of low-range and mid-range offending – Two forms of sexual penetration during one episode – High moral culpability – High risk of sexual recidivism – Relevant prior conviction – No remorse – Significant mental illnesses present – Verdins principles 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 engaged – Delay a mitigating circumstance – Guarded prospects for rehabilitation – Discretionary sex offender registration
Legislation Cited: Sentencing Act 1991 – Sex Offenders Registration Act 2004
Cases Cited:Jurj and Miftode v The Queen [2016] VSCA 57 – R v Verdins (2007) 16 VR 269 – Rodriguez v DPP (Cth) (2013) 40 VR 436
Sentence: 6 years and 6 months’ imprisonment – 4 years non-parole period
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the DPP | Ms F Fox | Ms A Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused | Ms V Drago Ms H Boylan | Doogue & George Lawyers |
HIS HONOUR:
1Bradley Harris, following a seven-day trial you were found guilty by jury verdict of two charges of rape.[1] The maximum penalty for the offence of rape is 25 years’ imprisonment.[2]
[1] Contrary to s 38 of the Crimes Act 1958 (‘CA’) as amended by the Crimes Amendment (Sexual Offences) Act 2016.
[2] Pursuant to s 38 of the CA.
The facts
Background
2I am satisfied the jury accepted Georgia Hudson’s[3] version of events. In my opinion, she was an honest and reliable witness; indeed, she was an impressive witness. I sentence you on the basis of the evidence she gave at the trial. I do not accept your counsel’s submission that I should sentence you on the basis you had an unreasonable belief in Ms Hudson’s consent. Nor do I accept Ms Hudson was initially consenting to the sexual acts and later withdrew that consent. I accept the prosecutor’s submissions that such a belief is not consistent with the jury’s acceptance of Ms Hudson’s account and her evidence demonstrates she was never consenting to the acts of sexual penetration.[4]
[3] A pseudonym.
[4] See Prosecution Submissions on Sentence dated 17 October 2024 [3]–[8].
3At the time of the offending you resided at a property in an inner-city suburb of Melbourne. The property was described as a boarding house with rooms and ‘pods’, with many other people living there.
4You had known the victim, Georgia Hudson, since February 2021, as you previously lived in the same apartment complex. At the time of the offending, you were friends and communicated weekly through text messages. You and Ms Hudson have never been in an intimate relationship.
5On 11 May 2021, you and Ms Hudson had lunch together. Ms Hudson had injured her finger and was having difficulty carrying things, so you offered to help her with her grocery shopping later that day.
6At 10:55pm that night, you met Ms Hudson at the Victoria Gardens shopping centre. You both left at 11:30pm and boarded a tram travelling along Victoria Street in Richmond. When you and Ms Hudson exited the tram, you told her she could stay in one of the empty bedrooms at the boarding house. Ms Hudson originally had intended to take an Uber home from your house.
7You and Ms Hudson walked to your home, arriving at approximately midnight. You placed her groceries in the kitchen area and you both went upstairs to the empty bedroom. Ms Hudson took off her hoodie and jacket and placed he handbag on the dressing table.
Circumstances of the offending
8After some time and discussion between you and Ms Hudson, you both sat on the bed to watch a music video you were playing on your phone. Ms Hudson was under the blanket and hunched over a pillow.
9You got into the bed and under the covers. At some point you took off your shirt. You hugged Ms Hudson and pulled her towards you. You said, ‘I’ve waited ages for this’, to which Ms Hudson responded, ‘what do you mean?’
10You pushed Ms Hudson onto her stomach and told her you were good at massages. You ran your thumbs up her back, pulling her shirt off. You then took her shirt and bra off over her head. Ms Hudson said, ‘what if I don’t want this?’ and tried to grab at you. You took off her pants and underwear. When Ms Hudson tried to retrieve her pants you threw them away to one side.
11You flipped Ms Hudson over onto her back and pushed her legs up so they were dangling in the air. Ms Hudson pushed at your chest saying, ‘woah, woah, woah’. At some stage you took off your pants.
12Ms Hudson then said, ‘oi, oi, oi, stop’ but you did not listen. She had her hands next to her head and while you were on top of her she was trying to turn away from you. You said, ‘I’ve got to get it wet’ and moved your head down towards her genitals. You licked Ms Hudson’s vulval area for about two seconds. She gave evidence, which in my opinion the jury accepted, that she could feel your tongue in her vagina These facts constitute the offending conduct giving rise to Charge 1.
13Ms Hudson then grabbed your hair and attempted to push herself up and away from you. She said, ‘stop, don’t, oi’. You flipped her over onto her stomach so her face was in the pillow and her body was flat on the bed. Ms Hudson placed her hands down at her vagina to cover it. You got on top of her and placed your feet over her legs to prevent her moving. You pushed her into the bed by placing your hands on her shoulders. In effect, you pinned her face down on the bed to render her unable to resist you.
14You penetrated her vagina with your penis for approximately two or three minutes while she was face down on the bed. You did not use a condom. You kissed and bit her on the neck. These facts constitute the offending conduct giving rise to Charge 2.
15You ejaculated inside Ms Hudson’s vagina. On her evidence, which I accept, some of your semen got onto the bed sheet and her hands, which were still near her vagina. Ms Hudson asked, ‘did you just come in me?’ You responded, ‘yeah, but don’t worry I can still go for hours because I’m still hard’. Ms Hudson pushed herself out from under you and you rolled off her. Ms Hudson yelled at you, ‘I told you I didn’t want that!’, to which you responded, ‘oh, I thought you might’ve changed your mind’.
16Ms Hudson attempted to leave but you stopped her and offered to drive her home. She sat in the backseat of your car and cried. You asked her, ‘can’t we work this out? Can’t we still be friends?’. When you arrived at her house you said to her you wanted still to be friends. As Ms Hudson collected her belongings and exited the car she responded, ‘I’m not going to be friends with you when you raped me, cunt’.
17At 1:05am on 12 May 2021, Ms Hudson called a female friend and disclosed your offending. She met the friend at St Vincent’s Hospital emergency department where she was examined by Dr Katherine Watson. It was then arranged for Ms Hudson and her friend to travel by taxi to the Royal Women’s Hospital for Ms Hudson to be examined by a forensic medical officer. This forensic examination was conducted by Dr Candice de Vaux who detected the presence of visible genital injuries, suggestive of recent vaginal penetration, including a laceration on the posterior fourchette and a bruise on the cervix, suggestive of blunt trauma as may follow penetration with a penis.
18Later on 12 May 2021, you were arrested and taken to a police station for interview. You admitted to having sexual intercourse with Ms Hudson but you claimed it was consensual. This remained your defence at the trial, which clearly the jury rejected.
Victim impact
19A victim impact statement (VIS) prepared by Ms Hudson was tendered at the plea hearing and was read into evidence by the prosecutor.[5]
[5] Exhibit (‘Ex’) P2.
20Ms Hudson writes she does not know how to feel and is numb to her wellbeing and emotion. As a result of your offending she could not talk to anyone for six to eight weeks. She could not bring herself to tell her daughter, who she used to talk to every night, about what had happened because she was afraid of causing disruptions to her daughter’s life. She isolated herself and did not seek help.
21Ms Hudson now lives in constant fear you will be waiting for her outside her apartment. Your offending caused her to stop going out, stop seeing her best friend, who is her main support in Melbourne. She also stopped engaging with her NDIS support network, consisting of two support workers and a cleaner. She struggles to go places alone and chooses to wait for the St Vincent de Paul Society’s food van to come to her door to provide her with food. She would go without eating if the van did not arrive. Ms Hudson writes, ‘I spent most of my time trying not to be scared of interacting with anyone and trying to function as normal’.
22Ms Hudson’s self-esteem worsened following your offending. She did not want anyone to pay her any attention and her personal hygiene seriously deteriorated. As her mental health declined, so did her ability to complete simple tasks, including cleaning her apartment. She felt useless and worthless. She increased her substance use as a way of escaping reality and to assist with sleep. Without drugs, she would experience frequent nightmares. For a year she was unable to sleep in her own bed without experiencing flashbacks.
23As a result of your offending, Ms Hudson deliberately avoids all intimacy and finds it challenging to form relationships with new people. She has become defensive, aggressive and dismissive of others. She feels uncomfortable in all social situations and cannot be alone with anyone besides her daughter, which is difficult for her grapple with as she used to be a bright and bubbly person.
24Forming a romantic relationship now feels impossible because Ms Hudson believes she will need to explain to her partner why she cannot respond in a ‘normal’ manner. She has grown distrusting of others and often feels like she is being personally attacked or that no one will ever listen to her enough to fully understand her. As a consequence of your offending, Ms Hudson is uncertain she will ever feel as though she ‘fits in’.
25In relation to the physical impact of your offending, Ms Hudson writes her medical health has rapidly declined. Owing to the trauma she experienced, she was too afraid to attend necessary medical appointments. She remained inside and slept on the couch, drastically worsening the arthritis in her spine and her fibromyalgia symptoms. She does not communicate as clearly as she used to and finds herself constantly fidgeting.
26Ms Hudson was previously enrolled in a course to become a kindergarten teacher’s aide. Her enrolment was cancelled because of the effects of your offending as she could not attend or respond to any course requirements. Her ability to work in the future has become increasingly challenging because she has not been able to complete her studies.
27Ms Hudson writes, ‘I don’t see myself ever being the same as I was before the incident … my quality of life is not there at all’.
Offence seriousness
28Rape is a very serious criminal offence carrying a maximum penalty of 25 years’ imprisonment, which is the highest fixed maximum penalty in the criminal calendar. This shows, unambiguously, how seriously the community, through the Parliament, views this offence.
29Moreover, rape is a standard sentence offence with a standard sentence of imprisonment for 10 years being fixed.[6] Accordingly, in sentencing you for these offences, I must have regard to the standard sentence[7] which ‘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’.[8] This is a matter I must have regard to as one of the factors relevant to the sentences I impose on you.[9] However, the standard sentence is just another factor to consider, it is not determinative and does not affect the operation of my instinctive synthesis.[10] In fact, the relevant legislation specifically approves the instinctive synthesis approach to sentencing.[11] The standard sentence is to be treated as a ‘legislative guidepost’, as is the maximum penalty.[12]
[6] Sentencing Act 1991 (‘SA’) s 5A(1); CA s 38(3).
[7] SA s 5(2)(ab)
[8] SA s 5A(1)(b).
[9] SA s 5B(2)(a).
[10] Brown v The Queen (2019) 59 VR 462, 464 [4], (Maxwell P, Priest, Kaye, T Forrest and Emerton JJA) (‘Brown’).
[11] SA s 5B(3)(b).
[12] Brown 464 [4], 479 [55]–[57] (applying Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120, 132 [27] ((French CJ, Gummow, Hayne, Heydon, Crennan, Kiefel and Bell JJ).
30During the plea hearing, the prosecutor appropriately conceded that many of the aggravating features as identified in Jurj and Miftode v The Queen[13] are not present in this case.[14] It is not alleged the conduct was premediated, nor was there any evidence of active violence, threats, use of a weapon or overt degradation, beyond what is inherent in this type of offending.
[13] [2016] VSCA 57 [80] (Maxwell P, Redlich and Beach JJA) (‘Jurj’).
[14] See prosecution submissions on sentence dated 17 October 2024 (Ex P3).
31The significant aspects of your offending conduct overall that do affect my assessment of its nature and objective seriousness can be summarised as follows:[15]
(a) The offending consisted of two forms of penetration, albeit of short duration, but accompanied by resistance from your victim.
(b) You did not use a condom, which is an aggravating feature in relation to Charge 2, as it is a reckless act creating a risk of pregnancy or a sexually transmitted disease. [16]
(c) You viewed the victim as particularly vulnerable because, as the prosecutor submitted, you referred to the victim as only a ‘junkie’ several times during your record of interview.
(d) On the victim’s account, which I find the jury accepted, you ignored her verbal protests and physical resistance, as she attempted to push you away and repeatedly said ‘oi, oi, oi, stop’. You used a degree of force to overcome her resistance and, in relation to Charge 2, you caused injury to Ms Hudson’s fourchette and cervix.
[15] Jurj [80].
[16] See Hasan v The Queen (2010) 31 VR 28, 37 [38] (Maxwell P, Redlich and Harper JJA).
32The prosecutor accepted this is a single date offence and was of limited duration, where significant concurrency is warranted. Your counsel characterised your offending as on the lower end of the range, but accepted there were aggravating features present, albeit relatively minor.
33Accepting the difficulties inherent in determining what constitutes a ‘mid-range’ example of this offence,[17] I consider your offending conduct, objectively viewed, in relation to Charge 1 is relatively low-range, however your offending I relation to Charge 2 is a mid-range example of this type of offending.
[17] See generally, McPherson v The Queen [2021] VSCA 53 [31] (Priest and T Forrest JJA); DPP v Conos [2021] VSCA 367 [87] (Maxwell P, Kaye and Sifris JJA).
34I consider your moral culpability to be quite high. Had it not been for your mental health diagnoses, discussed below, I would have assessed this factor as being much higher. Nonetheless, I accept the prosecution submission that there is no demonstrable link between your metal heath conditions and your offending conduct. This may be due to the fact you continue to deny the offending and this has limited your ability to properly engage in the mental health assessment I ordered.
35In my view, denunciation, general deterrence and just punishment must be given significant weight in sentencing you for these crimes; albeit these sentencing principles must be moderated to some extent by reason of your mental health conditions which I will discuss shortly.
Personal circumstances
36Your counsel tendered the following documents at the plea hearing which summarise your personal circumstances:
(a) A letter from Jacob Croslow, psychosocial recovery coach at Recovery Plus Support Services, dated 10 October 2024.[18]
(b) Mental Health Advice and Response Service Summary Report prepared by Gemma Stephenson, senior psychologist, dated 13 May 2025.[19]
(c) Your curriculum vitae.[20]
[18] Ex D3.
[19] Ex D5.
[20] Ex D4.
37I also ordered a psychological court report. You were assessed by Dr Ahona Guha, senior clinical and forensic psychologist, and Ms Aleshia Nanev, provisional psychologist, on 8 July 2024. Dr Guha, with Ms Nanev’s contribution, prepared the psychological court report dated 18 September 2024.[21]
[21] Ex C1.
38You are 47 years of age and were aged 43 at the time of the offending. You are originally from Castlemaine, where you lived with your mother, father, older half-brother and four younger sisters. At the plea hearing, your counsel characterised your background as ‘unremarkable’, considering you grew up in a loving, supportive and traditional household. I note your parents were present for the duration of the trial. I have also had regard to the character reference from your sister that was tendered at the plea hearing.[22]
[22] Ex D2.
39By way of contrast, you described your upbringing to Dr Guha as ‘unusual’, because your family owned a piggery which employed many people who lived in Castlemaine. You felt ‘people looked at [you] differently’ because of your family’s success and wealth. You had expected to be offered employment in the family business, but when this did not occur you felt disappointed and frustrated. You expressed to Dr Guha a belief your grandfather, father and half-brother have been conspiring against you in relation to the business, frequently referring to them as ‘psychos’. Dr Guha considers these beliefs as being symptomatic of schizophrenia or a delusional disorder. I will discuss your mental health later.
40You told Dr Guha your family often keep secrets from you. You only became aware you and your half-brother do not share the same father when you were 20 years old. You reported not feeling close to your parents and not liking your mother, suggesting she trapped your father into marriage. You recalled witnessing and experiencing physical and verbal abuse in your childhood, providing examples such as being called ‘stupid’ and ‘idiot’ by your parents and being hit with sticks or pipes when you were poorly behaved on the farm. You had a better relationship with your sisters, but said you were often bullied by your older half-brother. Your brother would often receive preferential treatment, such as regarding what you would watch on television. This led to you having feelings of resentment.
41At the time of the assessment, you had ongoing contact with your parents and sisters despite the inherent limitations whilst being in custody.
Education and employment history
42You reported not enjoying school and did not take your education seriously because you had expected to leave early to work in the family business. You often found school difficult, describing yourself as an anti-authoritarian and a ‘dreamer not a memoriser’. You were frequently suspended due to behaviour such as breaking windows, not getting along with teachers, not engaging in class and, in your words, for ‘doing [your] own thing’.
43Although you did not disclose any examples of bullying from Prep to Year Six, you did tell Dr Guha you did not have many friends and often played alone. Notably, you recalled enjoying playing ‘kiss chasey’ and explained you were the ‘best at this game’, but would often get in trouble with teachers and other children’s parents for playing the game.
44You attended three different high schools. At Castlemaine High School you completed Year 7 and Year 8, but frequently skipped classes and engaged in physical altercations with other students. Generally, you did not enjoy the experience. In Year 9, you moved to Geelong Grammar School as a boarder where you received detentions and suspensions for a range of reasons, such as setting fire to the chapel, poisoning teachers’ plants and destroying the property of other students. You shared a dorm room with thirty other male students and would often be involved in physical fights. You told Dr Guha you had one or two ‘associates’ to share dinner with, but did not consider them friends. You said you were bullied throughout high school and experienced homicidal thoughts about those who bullied you.
45Upon graduating from high school, you lived with your parents and ‘did nothing for a year’. Eventually you were asked to leave your parents’ house.
46Following high school, you completed certificates in personal training and massage therapy. You began studying natural therapy and accounting, but did not finish either course. You then undertook training as a professional stuntman and gained casual employment in Queensland.
47You also had casual employment as a masseur, working at various spas, ski resorts and hotels. You disclosed to Dr Guha you were fired from each job you obtained because you engaged in sexual intercourse with clients and were unable to follow instructions. In recent years, your main source of income has been government subsidy payments.
Relationship and psychosexual history
48Dr Guha’s report does not detail any significant friendships in your childhood, adolescence or adulthood. You found it difficult to make and maintain friends during your formative years. When you were 30 years old, you entered into a romantic relationship that lasted for two years. Outside of this relationship, which you had difficulty recalling, you frequently engaged in casual sex, often with your massage clients. You expressed to Dr Guha a desire to be married in order to have ‘sex on tap’. During your assessment you were unable to reflect on what might be gained from a romantic relationship beyond sexual gratification.
49Dr Guha opines you appear to have been hypersexual from a young age and found it difficult to manage your urges, resulting in your sexual activity being inappropriate at times. During the assessment you made comments such as, ‘I love sex, would do anything for it’. You also said you would access ‘the hardest [pornography you] could get’ because masturbation was ‘like a drug’ to you.
50Concerningly, Dr Guha reports:
His description of consent was limited, stating that he ‘didn’t talk, never asked’ and was led by ‘the mood and my dick, my libido’. He was only able to indicate one non-verbal sign of lack of consent, i.e., being pushed away.
51Although you reported a decline in your libido, which you attributed to aging, Dr Guha observes this is inconsistent with your disclosures, such as being unable to sleep until you masturbated.
Substance use history
52You reported to Dr Guha that you would binge drink alcohol in your early 20s. You were motivated to drink alcohol at clubs and parties you attended with the purpose of finding women to engage in sexual intercourse with. There was a period where you consumed alcohol every day for one month, but you told Dr Guha your ‘body rejected it’ and you ceased drinking for some time. You recalled having used illicit substances including cocaine, marijuana, psilocybin and MDMA. You also reported tobacco use to assist in managing stress. Dr Guha considers you demonstrated a supportive attitude towards drug use and you have limited insight into its adverse effects.
Medical and psychiatric history
53You have glaucoma in one eye which is being managed.
54In relation to your psychiatric history, Ms Stephenson writes you have been formally diagnosed with the following conditions throughout your life:
(a) Schizophrenia;
(b) Delusional disorder;
(c) Dissocial personality disorder;
(d) Emotionally unstable personality disorder;
(e) Paranoid schizophrenia; and
(f) Schizoaffective disorder.
55Your NDIS funded social worker, Benjamin Snare, who describes himself as a ‘Positive Behaviour Support Practitioner’ employed by ‘Therapy Pro’, confirms you have diagnoses of autism spectrum disorder (ASD), schizophrenia, delusional disorder and oppositional defiance disorder.[23]
[23] See email to my Chambers dated 28 April 2025 (Ex C2).
56Dr Guha agrees you have several documented diagnoses. You also reported to her being diagnosed with ASD at the age of 15. You told Dr Guha you suspect you also have attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), but have not been formally diagnosed or treated for this condition.
57Dr Guha opines you exhibit some traits indicative of a personality disorder, but she was reluctant to provide a firm diagnosis based on a single interview and given your presentation, untreated psychosis and difficulties processing information. Overall, you are challenged with ‘delusional beliefs’ mostly about the family business and being tracked by your father’s associates. These beliefs are referenced in Mr Croslow’s letter, but he writes this has not affected other aspects of your life.
58Dr Guha also opines you struggle with verbal processing, irresponsibility, dysregulation and poor planning. Substance use may have exacerbated these symptoms, but in her opinion this does not appear to be causally related to your offending.
59You have intermittently engaged with public mental health services for the treatment of psychosis, first when you attempted suicide in the context of distress over the family business. You have had three ward admissions in 2018 and 2022.
60You told Dr Guha you do not believe you have schizophrenia or a psychotic disorder. At the time of the assessment you were not taking any medication, nor did you express a desire to do so.
61Whilst in custody, you said you have been prescribed anti-libidinal medication against your will, which is used to lower testosterone as a means of managing sexual reoffending. Dr Guha was not provided information about this prescription. You could not recall any details beyond indicating a psychiatrist in prison prescribed it to you due to behaviour you demonstrated towards her and your belief that wearing makeup and nail polish in prison is inappropriate when ‘surrounded by rapists’.
62Dr Guha opines:
He did not appear to be experiencing acute psychosis at the time of the interview, though he had clear delusions about his family, some evidence of thought disorder (tangentiality), and additionally demonstrated very poor insight and judgement. It was difficult to get a clear understanding of his current mental health needs due to his limited insight.
Risk of sexual recidivism
63Both the Static-99 assessment and the risk of sexual recidivism protocol (RSVP) were administered to you.
64The Static-99 is a 10-item risk tool that identifies factors associated with increased risk of sexual recidivism in adult males who have been charged with at least one prior sexual offence against a non-consenting adult or child. On the Static-99 you were found to be at high risk of reoffending.
65The RSVP is a structured professional judgement tool used to assess an individuals’ propensity to engage in further sexual violence. The RSVP addresses the nature, imminence, severity and frequency of sexual violence. It comprises of twenty-two risk factors divided into five areas: sexual violence history, psychological adjustment, mental disorder, social adjustment and manageability. Each risk factor is assessed considering its past presence, recent presence and likely future relevance to risk management.
66Applying the RSVP overall, Dr Guha considers you are at a high risk of engaging in future sexual violence, with moderate risk of serious harm and low imminence as you are in currently in custody. I agree with this characterisation. Dr Guha writes any future offending will likely take place in a similar context to the present offending and may involve adult women you have a preexisting relationship with. Of great concern is Dr Guha’s opinion your behaviour may escalate and involve more threatening or intimidating approaches to women you encounter in daily life, solely for the purpose of seeking sexual gratification.
67In regard to sexual violence history, while your only relevant sexual offending charges were in 2004 (see below), you indicated to Dr Guha having frequently made sexual overtures towards female massage therapy clients. These attempts at sexual contact, in Dr Guha’s opinion, indicate you have ‘frequently engaged in boundary-crossing sexual behaviours while in a professional role for over 20 years’.
68You denied the present offending to Dr Guha and significantly minimised the inappropriateness of your sexual behaviour. You demonstrated an entitlement to sex, an oversexualisation of relationships, an inability to fully understand consent and a degree of misogyny in how you speak to women.
69Dr Guha opines you also display problems with self-awareness, stress and coping, and child abuse, in relation to sexual violence you reportedly experienced as a boarder and family violence in the home. In regard to social adjustment, there is some evidence of difficulties with intimate and non-intimate relationships, difficulties with employment and non-sexual criminality.
70Dr Guha considers there is clear evidence for major mental illness and problems with substance use, however no evidence for sexual deviance or violent and suicidal ideation. At the time of her report, she found no evidence of a psychopathic personality disorder, but recommended further assessment upon your release from custody. In relation to manageability, you exhibit problems with planning and a lack of prosocial goals. You will find treatment challenging as you deny your mental disorder, have ceased treatment in the past and deny your engagement in sexual offending.
71When you recounted the details of the present offending to Dr Guha, you said you and the victim had sex but she did not enjoy it and you dropped her home, thinking at the time that you did not want to ‘see this stupid bitch again’. You believed the sex had been consensual and she did not ask you to stop. You acknowledged you did not ask for consent, saying ‘I follow my dick’. You repeatedly spoke about the victim in derogatory terms, calling her a ‘slut’, ‘bitch’ and ‘junkie’ who had lied about the offending. Overall, there was significant externalisation, minimisation of responsibility and denial.
72In my opinion, Dr Guha’s risk assessments of you, your attitude to women in general, your lack of insight into your offending on this occasion, together with Dr Guha’s opinion that, in your case, there is significant externalisation, minimisation of responsibility and denial; all these factors, taken together, mean I must give significant weight to specific deterrence and protection of the community in sentencing you.
73At the plea hearing, your counsel acknowledged your comments to Dr Guha were often provocative and contradictory. Your language, in your counsel’s view, does not necessarily reconcile with how you would communicate with your NDIS support workers and family. Your counsel submitted there is a degree of unreliability to your account given to Dr Guha. You become defensive because you have been treated as abnormal your entire life, but you are not someone who rejects treatment.
74Dr Guha is a senior clinical and forensic psychologist with Forensicare, and her report is extensive and detailed. I consider her assessment and testing methods were rigorous and her opinions are all valid. Outside of the defence material tendered at the plea hearing, there is no further material before me to explain the concerning aspects of your disclosures to Dr Guha, such as a neuropsychological report. For these reasons, I am prepared to accept the contents and opinions expressed in Dr Guha’s report as reliable.
Criminal history
75Your criminal history dates back to 1997 and encompasses offences in Victoria, Queensland and the USA. I have had regard to your entire history, which includes dishonesty, property and violence offences; however, of particular relevance are your priors of sexual offences and stalking.
76On 11 June 2004, in Colorado, USA, you were convicted of one charge of sexual contact no consent and one charge of sexual assault. I was not provided with a police summary of the charges. When questioned about these charges by Dr Guha, you indicated they involved two separate victims. The sexual contact no consent was against a massage client. You said you knew you were going to get fired and decided to ‘fuck clients’ and therefore ‘hit [the victim] on the arse and hit on her’. In relation to the sexual assault charge, you said you consensually ‘kissed and cuddled’ the victim, who was your housemate. You believe she made a false allegation but you were unable to explain why she did so. According to Dr Guha, your narrative ‘largely focused on her past victimisation as a reason for the allegation’.
77Relevantly, in Australia, you appeared at the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court on 11 February 2013 on charges of stalk another person, theft and threat to inflict serious injury. You were convicted and sentenced to an 18-month community correction order (CCO) that included conditions of 80 hours of unpaid community work, supervision, medical assessment and treatment, offending behaviour programs and the Forensicare Sex Offenders Program. On two charges of use a carriage service to menace you were convicted and fined $600.
Mitigating circumstances
78You stood your trial, which was your right, but it means you can receive no discount for pleading guilty. As your counsel fairly conceded, you continue to deny the offending conduct. Accordingly, you lack insight into the reasons for your offending and you have demonstrated no remorse or victim empathy.
Application of Verdins principles
79Your counsel submitted all Verdins principles are engaged in your case.[24] With respect to principles 1, 3 and 4, your counsel primarily relies on Dr Guha’s opinion that schizophrenia, delusional disorder, untreated psychosis and your symptoms indicative of a personality disorder ‘coalesced to contribute to the index offending’. Your counsel submits the link between your mental impairments and the offending reduce your moral culpability and moderate the role of general and specific deterrence in your case.
[24] See R v Verdins (2007) 16 VR 269, 276 [32] (Maxwell P, Buchanan and Vincent JJA) (‘Verdins’).
80With respect to principle 2, your counsel does not make the submission that a sentence other than a term of imprisonment should be imposed, but instead submits Dr Guha’s report comprehensively outlines the supports you would benefit from when not in custody. As your counsel correctly concedes that sentences of imprisonment are the only appropriate sentences in your case, in my opinion Verdins principle 2 is not engaged.
81With respect to principles 5 and 6, your counsel relies on the hardship you have experienced in custody to date and Dr Guha indicating ‘some concern about the risk of suicide in the event of a custodial disposition’.
82The prosecutor submitted I should be slow to accept all Verdins principles are engaged in your case, primarily because of the inflammatory comments you made to Dr Guha about the offending. Moreover, in the prosecutor’s submission, there is no evidentiary nexus between comments such as ‘I ate her out and then I fucked her’ and your diagnoses. The prosecutor recognises you may have a personality disorder, but Dr Guha was hesitant to provide a formal diagnosis.
83As I foreshadowed at the plea hearing, I am prepared to give some weight to Verdins principles 1, 3, 4 and 5 in your case. Moreover, in light of recent material provided to the Court,[25] I also accept Verdins principle 6 is engaged here.
[25] Email to my Chambers from Benjamin Snare dated 28 April 2025 (Ex C1).
84So far as principles 1 and 3 are concerned, your cluster of mental health conditions does have the effect of reducing, to a limited extent, your moral culpability and therefore the weight I would otherwise have given to denunciation and just punishment. I will also slightly moderate the weight I give to general deterrence.
85However, the problem I alluded to above remains; there is no demonstrated nexus between the offending and your mental health conditions. While Dr Guha opines that, ‘All these factors coalesced to contribute to the index offending’, she also says:
The offence largely appears to have been driven by sexual entitlement and a desire to gratify his own sexual urges, difficulties understanding concepts of consent, limited self-regulation, and poor recognition of sexual boundaries and appropriate behaviours.
86And Mr Croslow observes your delusions ‘primarily revolve around his family’s business’. Mr Croslow writes he has ‘not seen these delusions affect other aspects of his life’.
87Specific deterrence is even more problematic because of the factors I mentioned earlier.[26] Nonetheless, to a small extent I will reduce the weight I would otherwise have given to this factor.
[26] Above [72].
88So far as Verdins principle 5 is concerned, I accept that given your complex mental conditions it is likely the sentences I impose will weigh more heavily on you than they would on a prisoner in normal mental health.
89Following the plea hearing, I was not satisfied Verdins principle 6 is engaged in your case. That principle requires there be ‘a serious risk of imprisonment having a significant adverse effect on the offender’s mental health’ for this consideration ‘to mitigate punishment’.[27] While Dr Guha expressed general concern for your well-being, you did not report suicidal thoughts or ideation. Moreover, according to Mr Croslow you engage in activities with him to support your mental health on a fortnightly basis. Mr Croslow states you have ‘maintained a positive outlooked despite difficult situations, such as his time at Hopkins Prison … and maintained strong, optimistic demeanour’. Mr Croslow believes that ‘with continued assistance, [you] will remain on a positive path’. I have no reason to believe the assistance Mr Croslow provides to you will diminish or cease after you are sentenced for these crimes.
[27] Verdins 276 [32(6)] (emphasis added).
90However, Dr Guha’s assessment occurred on 8 July 2024 and Mr Croslow’s letter is dated 10 October 2024. The much more recent material received from Mr Snare on 28 April 2025 paints a somewhat different picture. This email was sent to my Chambers ‘out of the blue’ and was not copied to the parties. At my direction, my Associate forwarded the email to the parties soon after it arrived. After considering the parties’ submissions this morning, I accept the validity of the document and, despite the unusual manner in which it came to my attention, I am prepared to have regard to its contents.
91Mr Snare advocates for you to serve your sentence in Thomas Embling Hospital where, in his opinion, you can receive ‘the appropriate treatment that addresses both [your] mental health and ASD aspects of rehabilitation’. Of course, I have no control over where in the correctional system you serve the sentences I impose on you today.
92Mr Snare opines:
Conversely, placing him in the general prison population poses a high risk of worsening his mental health issues due to the lack of appropriate treatment and potential conflicts with authority, staff, and other inmates.
He continues:
Since mid-last year, Bradley has had at least 11 incidents during his remand sentence and has been moved 5 times. Additionally, he has often been moved into single occupancy rooms due to conflicts, highlighting significant concerns for his safety and well-being in the general prison population.
93Accordingly, I am satisfied Verdins principle 6 is engaged in your case and you will be sentenced on that basis.
Custodial hardship
94In relation to your time in custody, your counsel submitted it has been extremely difficult. You were assaulted very shortly after entering the Melbourne Assessment Prison and were placed in isolation and then moved to a higher protection unit. At the plea hearing, your counsel told me your glasses were still broken from when you were first assaulted. You were then taken to the Melbourne Remand Centre (MRC) before being relocated to Hopkins Correctional Centre. At Hopkins, you were housed with a person who had been employed by your father for 15 years. You instructed your counsel that this person was involved in a coup for the takeover of your father’s company. You were eventually transferred back to MRC, where you were at the time of the plea hearing. It appears you are now located at Port Phillip Prison.[28] Apparently, your interactions with professionals and access to courses and employment whilst on remand have been limited.
[28] See Ex C2.
95I will take this above normal custodial hardship into account in sentencing you for these offences. Hopefully, once you are sentenced and permanently placed in a mainstream prison your custodial conditions will improve.
Delay
96I accept your counsel’s submission that the effect of delay is a mitigating circumstance in this case. You were interviewed by police in relation to the present offences on 12 May 2021, nearly four years ago. You were charged on 13 December 2021 and committed to stand trial in this Court on 31 March 2023. The delay from police interview to committal for trial of over 22 months is lengthy and may have been occasioned by the COVID-19 pandemic backlogs in Victoria Police and the courts of this State.
97Much of the delay in this Court has been occasioned by your decision to stand trial,[29] but not all of it by any means. The jury in your first trial was discharged after seven days without verdict on 2 July 2024. A second trial commenced on 4 July 2024, and after a further seven days the jury in that trial delivered its verdicts on 12 July 2024. There has been significant further delay since then which is not attributable to you or your legal practitioners.
[29] See Arthars v The Queen (2013) 39 VR 613, 622–623 [32] (Redlich and Coghlan JJA and T Forrest AJA).
98As the Victorian Court of Appeal observed in Rodriguez v DPP (Cth):[30]
Delay is normally relevant in two ways. First, it is relevant to rehabilitation that has occurred during the delay and the effect that has in turn on specific deterrence. Secondly, delay is relevant in the sense that the anxiety and uncertainty of having the prospect of a sentence hanging over one’s head during the period of delay is akin to punishment in itself.[31]
[30] (2013) 40 VR 436.
[31] Ibid 445–446 [36] (Warren CJ and Redlich JA) (citations omitted). See also Tones v The Queen [2017] VSCA 118 [36] (Maxwell P, Redlich and Kyrou JJA) and Thomas v The Queen [2019] VSCA 223 [66] (Ashley and Weinberg JJA).
99Your counsel submitted rehabilitative and punitive aspects of delay are relevant in your case, but the rehabilitation aspect is confined to the fact you have committed no further offences of this type in the meantime.
100There is little evidence before me regarding any efforts you have made towards your rehabilitation whilst you have been in custody. It is encouraging that you have consistently engaged with Mr Jacob Croslow, who describes himself as being your ‘psychological recovery coach’. You have engaged in fortnightly Zoom meetings with Mr Croslow who says you have ‘maintained a positive outlook … [and] a strong, optimistic demeanour’. However, until you accept you committed the present offences, your rehabilitation regarding the risk of future sexual offending will remain incomplete.
101Given the nature and seriousness of your offending conduct, your high risk of sexual reoffending, your continued denial of committing these offences and your consequent lack of insight, I assess your prospects of rehabilitation as being very guarded. Much will depend on how you respond to any rehabilitative programs offered to you in prison which address your risk of committing sexual offences in the future and the community supports put in place on your release from custody.
102So far as delay akin to punishment is concerned, since you were charged in relation to these offences you have had the prospect of a lengthy sentence of imprisonment hanging over your head. Undoubtedly, this would have caused you considerable anxiety and stress. I take the punitive effects of delay into account in your favour.
Application of sentencing principles
103I have had regard to current sentencing practice in relation to these offences as informed by the decisions of the High Court of Australia in R v Kilic[32] and DPP (Vic) v Dalgliesh (a Pseudonym)[33] and the Victorian Court of Appeal decisions in DPP v Zhuang[34] and DPP (Cth) v Thomas.[35] I have also had regard to the comparable cases I was referred to by the prosecutor[36] and your counsel.[37]
[32] (2016) 259 CLR 256, 266–268 [21]–[25] (Bell, Gageler, Keane, Nettle and Gordon JJ).
[33] (2017) 262 CLR 428, 444–447 [47]–[58] (Kiefel CJ, Bell and Keane JJ), 452–455 [78]–[85] (Gageler and Gordon JJ).
[34] (2015) 250 A Crim R 282, 292 [30]–[31] (Redlich, Priest and Beach JJA).
[35] (2016) 53 VR 546, 606–609 [173]–[183] (Redlich, Santamaria and McLeish JJA). See also Williams (a pseudonym) v The Queen [2021] VSCA 35 [21]–[25] (Priest and Kyrou JJA); Russo v The Queen [2021] VSCA 244 [53]–[56] (Emerton JA, Priest JA agreeing).
[36] Wilson v The King [2023] VSCA 276; Stafford v The King [2022] VSCA 229.
[37] Ex D1.2.
104While current sentencing practice is relevant to the sentences I impose on you, it is only one of a number of sentencing considerations I must take into account in imposing just sentences in your case.[38]
[38] See Dalgliesh HCA.
105Moreover, it is always difficult to gauge more than a general yardstick from so-called ‘comparable cases’, given the wide range of offending conduct that can constitute the offence of rape and the myriad of personal circumstances pertaining to individual offenders. Nonetheless, to the extent I have been able to gain any assistance from ‘comparable cases’, I have sought to do so in your case.
106Rape is a ‘category 1’ offence as defined in the Sentencing Act 1991.[39] Consequently, immediate custodial sentences are mandatory in this case.[40] It was not suggested that anything other than sentences of imprisonment with a non-parole period fixed is called for in this case.
[39] See ‘SA’ s 3(1) definition of ‘category 1 offence’ paragraph (d).
[40] SA s 5(2G).
107The basic purposes for which a court may impose a sentence are just punishment, deterrence – both specific and general, rehabilitation, denunciation, and protection of the community. In sentencing you, I must have regard to a range of factors, such as the seriousness of the offence, your culpability for it, the impact of the offence on the victim, and your personal circumstances.
108I am required to balance the interests of the community in denouncing criminal conduct with the interests of the community in seeking to ensure that, so far as is possible, you are rehabilitated and reintegrated into society.
109Denunciation, general deterrence and just punishment must be given significant weight in sentencing you for these offences, sensibly moderated by reason of your mental conditions. Moreover, specific deterrence must be given real weight, albeit moderated to some extent for the same reasons. For the reasons adumbrated earlier, I also consider protection of the community must be given significant weight. As I observed earlier, I assess your prospects of rehabilitation as being very guarded.
Discretionary registration under the Sex Offenders Registration Act 2004 (‘SORA’)
110You have been found guilty of two Class 3 offences under the SORA.[41] Registration under the SORA is therefore discretionary and the prosecutor seeks a sex offender registration order.[42] I can only make the order if, after taking into account any matter I consider appropriate, I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that you pose a risk to the sexual safety of one or more persons or of the community.[43]
[41] Rape is an offence within Subdivision (8A) of the Crimes Act 1958 which involves sexual penetration. See Sex Offenders Registration Act 2004 (‘SORA’) sch 3.
[42] SORA s 11(1).
[43] SORA s 11(3).
111On the basis of your previous relevant conviction in the USA, the nature and seriousness of the present offending, and Dr Guha’s assessment that you are a high risk of engaging in future sexual violence, with moderate risk of serious harm, I am satisfied you pose a risk to the sexual safety of the community.
112For the purposes of a sex offender registration order, having being found guilty of a Class 3 offence you are deemed to have been found guilty of a Class 1 offence.[44] Accordingly, I will order you comply with the reporting obligations under the Act for a period of 15 years. I also note you are a registrable offender for the remainder of your life, regardless of the period for which you must comply with the reporting obligations.[45]
[44] Ibid s 34(4)(a).
[45] Ibid s 11(11).
Bradley William Harris
On the charge of raping Georgia Hudson (Charge 1) you are convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for 3 years.
On the charge of raping Georgia Hudson (Charge 2) you are convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for 6 years.
I order that 6 months of the sentence imposed on Charge 1 be served cumulatively on the sentence imposed on Charge 2, making a total effective sentence of imprisonment for 6 years and 6 months.
I order you serve a minimum of 4 years’ imprisonment before becoming eligible for parole.
I am required to state the reasons for imposing these sentences.[46] They are contained in these reasons for sentence.
[46] See SA s 5B(4)(a).
I am also required to explain how these sentences relate to the standard sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment on Charges 1 and 2.[47] The sentence I have imposed on Charge 1 is 7 years less than the standard sentence. The sentence I have imposed on Charge 2 is 4 years less than the standard sentence.
[47] See SA s 5B(5).
I declare 291 days (not including this day) as the period of pre-sentence detention to be reckoned as already served under this sentence and I direct the fact that declaration was made, and its details, be noted in the records of the court.
Pursuant to the provisions of the Sex Offenders Registration Act 2004, I order you comply with the reporting provisions of that Act for 15 years, commencing from the date of your release from custody.
0
21
0