Director of Public Prosecutions v Haynes (a pseudonym)
[2025] VCC 502
•16 April 2025
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA AT GEELONG CRIMINAL JURISDICTION | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| WILLIAM PETER HAYNES (A PSEUDONYM) |
---
JUDGE: | HIS HONOUR JUDGE CHETTLE |
WHERE HELD: | Geelong |
DATE OF HEARING: | 15 April 2025 |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 16 April 2025 |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Haynes (a pseudonym) |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2025] VCC 502 |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Subject:CRIMINAL LAW - SENTENCE
Catchwords: Sentence – sexual penetration of a child under 16 who was under the age of 10 years, indecent act with a child, sexual penetration of a child under 16, serious sexual offender, sex offenders registration for life, Verdins mitigation
Legislation Cited: Sentencing Act 1991, Sex Offenders Registration Act 1994
Cases Cited:R v Verdins [2007] VSCA 102;
Sentence: Imprisonment, Total effective sentence of 9 years and 8 months, Non-parole period; 6 years. Serious sexual offender. Sex Offender Registration- for life.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Director of Public Prosecutions | Mr R. de Vietri | Ms Isabella Anticev, Office of Public Prosecutions |
For the Accused | Ms C. Foot | Mr Ryan Robertson, Dribbin and Brown |
HIS HONOUR:
1William Peter Haynes,[1] you have been convicted by a jury of three charges of sexual penetration of a child and two charges of indecent act with a child. On Charge 1 the jury found the circumstance of aggravation, that is that your victim was under 10 years of age established beyond reasonable doubt.
[1] A pseudonym.
2You are now 78 years of age and have no formal prior criminal history. You were however in prison for six and a half years in May 2011 for a number of serious sexual offences committed upon another family member in the early 1990s. That sentence was imposed for two offences of incest and one attempted incest and two indecent act offences committed against that victim when she was 12 and 13 years of age.
3Sexual penetration of a child under 16 when the child is under the age of 10 has a maximum penalty of 25 years' imprisonment. Sexual penetration of a child when the child is between 10 and 16 years has a 10 year maximum penalty and indecent act with a child under the age of 16 has a 10 year maximum turn.
4You do fall to be sentenced on each charge as a serious sexual offender because of your 2011 sentences which involved prison terms for relevant offences.
5This trial was a re-trial. You were convicted by a jury in May 2023 and sentenced by Judge Tinney to 11 years' imprisonment with a non‑parole period of six and a half years for three charges of incest and two charges of indecent act with a child under 16.
6The charges of sexual penetration of a child were substituted for the incest charges on the trial before me. As I said the first offence has a maximum penalty of 25 years because of the age of the child and the other two 10 years.
7I will briefly summarise the facts of your offending. Your victim Rachel Stevenson[2] was born in 1993. You met her maternal grandmother in the early 1990s and ultimately married her in 1996. She had three daughters from a previous relationship, one of those was Kathleen[3], the mother of Rachel Stevenson, your victim. Kathleen had two other children, Emily[4] and Josh[5]. You lived with Rachel Stevenson’s grandmother in two different locations in regional Victoria.
[2] A pseudonym.
[3] A pseudonym.
[4] A pseudonym.
[5] A pseudonym.
8The first incident occurred when Rachel was visiting the first location in regional Victoria, when she was eight or nine years of age. She believes her mother was probably at the beach, her grandmother was downstairs and Rachel does not believe that her siblings were in the house. You came upstairs to her bedroom where she was playing with her doll.
9You approached her and asked if she liked babies and if you she knew where babies came from. You said something about showing her. You sat on the bed and pushed her back and you rubbed your penis between her thighs. You removed her underwear and penetrated her vagina with your penis thrusting four or five times before withdrawing. That is the basis of Charge 1 sexual penetration of a child under 16 when the child was in fact under 10 years of age.
10You stood up with an erection and pretended that your penis was hurt. You told her that she had 'hurt her pa' and that she did not want you saying to people that she had hurt her pa. You placed her hand on your penis and held on to it masturbating in that manner and that is the basis of Charge 2. You pulled your pants up and left the room. Your victim noticed blood on her underwear the next day.
11Sometime between 2003 and 2004 the next incident occurred at the new house in the second location in regional Victoria. Your victim was visiting your house, she believes, during the school holidays. She was about 10 or 11 years of age and she was having a shower when you walked into the bathroom. You told her lunch was ready and she told you she would come down. You stood and watched her. You then closed and locked the door. You said that you would show her something that was going to make everybody love her when she was older. It was something you said that she needed to know.
12You unzipped your pants, put your hands on her shoulders and guided her to her knees, lifted her up gently so she was level with your penis. You put your penis in her mouth moving your body and her head and forth. She turned away after a short while and again you said words to the effect of look what you have done, you have hurt your pa, you know what to do. Again you grabbed her hand and placed it on your penis with your hand on top and had her masturbate you until you ejaculated on her shoulder and onto the floor. This is the basis of Charge 3 sexual penetration of a child and Charge 4 indecent act with a child.
13Charge 5 took place on another day during that same visit to the aforementioned house. You digitally penetrated Rachel in the lounge of the house. She was in a makeshift bed as was her sister Emily who remained asleep throughout the incident. Rachel woke up to find you sitting in a chair in the room. You knelt down and kissed the two girls goodnight. Rachel was pretending to be asleep. You then digitally - put your hands down and digitally penetrated her vagina. That caused her pain and again she woke up the next day with blood in her underpants.
14On a later visit in the course of a car trip with Rachel, she told you that if you touched her again she would tell on you. Your offending against her then ceased. Rachel Stevenson did not tell anyone of your conduct for many years. By 2021, she felt the need to deal with it and sort out some of the issues she was having including overprotectiveness of her own children as a result of the abuse you inflicted on her.
15In January 2021, she disclosed improper acts to her Aunt Marie[6] and then to her Aunt Anne[7] and to her sister Emily. She did not go into any detail when she made the disclosure however she went to the police the next day. You were interviewed by the police on 4 February 2021 and you denied the allegations.
[6] A pseudonym
[7] A pseudonym
16There is a victim impact statement from Rachel Stevenson. Predictably, your conduct has had a profound impact on her life. Your crimes have impacted upon so many areas of that life. She would rather view herself as a survivor than a victim and she speaks of carrying the burden and sadness of her secret for 20 years. She laments the loss of her innocence. Even in primary school she was self‑harm-harming and subsequently alcohol and drug abuse followed.
17Her formative years were significantly detrimentally affected by you. Her school performance dropped off, she felt different from her peers, she felt unworthy and used alcohol and drugs to numb the pain. She lost the ability to trust others and suffered low self‑harm‑esteem. Her relationships were affected, her mental health fluctuated. She had a strained relationship with her mother and was left with unresolved feelings after her mother died and Rachel was not able to explain to her what had derailed her life.
18You took her childhood, her formative years and her innocence. As a mother she has feelings of not being able to protect her own children. Rachel found it difficult putting the many and varied impacts of conduct in her victim impact statement. I take her victim impact statement into account in sentencing you.
19Ms Foot who appeared for you at this trial and plea relied upon similar material to that that had been filed on the plea before Judge Tinney. In addition, she filed written submissions and an additional report from psychologist Gary McMullen. In submissions in Exhibit 1, Ms Foot sets out your personal history. As Judge Tinney said on your sentence previously, there are few matters in mitigation on your behalf.
20You have run a trial twice, that is your right but you do not have the benefit of any remorse or any of the sizeable benefits that flow to someone who pleads guilty particularly to offences like this.
21Your counsel relied principally on the following matters in mitigation. Your age and state of health, the application of limb 5 of Verdins[8] and thirdly the delay since the offending and some recognition that needs to be given to the existence of the earlier sentence that I imposed leaving to some moderation as well as consideration of sentencing practices as existed closer to the time of your offending.
[8]R v Verdins [2007] VSCA 102
22Your counsel conceded the seriousness of the offending and the inevitability of a lengthy prison term. Ms Foot relied upon Mr Mullens' conclusion where he said:
A truer picture goes to the complexity of human nature. Mr [Hayne's] history demonstrates that some years ago he did monstrous things to two vulnerable girls in his care. This behaviour is rightly condemned and deserves appropriate punishment. However it is noted that in much of his life he did some good by loving [Jennifer] and his niece [Tegan] and being a good and supportive friend to those in his circle. It is noted that he is now 77 years and in less than robust health. In my view his risk of re‑offending is vanishingly small.
23She submitted at paragraph 46 of her submissions:
Mr [Haynes] has had the burden of this matter hanging over his head since he was first interviewed and charged in April 21. He has experienced the unpredictability and uncertainty of the appeal process. He served 16 months while awaiting the Court of Appeal's judgment when he was then released on bail and has now been returned to custody almost two years after the original trial concluded. The burden of this matter hanging over his head has been much longer than the usual delay in matters such as these. These burdens should reduce his overall punishment to a degree.
24I now turn briefly to your background. You were born in January 1947. You are now 78 years of age so you were about 54 to 57 at the time you offended. You were born in Geelong and you were the eldest of five children. Your father was described as a hard man and there was a level of discipline in your family home.
25You left school in Year 9 and at the age of 14 as you were expected to contribute wages to the household budget. You worked for a carpet manufacturer for about 40 years. You then went on to work at chicken farm and also as a handyman.
26You moved out of home aged 22 and married your first wife. You had three daughters from that relationship. The youngest was Jennifer[9] who had an intellectual disability and you were, prior to remand by Judge Tinney, a frequent visitor to her supported accommodation where you supported her. Some of the references tendered on your behalf speak of your commitment to her. Unfortunately, and tragically, Jennifer died whilst you were in custody.
[9] A pseudonym.
27Your first marriage ended when you were about 33 years of age. At age 46 you formed the relationship with Rachel Stevenson’s grandmother, and as I said, she had three children herself. It is against one of her daughters, your step‑daughter that you offended in 1993-1994. That is the basis of my sentence of you in 2011. My reasons for sentence are marked as Exhibit 5 on your plea. You were sentenced to six and a half years for that offending on 27 May 2011. You were paroled in October 2015 after having served four years and four months.
28You tried to reintegrate into society by joining the local community groups and pursuing your love of restoration of old motor cars. The references tendered speak highly of you and your positive efforts including guiding people at community groups and your previous devotion and care for Jennifer.
29Your niece, Tegan Ryan's[10] reference outlines some of the challenges in your life and the impact of the divorce in your first marriage. She sets out Jennifer’s issues and your devotion to Jennifer. Your niece attests to the effort you have taken to re-establish yourself after your release from custody. Ms Jones[11] in her reference outlines your qualities. She is also a supporter of you. I take the reference material into account in sentencing you.
[10] A pseudonym.
[11] A pseudonym.
30As I said you have no prior formal history, but your earlier sentence has relevance to this offending or sentencing for this offending. You are unable to point to isolated conduct in some short period of your life on multiple occasions in relation to two separate young females about a decade apart, each of them a close family member, you have seriously sexually offended.
31The sentence that you received back in 2011 is also relevant when I come to consider aspects of totality.
32Now I turn to the matters in mitigation. Firstly your age and state of health. Your previous counsel referred to a number of cases dealing with principles to be applied when sentencing elderly or frail individuals before Judge Tinney. Obviously your age is a relevant factor. It is always a significant consideration that an offender is likely to spend if not the whole then a very substantial portion of his life in custody and that they may not see life outside custody in the future.
33There can be some moderation of the purposes of sentencing in a relevant case. I accept like Judge Tinney that at the age of 78 you may well die in prison. Again I hope that is not the case. In sentencing you I do not ignore your age as it bears upon the severity of the effect of incarceration upon you. Your age however does not justify the imposition of an inappropriate sentence. A significant period of imprisonment may be required despite your advanced age which may leave little or no expectation of any life outside prison. Such an outcome is significant and never arrived at lightly.
34Your poor health is a less significant factor. You suffer from prostate issues, from anxiety and depression, from asthma, from high blood pressure, from arthritis, from acid reflux and cramps that are caused by varicose veins. You are medicated for those conditions. Those conditions seem to be more a factor of your advancing years than any underlying significant medical issue.
35Your offending was very serious offending. You must be punished by a lengthy term of imprisonment. I must pass appropriate sentences and give appropriate weight to the relevant sentencing purposes. In this case denunciation, just punishment and general deterrence are the significant sentencing purposes. So is protection of the community from you. Your age, your connected health issues and the passage of time result in some reduction in the weight that needs to be given to specific deterrence and community protection.
36You hoped these crimes would never be reported. There is a disadvantage in your being dealt with all these years later and after my 2011 sentence had lapsed. It is disadvantage also to your victim who has been affected for so many years by your crime. There is no relationship between the two sets of offences other than you offended against family members. They are separate serious sexual offences committed about 10 years apart.
37A psychological report from Ms Cidoni was tendered upon your plea and that report is dated 20 June 2023 and was provided to Judge Tinney. I have considered that report in support of the submission that the fifth limb of Verdins is engaged in your case. That submission requires rigorous examination at law. Ms Cidoni was specifically asked to consider the aspect of increased burden. Ms Cidoni was left only to rely on your description of the early offending for which you were imprisoned in 2011. She was not provided with my sentencing remarks and that would have shown the extent of your minimisation of your offending.
38Conducting a risk assessment in that setting seems to me to be pointless. You described it as a brain fade but it was not when you offended in 1993-1994. It does not provide a sensible explanation for the serious sexual offending committed by a mature man upon his own step‑child. Nor does alcohol provide an explanation.
39Ms Cidoni was uninformed in relation to the details of your past conduct and she should not have been. You told Ms Cidoni that you believed that your current victim is conspiring with others to fabricate allegations against you. This is a baseless suggestion. Ms Cidoni describes you as acknowledging the past offending but displaying significant denial in relation to these offences.
40Your account to her in response to testing administered by her are relied upon in relation to the Verdins submission made on your behalf. That Verdins submission is founded upon you experiencing high levels of anxiety likely caused by your current legal predicament. Ms Cidoni reported that overall your risk is rated as moderate without further intervention, you would meet the diagnosis for an anxiety disorder, you likely suffered from paedophilia at the time of your offending and that exists the possibility says Ms Cidoni, that that disorder persists given the existence of now two sets of offending and your denials.
41Ms Cidoni's ultimate risk assessment in relation to sexual offenders is one of low moderate risk. Your advanced age and likely lack of access to children suggests that that assessment is probably correct.
42I am only prepared to give very limited weight like Judge Tinney to limb 5 of Verdins. It is just engaged in my view in your case. I do find that there is some modest increased burden upon you because of your anxiety.
43I am not satisfied that there is any serious risk of imprisonment will significantly affect your mental health. You survived well with the sentence I imposed on 2011.
44Now turning to your prospects for rehabilitation, it is difficult to calculate those prospects in your case. You have none of the issues that often impede rehabilitation such as drug use or mental health issues. You have a good past employment record. The problem is understanding the nature of your offending against young family members. You were someone with paedophilic tendencies and may still possess them. You obviously have very limited insight as demonstrated by your statements to Ms Cidoni. There has however been a lengthy period of time since your offending in the early 2000s and no other offending has been alleged against you.
45In this case there was no report by your victim for about 20 years. This is not unusual. The significance of the delay is that in the period since this offending you were dealt with for the earlier offending by Judge Tinney I accept the submissions made by your counsel as to consideration which must be given to that earlier sentence. It is part of your circumstances and it is relevant to principles of totality. There is a period of many years where nothing else has been alleged against you and you have made efforts to reintegrate back into the community.
46As I indicated earlier I will act on Ms Cidoni's risk assessment. The sex offenders registration limitations and your reporting obligations may serve to reduce further your risk of reoffending after you are released when you will be a good deal older. Risk in my view will reduce as you get older and so I find that you have real prospects of rehabilitation in the future.
47Your counsel accepts the seriousness of your offending. It is not suggested that any of the offending fell at a low level. Your offences of sexual penetration of a child under 16 years are of very seriousness. Charge 1 involved a child under the age of 10 years an aggravating feature with a higher maximum penalty. You were in a position of trust; you repeatedly abused that trust and I find that Charge 1 represents an upper mid‑level example of that offence and Charges 3 and 5 mid‑level examples of sexual penetration of a child. Your counsel's concession to Judge Tinney on the first plea that the two indecent acts with a child represent upper mid‑level examples of that offence in my view is proper and appropriate.
48In sentencing you I must have regard to a number of factors. I must pay regard to your prospects of rehabilitation that I have just outlined. I am required to properly and adequately punish you for the crimes and I have to do that justly and proportionately. I must also denounce your conduct. This was serious sexual offending against a totally innocent child by someone trusted. You should be disgusted in yourself. Instead you are actually remorseless.
49I give some weight to specific deterrence. I need to deter you from offending in the future. Specific deterrence can be moderated here because of your age and the absence of offending since, for 20 years.
50Because you fall to be sentenced as a serious sexual offender, community protection is a really important factor in this case. Again, there is some moderation of community protection owing to your age and delay in dealing with this case.
51General deterrence however is a very important sentencing factor in your case. I must try and deter others from doing what you did, sexually offending against a child. Those minded to act as you did must understand that substantial terms of imprisonment will be imposed upon them.
52I take into account current sentencing practices, that is one of the range of factors I must take into account under the Sentencing Act[12] and I have had regard to the table of cases provided helpfully by the prosecution.
[12]Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic)
53I take into account principles of totality of sentence to which I have already referred. I do that in two distinct ways. Firstly, I have regard to the fact of the earlier sentence I imposed upon you. Although there is no relationship between this offending and the offending for which I previously imprisoned you, they are about a decade apart and they involve different victims. The period of time spent in custody on your first sentence must be taken into account in fixing this sentence.
54Secondly, I have to determine an appropriate sentence for each of the individual charges taking all applicable sentencing considerations into account. I must then determine to what extent there should be cumulation in relation to the other sentences I am going to impose in the light of principles of totality and determining what is an appropriate overall total effective sentence for your offending.
55The serious sexual offender provisions of the Sentencing Act as I say are enlivened for every sentence I am about to impose. I may impose a disproportionate sentence to achieve community protection. I will not be doing that in your case. I can adequately protect the community with the sentences otherwise available to the court and the prosecution do not contend otherwise.
56By virtue of the serious sexual offender provisions in the absence of an order by the court the sentences imposed are presumed to be served cumulatively upon each other. Some degree of concurrency must be made in your case to avoid what would otherwise be an unrealistic and unjust sentence.
57Your offending occurred over three discrete and distinct incidents. There were two offences in two of those three incidents. I must impose some cumulation to recognise each incident and each offence within each incident.
58Would you stand up please. On all charges you are convicted. On Charge 1, the charge of sexual penetration of a child under 16 who was under the age of 10 years you are sentenced to be imprisoned for six years and six months.
59On Charge 2, indecent act with a child, you are sentenced to two years' imprisonment.
60On Charge 3, sexual penetration of a child under 16, you are sentenced to four years' imprisonment.
61On Charge 4, indecent act with a child, you are sentenced to two years' imprisonment.
62On Charge 5, sexual penetration of a child under the age of 16, you are sentenced to four years' imprisonment.
63I order that it be recorded in the records of the court that you have been sentenced as a serious sexual offender in respect of all of those charges.
64Charge 1 I declare to be the base sentence, that is the six years and six months sentence and I order that four months of the sentence imposed on Charge 2, 18 months of the sentence imposed on Charge 3, four months of the sentence imposed on Charge 4 and one year of the sentence imposed on Charge 5 be served cumulatively upon Charge 1 of the base sentence. That is a total effective sentence of nine years and eight months.
65I direct that you serve six years of that sentence before being eligible for parole. I declare that 487 days of that sentence not including today has already been served by way of pre-sentence detention.
66Because of the class of the offences you have committed, you have obligations under the Sex Offenders Registration Act[13] to report for life despite the fact that you already had such an obligation because of the sentence I imposed on you in 2011.
[13]Sentencing Act 1991.
- - -
0