Director of Public Prosecutions v Helms (a pseudonym)
[2025] VCC 713
•2 June 2025
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA CRIMINAL JURISDICTION | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| RODNEY HELMS (A PSEUDONYM) |
---
JUDGE: | HER HONOUR JUDGE HASSAN |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne |
DATE OF HEARING: | 21 March 2025 |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 2 June 2025 |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Helms (a pseudonym) |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2025] VCC 713 |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Subject: CRIMINAL LAW – sentencing
Catchwords: Guilty verdict – two charges of sexual penetration of a child under 16 – one charge of indecent act with a child under 6 – three charges of sexual assault by touching a child under 16 – victim under 10-year-old – victim was the accused’s niece – victim was unprotected and uncared for – accused with intellectual disability and victim of childhood sexual abuse – direct causal link between the accused’s considerable disadvantage background, his intellectual impairment and the offending – good prospects of rehabilitation – sentenced to two years community corrections order with justice plan – registered sex offender for life
Legislation Cited: Intellectually Disabled Persons Act 1986 (Vic); Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic)
Cases Cited:Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; Verdins v The Queen (2007) 16 VR 269; Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120.
Sentence:Aggregate community corrections order of two years with a justice plan and registered sex offender for life
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Director of Public Prosecutions | Mr A. McKenry | Office of Public Prosecutions |
For the Accused | Mr C. Baker | Victoria Legal Aid |
HER HONOUR:
1Rodney Helms,[1] you have been found guilty by jury verdict of two charges of sexual penetration of a child under 16, aggravated by the fact that your victim was under 10 years old (Charge 3 and 4), one charge of indecent act with a child under 6 (Charge 1), and three charges of sexual assault by touching a child under 16. That is Charges 5 through to 7. The maximum penalty for Charges 1 and 5 through to 7 is 10 years imprisonment. The maximum penalty for Charges 3 and 4 is 25 years imprisonment. Charges 5 through 7 are standard sentence offences and the standard offence is four years imprisonment.
[1] A pseudonym.
2I directed your acquittal on Charge 2, which was a further charge of sexual penetration of a child under 16. The facts and circumstances of your offending stated briefly are as follows. The victim of your offending is Megan Helms[2] who is your niece. Ms Helms was born in December 2002. You are twelve years older than her. You were born in December 1990. In July 2006, Ms Helms and her two siblings came to live with your mother, her grandmother at the family home in Tallangatta.
[2] A pseudonym.
3The family home at Tallangatta was a four bedroom house, but when Megan and her siblings came to live there, there were already multiple adults and children living at the house. Megan's father moved out and went to Queensland in September 2007, but returned in September 2008 with his new partner. The house was overcrowded and filthy. The living arrangements were shambolic. The children did not have their own beds and slept where they could. They were inadequately supervised and all aspects of their care and education were neglected. The children were also not shielded from sexualised conversations and behaviours.
4You lived alone in a caravan at the back of the house. When you were about 16 to 17 years old and Megan was five years old, you invited her into your caravan to watch Dora the Explorer. When she was alone with you, you sat her on your lap with her legs apart facing you. She felt your penis against her vagina and bottom. You took her underwear off and began grabbing and rubbing her buttocks and that is Charge 1. You then removed all her clothing and put your penis in her vagina, that is Charge 3.
5She described you bouncing her and thrusting your penis in her vagina. You told her she cannot tell anyone and if she did, you would do the same thing to her siblings. Megan gave evidence that you continued to sexually abuse her in your caravan about two to three times a week. You lured her in with the promise of watching Dora and having lollies. She gave evidence of one further particularised incident in the caravan, when you penetrated her vagina with your penis, and that is Charge 4, and made her wash with a bottle of water you got from the bathroom in the caravan.
6Other householders who were called to give evidence all disputed that there was a bathroom in your caravan. Megan must have been mistaken on this point. The jury, however, clearly did not find this significantly adverse to their assessment of Megan's credibility and reliability. Megan and her siblings were removed from the house by Child Protection on 4 July 2008. They were placed first with other family members, before being returned to their father's care in around September 2008 and moving back to Queensland with him and his partner. Megan became homeless in 2018 and returned on 25 August 2018 to live with you and your mother in Victoria. She was 15 at this time.
7You and your mother collected her from the airport, where you grabbed her buttocks, that is Charge 5 and on an occasion when Megan was walking down the corridor, you again grabbed her buttocks, that is Charge 6, and there was a further incident when you pulled down her shirt and shone a torch light on her breasts and that is Charge 7.
8You were interviewed by police on 12 November 2020 and denied the earlier incidents. On the 2018 incidents, you said you only had grabbed Megan's chest by accident. You denied ever pulling her top open and said you flicked her nipple because a fly had landed on it. Megan Helms has not made a victim impact statement, but the devastating effects of childhood sexual abuse are well understood by the courts. Premature sexual experience causes lasting harm to victims, who often experience lifelong shame, self-loathing and problems with intimacy and relationships more generally and indeed, struggle in all aspects of their development and life.
9Turning to the objective seriousness of your offending. Your offending against Megan when she was only five to six years old was very serious offending. Megan was a mere infant. She was unprotected and uncared for. She was a completely vulnerable child who you abused by multiple acts of sexual penetration. The 2018 offences I regard as low level examples of the crime of sexual assault by touching, but still, you should not have behaved this way.
10Turning to your personal circumstances and in outlining your personal circumstances, I refer to the report of Dr Laura Anderson, registered psychologist and clinical neuropsychologist dated 15 March 2025; and also to the evidence at your trial, which I will discuss more fully in these reasons when I turn to Bugmy[3] considerations, which are enlivened in sentencing you.
[3]Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37.
11Dr Anderson met with you on 16 January 2025. You struggled to answer many of her questions and told Dr Anderson your mother should be contacted, which is what occurred. It is apparent from her report that Dr Anderson at times struggled to obtain clear information from both you and your mother. What can be gleaned from her report is as follows. As stated, you were born in December 1990. You are presently 34 years old. You are indigenous on your mother's side. You live with your mother and you rely on her for support in all aspects of your life.
12You are not a participant on the National Insurance Disability Scheme (the NDIS) and do not currently receive any formal disability support. You can drive, but you only hold a learner's permit. On 3 October 2003 when you were 12 years old, State Government Disability Services determined that you demonstrated an intellectual disability within the meaning of the Intellectually Disabled Persons Act 1986.[4] You told Dr Anderson that you had been the victim of sexual assault as a child, but she could not determine if you were speaking about a single incident or ongoing abuse.
[4]Intellectually Disabled Persons Act 1986 (Vic).
13Your mother confirmed you had been the victim of sexual abuse by a man who had lived with the family. Your mother told Dr Anderson that when you were 13, you had inappropriately touched your younger brother. You have always been overweight and you have Type 2 diabetes. Child Protection authorities have been involved in your care in some capacity throughout your childhood and adolescence although due to the redacted material, Dr Anderson was unable to determine the nature or extent of their involvement. There is a case note from 26 February 2008, which describes your mother as a loving and caring parent.
14You attended the Belvoir Special School from prep to Year 12. You completed the VCAL, which is the vocational equivalent of VCE. You can read and write, but with some difficulty. You attended the Wodonga TAFE and you have had some employment at fast food chains. You are currently unemployed and in receipt of the disability pension. You have no prior criminal history and no matters pending. Dr Anderson found you have some understanding of the wrongfulness of the behaviour for which you were found guilty, but she found your understanding to be superficial and that you remained uncertain about the consequences of your behaviour.
15On your cognitive profile, Dr Anderson says that having been determined to have met the criteria for an intellectual disability when you were 12, you must have been assessed as demonstrating a full scale intelligence quotient of 70 or below. She assessed your current intelligence quotient to fall within the range of 50 to 58 and states:
The result of my assessment revealed that Mr [Helms’] general intellectual functioning and his functioning across all cognitive domains is severely reduced compared to typical levels of functioning. Mr [Helms] typically functions at a level that is lower than 99.9 per cent of same aged peers. Consistently reduced functioning of this nature across all domains is typically referred to as a severe level of global reduction in functioning.
16Dr Anderson gives the diagnostic opinion that you have an intellectual development disorder of moderate severity. Your condition is permanent and is not amenable to treatment. On the relationship, if any, between your condition and your offending, Dr Anderson says that having a significant cognitive impairment is not of itself a criminogenic risk factor, but she goes onto state:
‘However, I am of the view that Mr [Helms’] intellectual disability is a particularly relevant factor to consider in relation to the circumstances that may have contributed to his alleged offending. It is well documented in published clinical literature, that children with intellectual disability present with an increased vulnerability and risk to sexual exploitation, compared to neurotypical peers and that perpetrators of sexual abuse of intellectually disabled children, are often intellectually disabled peers who have been abused themselves.
As I have noted in this report, Mr [Helms] reported to me that he was the victim of childhood sexual assault and his account was supported by his mother's report of the events. The precise timeline of events is not entirely clear to me, but it appears that Mr [Helms] may have been a victim of childhood sexual abuse at around the same age as his niece'.
17She goes onto give the opinion:
As such, my clinical opinion is the combination of Mr [Helms’] neurodevelopmental condition, i.e. his intellectual disability and his own experience of being reportedly a victim of childhood sexual abuse, directly contributed to his development of problematic sexualised offending behaviour.
18Dr Anderson gives the further opinion that your intellectual disability would undoubtedly make you incredibly vulnerable in a custodial setting. Dr Anderson states that it was beyond the scope of her assessment to conduct a forensic risk assessment and therefore gives no opinion on your prospects of rehabilitation. She notes, however, that while intellectual disability cannot be treated or rehabilitated, the presence of an intellectual disability is not a criminogenic risk factor and should not be regarded of itself as posing an impediment to your rehabilitation.
19I go on now to consider the matters raised with me in mitigation of sentence. On the application of Bugmy[5] principles, given the evidence I heard at your trial on the household dynamics, this is a case where in my view, your offending can be largely explained by your background of considerable disadvantage. It is clear that you were not adequately cared for or supervised during your childhood and that you were likely prematurely sexualised through abuse or at least, inappropriate exposure to adult sexual behaviour.
[5]Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37.
20In accordance with the report of Dr Anderson, an intellectually disabled child like you, in such a situation, poses a risk of sexual abuse to younger more vulnerable children. This is precisely what happened here. Therefore, I find a direct causal link between your background, your intellectual impairment and your offending, which reduces your moral culpability. I also accept on the material, that all limbs of Verdins[6] are applicable in your case, as are Muldrock[7] considerations, given your intellectual disability. And again, these considerations reduce your moral culpability and in accordance with
Dr Anderson's opinion, I accept you would be extremely vulnerable in a custodial environment.[6]Verdins v The Queen (2007) 16 VR 269.
[7]Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120.
21There is no real application of the sentencing principles of either specific or general deterrence in your case. And given that you have not offended in any way since this offending, I do not consider that community protection is of any real significance. You have not shown insight or remorse into your offending, however, notwithstanding this, given that you have not reoffended in any way, I consider your prospects of rehabilitation are demonstrably good.
22Despite your poor upbringing as a child and what I have said about your background, it is clear that your mother cares for you and continues to support you. The prosecution submitted that given the seriousness of your offending on the earlier charges, a combination sentence of imprisonment and a corrections order is the appropriate sentence. The defence submitted that given your youth and intellectual disability and the matters raised in mitigation, a corrections order with a justice plan is the appropriate sentence.
23I had you assessed for both, you were assessed as suitable. I enquired with your counsel this morning about your suitability for work hours, if I were to place you on a corrections order and he informed me that you can perform work hours. Therefore, taking into consideration all the matters I am required to, I intend to sentence you a follows. Before I do that, I should say that Charges 5, 6, and 7 being standard sentence offences, the standard sentence applies to an offence in the midrange of seriousness, based only on its objective factors.
24It is a legislative guidepost, it is but one matter I must take into consideration on these charges and I do so. However, in my view, your offending on these charges falls well below the midrange of seriousness when viewed objectively. And then of course additionally, there are very powerful mitigatory considerations in your case. I therefore intend to sentence you to less than the standard sentence on Charges 5, 6, and 7.
25I intend to sentence you as follows. Stand up now please Mr Helms. On all charges you are convicted and sentenced to an aggregate community corrections order of two years with a justice plan. You are a registered sex offender for life and pursuant to s18(4) of the Sentencing Act.[8] I declare that you have served nil days of the sentence I have imposed upon you.
[8] Section 18(4) Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic).
‑ ‑ ‑
0
3
0