Director of Public Prosecutions v Hu
[2023] VCC 739
•12 May 2023
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA AT Melbourne CRIMINAL DIVISION | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
Case No. 21-01839
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| XIAODONG (FRANK) HU |
---
JUDGE: | HIS HONOUR JUDGE WRAIGHT | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 28 February and 30 March 2023 | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 12 May 2023 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Hu | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2023] VCC 739 | |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Subject:CRIMINAL LAW – Sentencing.
Catchwords: Plea of guilty – Rape – Sexual assault – Intentionally cause injury – Recklessly cause serious injury – Rolled up charges –– Multiple victims – Offending extended over number of years – Administration of soporific drugs to victims – Videos and images taken of victims whilst unconscious – Sharing of videos and images online – Employer relationship with victims – Extremely serious offending – No prior criminal history - Rare and complex paraphilia – Verdins considered but not applied – Degree of genuine remorse – Reasonable prospects of rehabilitation – General deterrence – Specific deterrence – Community protection – Denunciation of conduct – Standard sentence – Serious Sexual Offender – Principle of totality – COVID-19 pandemic.
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1958 ss 17, 18, 38(1), 40(1); Crimes Amendment (Sexual Offences and Other Matters) Act 2014; Sentencing Act 1991 ss 6AAA, 6D, 6E, 18; Sex Offenders Registration Act 2004 s 34(1)(c).
Cases Cited:Worboyes v The Queen [2021] VSCA 169; The Queen v Verdins & Ors (2007) 16 VR 269; Langton (a pseudonym) v The Queen [2022] VSCA 79; Queen v Xydias [2009] VSC 2008; Director of Public Prosecutions v Barkas [2010] VCC 0498; The Queen v Doo [2010] VSC 325; The Queen v Creed (1985) 37 SASR 566.
Sentence: Imprisonment for a period of 29 years with a non parole period of 22 years.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the DPP | Ms G McMaster with Mr N Hutton | Office of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused | Mr C Terry | Gallant Law |
HIS HONOUR:
Introduction
1Xiaodong (Frank) Hu, you have pleaded guilty to:
(a)eight rolled up charges of rape contrary to s 38(1) of the Crimes Act 1958 (‘Crimes Act’), as amended by the Crimes Amendment (Sexual Offences and Other Matters) Act 2014 (‘Crimes Amendment Act’), which carries a maximum penalty of 25 years imprisonment (Charges 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 12);
(b)three charges of sexual assault contrary to s 40(1) of the Crimes Act, as amended by the Crimes Amendment Act, which carries a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment (Charges 8, 9 and 11; I note Charges 8 and 9 are rolled up charges, while Charge 11 is a single occasion charge);
(c)four charges of intentionally cause injury contrary to s 18 of the Crimes Act, which carries a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment (Charges 10, 13, 14 and 16; Charge 16 is a rolled up charge, Charges 10, 13 and 14 are single occasion charges); and
(d)one single occasion charge of recklessly cause serious injury contrary to s 17 of the Crimes Act, which carries a maximum penalty of 15 years imprisonment (Charge 15).
2You have no prior criminal history.
Circumstances of the offending
3A detailed document entitled Summary of Prosecution Opening (‘Prosecution Opening’), which extends for some 60 pages, was tendered on the plea. I do not propose reproducing the Prosecution Opening in full in these sentencing remarks. Instead, I will provide a summary of your offending with respect to each of your victims. To ensure that there is no possibility of identification of the victims of the offending, these sentencing reasons have been anonymised by the adoption of pseudonyms in place of the victims' names.
4At the time of the offending, you were the sole proprietor of businesses located at an address on Little Collins Street, Melbourne, where you leased various office suites. Your businesses employed numerous females who were in Australia on student visas and performing the roles of administration staff, accountants and translators.
5Your offending was discovered on 10 June 2018, when you returned to Australia from overseas and had your mobile phone inspected at Melbourne Airport by Australian Border Force (‘ABF’) officers, who downloaded numerous videos and images from your phone of women being sexually interfered with whilst they were apparently unconscious (‘ABF download’). The materials located on your phone were copied by the ABF and forwarded to Victoria Police for investigation. At that time, none of the women were identifiable, and the matter languished for want of identifying them.
Chao Lan:[1] Charge 10 – Causing Injury Intentionally
[1]A pseudonym.
6I turn first to your offending against Chao Lan.
7On 25 November 2018, Ms Lan contacted police, stating she believed she had been drugged and sexually assaulted. She states that earlier that month, she had applied for a job at H&Q Finance, one of your businesses, and on 23 November 2018, she attended one of your office suites on Little Collins Street for an interview. The two of you met at 6.00 pm that day, and later that evening, you emailed her and asked her to come into the office the next day.
8She arrived at 10.30 am on 24 November 2018 and met you at the building. The two of you took the lift up to level 10, where there were no other people present. You had Ms Lan fill in some employment forms and then offered her a drink. Ms Lan accepted. About 30 minutes later, you handed Ms Lan a takeaway cup of hot chocolate with a loosely fitting lid and showed her around the offices.
9Ms Lan remembers drinking the hot chocolate, but after that, she has only a partial memory, including one of vomiting into the toilet. When she returned from the bathroom, you gave her a tablet and told her it was for a headache. She took the tablet, and the last thing she remembers is sitting at her desk feeling dizzy.
10The following day, 25 November 2018, Ms Lan remembers sleeping at her friend’s house, when she received a telephone call from you, asking if she was okay. You told her she had vomited some 15 times at the office and that you and your then girlfriend, Jia Feng, had taken her to her home address in Carlton. Ms Lan has a vague memory of being in hospital before waking up to your phone call at her friend’s house. She contacted police, who arranged for her to be examined at the Royal Melbourne Hospital (‘RMH’).
11Ms Lan attended at the RMH at 3.00 am on 25 November 2018 with her friend. She was seen by doctors to be heavily affected by something. As part of the investigation into your activities, the evidence relating to Ms Lan was reviewed by an expert from the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine (‘VIFM’). The expert opinion is that Ms Lan’s symptoms of dizziness, sleepiness and amnesia are consistent with the effects of midazolam, a benzodiazepine drug used in anaesthesia, and triazolam, a central nervous system suppressant used for sedation.
12The police investigation uncovered photographs of this event in your possession; a serious of photographs show Ms Lan in a clearly unconscious state in your office and Ms Lan later identified herself in these photographs.
13The prosecution case is that you covertly administered a drug to Ms Lan, causing her to become unconscious.
Chen Jin:[2] Charge 15 – Causing Serious Injury Recklessly
[2]A pseudonym.
14I turn now to your offending against Chen Jin.
15On 28 June 2019, Ms Jin applied for a job at your company via email. At 2.14 pm on that day, you responded and asked if she was available for an interview that same day. You arranged for her to attend at 4:30 pm at the office on Little Collins Street.
16Ms Jin attended at that time and met you. You showed her to a meeting room in the office and explained to her what her duties would be. You parted without a job offer being made.
17On 22 July 2019, you emailed Ms Jin and offered her a probationary day of work for the next day, 23 July 2019. She accepted and attended at the office on that day. You let her into the premises. She said she was feeling normal – not sick or nauseous in any way. You showed her to a desk and checked the time, and then showed her into a meeting room where you gave her some paperwork to fill out. You stayed for a few minutes before leaving. When Ms Jin left the first room, she left her drink on the desk beside her bag.
18After some time, you returned and showed Ms Jin back to the first room before you left again, saying you had a meeting to attend. Ms Jin waited at the desk and continued drinking her drink, which she noticed now tasted bitter.
19You gave her some translating work to do and she did that for about half an hour before you returned and sent her to another part of the office. While she was gone, she left her belongings, including her drink and her water bottle, in the office. She returned, at which point you asked her if she had finished her milk before picking up the carton and saying, ‘You didn’t finish it, there is still some more’. She told you she’d finished with it but continued to drink from her water bottle.
20At about 11.40 am, Ms Jin began feeling very sleepy and was struggling to keep her eyes open. She drank some more water to try to wake herself up. At 11.43 am, she sent a text to her boyfriend that read, ‘I’m feeling dizzy and I don’t know why’.
21The last thing Ms Jin remembers is eating some chocolate and swallowing more water before going to the toilet. At about 11.55 am she received a text from her boyfriend but didn’t reply to it. Ms Jin only later discovered the message.
22The next thing Ms Jin remembers is waking up in a hospital bed in the intensive care unit at the St Vincent’s Hospital and not knowing where she was. She felt like she’d been asleep for a long time, and was confused. She couldn’t open her eyes and had double vision.
23As part of the investigation into your activities, the evidence relating to Ms Jin was reviewed by an expert from the VIFM, who explains that upon admission to hospital, Ms Jin was very unwell and had to be intubated. She was placed on a ventilator to assist her breathing. She was tachycardic (extremely low heart rate) and later suffered a cardiac arrest that required cardiopulmonary resuscitation and defibrillation before she returned to normal circulation. She remained in the intensive care unit from 23 July 2019 to 25 July 2019 and was discharged from hospital on 29 July 2019. On 30 July 2019, Ms Jin contacted the Melbourne Sexual Offences and Child Abuse Investigation Team. She disclosed that she believed that she had been drugged and sexually assaulted by you.
24A blood sample, a urine sample and a hair sample were obtained from Ms Jin and analysed by a toxicologist with the result that the following drugs were found in her system:
(a) Scopolamine;
(b) Midazolam;
(c) Lignocaine; and
(d) Atropine.
25The expert opinion is that:
(a) the constellation of signs and symptoms described by Ms Jin are consistent with the actions of central nervous system (‘CNS’) depressants;
(b) CNS depressants include sedatives, hypnotics and tranquilisers;
(c) CNS drugs include alcohol, barbiturates, benzodiazepines, sleeping pills and opioids (in this case midazolam);
(d) the serious deterioration in her health is likely a result of an adverse effect to the administration of the drug scopolamine, lignocaine and chlorpheniramine overdosing; and
(e) brachycardia is consistent with an overdose of lignocaine.
26The police investigation uncovered three videos and multiple photographs of this event in your possession. The videos show Ms Jin in a very distressed and almost unconscious state, and later in a fully unconscious state in your office. While in an unconscious state, your hand can be seen touching her buttocks. The later series of photographs show Ms Jin unconscious and partially undressed, with her nipple exposed and your hand on her nipple. Ms Jin later identified herself in that series of photographs.
Further investigation
27It was following these complaints that the police commenced an investigation into your activities, which revealed that:
(a) from 2015 to 2018, you were in a relationship with Ju Zedong;[3]
(b) you operated a number of business out of office premises on Little Collins Street;
(c) you are the sole proprietor of Lakenest, H&Q Finance and Infinity Education (all operated out of the aforementioned office premises);
(d) the primary business operated by you is an immigration agency; and
(e) the companies employed numerous people, usually women, who were in Australia on student visas.
[3]A pseudonym.
28Police analysed the ABF download of your phone. As the contents of the ABF download were analysed, investigators found video footage and photographs of various women in states of unconsciousness and began the process of identifying the women. Video footage and photographs of the first three victims (Ms Lan, Ms Jin and another woman by the name of Xiuying Jian[4]) were identified in your possession.
[4]A pseudonym.
29On 1 August 2019 police executed a series of search warrants on various premises related to you.
30At 365 Little Collins Street, investigators located you sleeping in suite 303. You were arrested, cautioned and given your rights. The search commenced and investigators seized numerous electronic devices and other evidence. Other items were located at other addresses. Analysis of the electronic devices revealed further videos and photographs of women in various states of consciousness.
31Police spoke with Ms Zedong, who recognized some photographs of her naked and unconscious as being photographs of her and her body. These images form the basis of charges 1 to 9 as Ms Zedong did not consent to the activities depicted therein and did not at any stage of your relationship engage in any role play related to her pretending to be asleep or unconscious while you were sexually penetrating her.
Ju Zedong: Charges 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 – Rape; Charges 8 and 9 – Sexual Assault
32I turn now to your offending against Ju Zedong.
33Ju Zedong was in a relationship with you for three years from the end of 2015 to the end of 2018. At that time, you were married with children but Ms Zedong was unaware of your family situation. She later discovered you were still married when she went through your phone and found current messages and photographs. She ended the relationship with you for some months before you contacted her and told her you had separated from your wife. You were then living at the offices at 365 Little Collins Street.
34In late 2018, Ms Zedong was using your computer and found some photographs of naked women who looked to be asleep or unconscious. She again confronted you, and you said you had downloaded the images from the internet. The two of you split up, this time permanently, but remained friendly.
35In April 2019, Ms Zedong was visiting you in your office when she blacked out. She woke up in an ambulance and you were there with her. You told her she had fainted. She couldn’t speak properly and was in and out of consciousness. She was taken to the RMH by ambulance.
36After coming home from hospital she again visited you in your office and you gave her a cup of coffee, which she drank. She passed out and lost control of her bladder. You called an ambulance for her again.
37Ms Zedong blacked out a third time in your office – again in March or April 2019. She remembers getting her makeup done by another woman in the office and felt very sweaty and couldn’t stand up. She remembers having hot drinks before she felt unwell but was unsure whether or not she went to hospital on this occasion.
38In mid-2019, you told Ms Zedong that a woman at the office became ill at work because of something she ate or drank and that she became unconscious and had to go to hospital by ambulance. You told her this had occurred four times with different woman. Ms Zedong said, ‘It can’t be a coincidence’ and you said, ‘Maybe it was just bad luck’.
39On and around 3 August 2019, Detective Rowe showed Ms Zedong some videos and images that had been located on your devices. Ms Zedong identified herself in the videos and images – these videos and images showed you having sex with her while she was apparently unconscious.
40Ms Zedong stated to police she was unaware of them being taken and did not give consent to you to have sex with her whilst she was unconscious. Nor did she ever agree to ‘role play’ being unconscious or asleep while you had sex with her.
41Police located on your devices a total of 1,369 images and 195 videos of Ms Zedong being sexually offended against on many occasions between 14 February 2016 and 5 June 2019. These incidents and related images and videos are outlined in paragraphs 56 to 140 of the Prosecution Opening, and are summarised as follows:
(a) Charge 1 is a rolled up rape charge pertaining to six occasions on which you raped Ms Zedong, between 14 February 2016 and 2 April 2016, all of which occurred while Ms Zedong was unconscious;
(b) Charge 2 is a rolled up rape charge pertaining to 13 occasions on which you raped Ms Zedong over seven days between 20 December 2016 and 13 March 2017, all of which occurred while Ms Zedong was unconscious;
(c) Charge 3 is a rolled up rape charge pertaining to 17 occasions on which you raped Ms Zedong over 15 days between 21 March 2017 and 4 July 2017, all of which occurred while Ms Zedong was unconscious;
(d) Charge 4 is a rolled up rape charge pertaining to three occasions on which you raped Ms Zedong on a single day, 27 November 2017, all of which occurred while Ms Zedong was unconscious;
(e) Charge 5 is a rolled up rape charge pertaining to two occasions on which you raped Ms Zedong on two different days between 25 May 2018 and 27 May 2018, all of which occurred while Ms Zedong was unconscious;
(f) Charge 6 is a rolled up rape charge pertaining to 13 occasions on which you raped Ms Zedong on five different days between 13 January 2019 and 12 March 2019, all of which occurred while Ms Zedong was unconscious;
(g) Charge 7 is a rolled up rape charge pertaining to 13 occasions on which you raped Ms Zedong on eight different days between 16 April 2019 and 14 June 2019, all of which occurred while Ms Zedong was unconscious;
(h) Charge 8 is a rolled up sexual assault charge pertaining to seven occasions on which you sexually assaulted Ms Zedong on seven different days between 25 December 2016 and 6 June 2017, all of which occurred while Ms Zedong was unconscious; and
(i) Charge 9 is a rolled up sexual assault charge pertaining to 10 occasions on which you sexually assaulted Ms Zedong on 10 different days between 20 December 2018 and 5 June 2019, all of which occurred while Ms Zedong was unconscious.
42I note some of the images and videos uncovered by police also related to uncharged acts you perpetrated against Ms Zedong on 13 June 2016 and 21 May 2018, as detailed at paragraphs 63 and 93 of the Prosecution Opening.
Ming Fen:[5] Charge 11 – Sexual Assault; Charge 12 - Rape
[5]A pseudonym.
43I turn now to your offending against Ming Fen.
44Charge 11 is a charge of sexual assault against Ms Fen which occurred on 28 January 2019. The details of this charge are found at paragraphs 143 to 147 of the Prosecution Opening.
45On 28 January 2019, Ms Fen started her first trial day at Lakenest Group at one of your office suites on Little Collins Street. You took Ms Fen to a nearby Starbucks and insisted on buying her a hot drink. Upon returning to the office together, Ms Fen went to the bathroom, leaving her drink and water bottle alone with you. When she returned, she drank her drink and water, and sometime later began to feel dizzy and tired, and then became unconscious. Ms Fen states she then woke up between 3.00 pm and 4.00 pm on the office couch, with you being the only other person in the office. She apologised to you for falling asleep and went home.
46Thirty-four images and one video located on your phone show Ms Fen unconscious and lying on cushions and a couch in your office, with your hand touching her vagina. There were also images of Ms Fen becoming unconscious in stages, as well as images of her Chinese identity card and student card.
47Charge 12 is a rolled up charge of rape which occurred on 2 February 2019. This charge relates to two occasions where you raped Ms Fen on the same day in two different ways. Each of these rapes occurred while Ms Fen was unconscious, and the details are set out at paragraphs 148 to 150 of the Prosecution Opening.
48On 2 February 2019, you and Ms Fen were again the only people in the office. You made Ms Fen a drink, a yellow liquid, after she complained of stomach pain. You left the office and told her to wait there for you. Shortly afterwards, Ms Fen began to feel tired and dizzy, and became unconscious. She woke up around 4.30 pm on the office couch and you were the only other person in the office. She asked you what happened and you told her she had fallen over.
49Sixty-seven images and nine videos found on your phone show Ms Fen unconscious and semi-naked, being raped by you. One video shows you forcing her to drink a yellow liquid out of a mug.
Jie Yan:[6] Charge 13 – Causing Injury Intentionally
[6]A pseudonym.
50I turn now to your offending against Jie Yan.
51Charge 13 is a charge of intentionally causing injury against Ms Yan, who started working for Lakenest in February 2017.
52At about 4.00 pm on 27 March 2019, Ms Yan went into the office at Little Collins Street to pick up her pay. You asked her to wait until a client delivered some money to you. Ms Yan waited, moving in and out of the office. She drank from a glass that she had left unattended at the office. At about 5.00 pm, she started feeling dizzy and picked up her glass of water. You asked her to continue drinking from it. Ms Yan tipped the water into the sink before going to the toilet as she was feeling ill.
53When she returned from the toilet, you gave Ms Yan a juice from Boost Juice. She took a sip and it tasted bitter. She took the lid off the juice and removed the straw and saw some white powder fall out of the straw.
54At about 5.50 pm, Ms Yan ran out of the building and rang a friend. The pair went to the Melbourne East Police Station before going to the emergency department at St Vincent’s Hospital, where Ms Yan was admitted and then discharged at about 11.00 pm.
55Three images located on your phone show Ms Yan unconscious with her head on a desk in your office.
Xiuying Jian: Charge 14 – Causing Injury Intentionally
56I turn now to your offending against Xiuying Jian.
57Charge 14 is a charge of intentionally causing injury against Ms Jian.
58On 17 April 2019, Ms Jian contacted police, stating she believed she had been drugged and sexually assaulted.
59Five days earlier, on 12 April 2019, Ms Jian had applied for a job at H&Q Finance and was interviewed for a job by you. On 15 April 2019, she received an email offering her the receptionist position and advising her to start work the next day.
60On 16 April 2019, around 10.00 am, Ms Jian attended at your premises and went through an employment contract. You offered her a drink and she declined. You insisted she drink some hot water and put the kettle on before turning your back to her. You then returned with hot water in a disposable cup. Ms Jian, not wanting to be rude, drank the water even though it tasted bitter.
61You left, and while Ms Jian was filling out some paperwork, she started to feel sleepy. She put her head on the table and fell asleep. Sometime later, you returned and told her she should go home if she felt sleepy. She told you she needed to go to hospital and then fell asleep. She next woke up in the back seat of an Uber, with you in the front passenger seat. She told you there was something wrong with the water you had given her.
62At 12.53 pm, Ms Jian sent a message to her mother and called her. She told her mother that you had done something to her and drugged her. You said, ‘No I didn’t’. Ms Jian fell asleep again. She then later woke up in hospital. A nurse was shaking her and trying to rouse her. You were in the room.
63At 7.30 pm, a friend of Ms Jian’s came to the hospital. You were still there. You told that friend that Ms Jian had fallen asleep on her first day of work. You said she seemed drugged when she arrived for work and that someone had injected her with drugs on public transport, or someone had given her something to eat that contained drugs. You repeated she had been drugged on public transport. You also told her friend that you had decided to take Ms Jian home, but her condition deteriorated so you took her to the hospital instead.
64You left the hospital that evening and Ms Jian’s friend left some time later. Ms Jian remained in hospital that night and was discharged the next morning. When she arrived home, she went to bed for the day.
65As part of the investigation into your activities, the evidence relating to Ms Jian was reviewed by an expert from the VIFM. The expert opinion is that:
(a) the constellation of signs and symptoms described by Ms Jian are consistent with the actions of CNS depressants;
(b) CNS depressants include sedatives, hypnotics and tranquilisers; and
(c) CNS drugs include alcohol, barbiturates, benzodiazepines, sleeping pills and opioids.
66The police investigation uncovered photographs of this event in your possession. The series of photographs show Ms Jian in a drowsy state in your office and unconscious on a chair. Ms Jian was later identified in that series of photographs.
Xinyi Kun:[7] Charge 16 – Causing Injury Intentionally
[7]A pseudonym.
67I turn now to your offending against Xinyi Kun.
68Charge 16 is a rolled up charge of intentionally causing injury to Ms Kun, pertaining to four occasions on which you intentionally caused injury to Ms Kun. This occurred over four separate days. The details are set out at paragraphs 170 to 184 of the Prosecution Opening.
69On 19 April 2019, Ms Kun started her trial day at H&Q Finance at the Little Collins Street office. You were the only other person in the office. You asked Ms Kun to run an errand, which she did, leaving behind her cup of coffee. When she returned, she drank her coffee and soon began feeling dizzy and sick, before going to the toilet and vomiting, and then becoming conscious. She next remembers being woken by you in the toilets around 2.00 pm.
70Nine images located on your phone are dated to 22 April 2019, and they show Ms Kun fully dressed, drowsy and unconscious in your Little Collins Street office.
71On 24 April 2019, you and Ms Kun went on a business trip to Mildura to meet some clients. The two of you were booked on a 4.25 pm flight. While at the airport, you bought Ms Kun a juice, which she drank. About 10 minutes later, she started to feel dizzy and lost memory, waking up in a car on the way to the hotel in Mildura.
72After arriving at the hotel, Ms Kun went straight to her room and slept. Later in the night, the two of you went to the supermarket and then returned to the hotel. Once back in Ms Kun’s room, you boiled her some water. After drinking, Ms Kun again became dizzy and lost consciousness. She woke up in the Mildura Base Hospital around midnight. You were there and informed Ms Kun that the doctors had diagnosed her as being dehydrated. Ms Kun then returned to the hotel in the early hours of 25 April 2019.
73Between 10.00 am and 12.00 pm on 25 April 2019, you attended Ms Kun’s room at the hotel and told her she had to come with you to see another client. You got her another glass of water, but Ms Kun, being suspicious, poured her own glass from the jug boiled by you the previous night. The two of you then departed for the business meeting; halfway through, Ms Kun began to feel dizzy again and returned to her hotel room, where she became unconscious.
74Twenty-three images and one video were located on your phone, which showed Ms Kun unconscious on a chair and lying on the hotel bed. Images also show you opening her eyelid with your hand.
75On 5 April 2019, Ms Zedong was at your office suite on Little Collins Street. You were in a meeting and she was alone in your office. She decided to go on your desktop computer.
76She went into your internet browser history. One site that came up on the history was a site called ‘diedArt.com’. She clicked on the link, the website loaded up and automatically logged into your account. The site was produced in Chinese text. The theme of the website is drugging, filming and having sex with women while they are unconscious. Your username was ‘haferkorn’ and your ‘level’ on the website was ‘V12’. Your account had posts on your home page, which Ms Zedong clicked and she discovered that you had uploaded photographs of her and Ms Yan.
77Ms Zedong took photos of your computer screen, showing the homepage, your posts and the uploaded photographs. These same images of Ms Zedong and Ms Yan were also located on your devices by police.
78On 13 January 2020 Detective Senior Constable Shanahan logged onto the website ‘diedArt.com’, searched your profile ‘haferkorn’ and confirmed your posts.
79On 1 August 2019, you were interviewed at the Melbourne West Police Station. During the record of interview, you acknowledged that Ms Lan, Ms Jian and Ms Jin all became sick and unconscious whilst at work and in your presence. However, you denied administering any intoxicating substance into their person.
80You admitted having sex with Ms Zedong and filming these incidents, but stated that she was awake at the beginning of the sexual intercourse and fell asleep during intercourse, saying ‘when she fall asleep it doesn’t mean stop’. You also stated that ‘she agreed to sex but she learned about filming afterwards’.
81You said that Ms Zedong was lying and that you couldn’t understand why she would lie.
82On 21 October 2019, DSC Shanahan informed your legal representative that police wanted to interview you in relation to the further offending.
83On 31 October 2019, DSC Shanahan was informed by your legal representative that you had declined to be interviewed in relation to the further offending.
Nature and gravity of the offending
84I turn first to the charges of rape and sexual assault.
85You have pleaded guilty to eight charges of rape. The first seven of those charges relate to one victim, Ju Zedong, and the remaining rape charge relates to Ming Fen. Each of the rape charges are rolled up charges, in total representing 69 rapes committed over 48 occasions. As particularised in the indictment, the rapes included various types of penetration by you using your penis, your fingers, and other objects, including, in relation to both victims, the penetration of the victims’ anus with a cannula tube attached to a syringe plunger. Further, in relation to Ms Zedong, you have pleaded guilty to two rolled up charges of sexual assault representing 17 sexual assaults over 17 occasions and in relation to Ms Fen, a single charge of sexual assault.
86In relation to each of the rape charges (and each occasion within the rolled up charges), and Charges 8, 9 and 11, being sexual assault charges, you administered soporific drugs to the victims rendering them unconscious, before you committed the respective rapes and sexual assaults. The administering of the drugs to render the victims unconscious is relied on by the prosecution as an aggravating feature of the offending in each case, which is undoubtedly correct.
87On a number of occasions after administering the drugs to the victims, having observed a lowered heart rate and shallow breathing, you called an ambulance or took the victim to the hospital. On one occasion you administered drugs to Ms Zedong when she returned to your office following discharge from hospital on the same day, after a similar presentation of unexplained unconsciousness.
88Disturbingly, you documented many of the incidents by taking multiple photographs and videos of your victims in various situations, ranging from being asleep with their head on a desk, to the photographs and videos of you sexually assaulting them while they remained unconscious. You retained the videos and still images. Some of these images you then uploaded to a website where likeminded people shared sexually deviant interests in drugging, filming and having sex with women who are asleep or unconscious.
89I turn now to the injury charges.
90Each of the injury charges relates to victims who were your employees and thus you were in a position of trust, elevating the seriousness of your conduct. In each case while at their place of work, you deliberately drugged them and filmed or took photos of them once they were drowsy or unconscious. In many instances the victims required hospitalisation as a result of the drugs you had administered.
91Charge 16 is a rolled up charge reflecting four occasions of intentionally causing injury to Xinyi Kun. Charges 10, 13 and 14 are single incidents of intentionally causing injury. Charge 15 represents a single incident of recklessly causing serious injury. In each case the injury alleged by the prosecution is that of unconsciousness or semi unconsciousness.
92Ms McMaster, who appeared with Mr Hutton on behalf of the Director of Public Prosecutions, submitted that the intentionally cause injury charges including Charge 16, which is a rolled up charge, represent serious examples of the offence. As for Charge 15, recklessly causing serious injury, it was submitted that it should be viewed as a serious example of the offence with high objective gravity and high moral culpability. I agree with the prosecution submissions. The victim of Charge 15 had attended your workplace to complete a probationary day of work, following a job interview the day before. While at your workplace, you drugged her and as a result of the adverse impact of the drugs you administered, the victim required hospitalisation, ultimately suffering a cardiac arrest requiring cardiopulmonary resuscitation and defibrillation.
93The most serious of your offending is in relation to Ju Zedong, who is the victim of all rape charges but for Charge 12, where the victim is Ming Fen. In relation to those two victims you also face separate sexual assault charges. As to Ms Zedong, you were in a relationship with her over some of the indictment period, however your offending against her continued after the relationship ended in 2018. As to Ms Fen, she was an employee of yours and thus, like the victims of the injury charges, you were in a position of trust.
94Ms McMaster submitted that each of the component rapes is of high moral culpability and high objective gravity, and that accordingly, each of the rolled up charges is of very high objective gravity and very high moral culpability. Ms McMaster further contended that these same submissions apply in relation to the rolled up sexual assault charges.
95I concur with the submissions made on behalf of the Director.
96You deliberately took advantage of women who were known to you, or as was the case with most of the victims, where you were in a trusted position as their employer. You surreptitiously administered dangerous drugs to the victims in order to incapacitate them, rendering them defenceless and vulnerable. As to Ms Zedong and Ms Fen, once they were unconscious, you raped and sexually assaulted them as described above, documenting your conduct with videos and photographs, as you did with the victims the subject of the injury charges. Further, in many instances you uploaded the images of you assaulting the victims. In the circumstances, your conduct can only be described as terrifying and extremely serious.
Victim impact
97Four victim impact statements were tendered on the plea.
98Ju Zedong read her victim impact statement aloud at the plea hearing. She states that as she has come from a traditional Chinese family, she is unable to share her traumatic experience with her parents. She has lost trust in those around her including her partner and co-workers. She states that she feels guilty as she could have saved others from your conduct. Ms Zedong continues to suffer from tormenting dreams, she has moved house and she has bought a personal alarm.
99Chao Lan states that she feels lucky that she was able to get to the hospital after being drugged by you and speaks of the side effects of the drugs, which continued for some time following the assault.
100Jie Yan suffered sleep disturbance following your offending. She states that she has lost faith in others and only wishes to work for female employers, making it more difficult for her to obtain employment. Ms Yan states that she is now wary and insecure around strangers.
101Chen Jin states that she has experienced anger and fear following your offending. She relives the incident and the feelings she experienced just before she became unconscious. As her family was overseas, Ms Jin felt isolated following the offending. She continues to feel nervous and anxious and suffers headaches.
102I have taken the contents of each victim impact statement into account.
Personal circumstances
103You are 38 years of age. You were aged between 31 and 34 during the time of the offending.
104You were born and raised in Zhengzhou, a city in central China. You are an only child. Your father was a military officer and your mother a police officer. You grew up in secure military facilities as a result of your father’s job with the army.
105You were predominantly raised by a housekeeper as your parents’ work required them to be away from the home. Your father attended to you month-to-month and your mother a couple of times per week. Your report that your parents tried to provide you with good care, however as they were mostly absent, a close bond was not formed. You report that your parents were strict but you were not subjected to any abuse.
106You performed well as a student through school years and while you excelled academically, you were not a popular student, partly due to your lack of athletic ability. You were sent to boarding school for your secondary education and developed an interest in computer science. Your father wanted you to join the Chinese army but you were not accepted after failing physical testing. You started to study overseas and enrolled at Taylors College in Melbourne to complete your VCE. You went on to complete a bachelor’s degree and a master’s degree in computer science at Deakin University. You subsequently completed a postgraduate diploma in telecommunications.
107You worked in telecommunications before obtaining work at an immigration agency. You subsequently started your own agency with three partners before going solo in 2016.
108You have been married twice. You met your first wife in Melbourne in 2008 but separated from her shortly after the birth of your first child. Your first wife moved back to China with your son, who is now 13 years of age and with whom you have only limited contact. You met and married your second wife in 2014. You have two children from this marriage. You were together until 2016 when you had an affair with Ju Zedong, one of the victims in this matter.
109You do not have any issues with drugs, gambling or alcohol. You have retained some family support, speaking regularly with your parents and your second wife.
110A report prepared by Dr Adam Deacon, Consultant Psychiatrist, dated 21 February 2023, was tendered on the plea. In the report Dr Deacon reproduces a number of the questions he put to you during your consultation and the answers you provided. You provide a frank account of your offending. You explain how you obtained the various medications you used on the victims and how you developed what you describe as a ‘fetish’, which is your sexual interest in sedated and unconscious women. You stated that the first time you sedated Ms Zedong for sex it ‘opened up the wrong door in my brain…it is a low act for my sexual pleasure and I disregarded their safety’.[8]
[8] Report of Adam Deacon, 21 February 2023, p 6.
111Dr Deacon states the following in relation to your offending:
Mr Hu reported that the stimulus to his decision to continue engaging in the conduct of administering soporific medications was in two interrelated, but mutually exclusive parts. He reported that he developed an attraction to women sleeping, but this then extended to him being deviantly sexually aroused by the same visual stimulus. The repetitive nature of his sexual misconduct likely precipitated and perpetuated the development of a specific sexual fetish consistent with somnophilia.
Somnophilia – derived from the Latin word ‘somnus’ (meaning sleep) and the Greek word ‘philia’ (meaning love) - refers to a sexual interest in engaging in sexual activity with a sleeping person. It can also be more broadly defined as a sexual interest in a person who is unconscious. In this broader understanding, sexual arousal is gained from the passivity of the person being abused. This distinction is relevant, as a sleeping person may wake during the sexual act, whereas an unconscious person cannot. Mr Hu appears to have sought to ensure each victim was sedated to such an extent that it rendered them unconscious; rather than asleep and potentially rousable.[9]
[9] Ibid, p 10, paras 12 and 13.
112Dr Deacon is of the view that you developed a somnophilic disorder that you struggled to regulate and control. Dr Deacon noted that while you recognised the potential seriousness of your conduct when assessing the victims’ vital signs and calling for an ambulance, you failed to inform the medical clinicians about the underlying cause of your victims’ conditions.[10]
[10] Ibid, p 11, para18.
113I have taken the contents of Dr Deacon’s report into account.
Sentencing considerations
Matters in mitigation
114Mr Terry who appeared on your behalf submitted that the plea of guilty in this instance is significant. Given the number of victims and alleged incidents, a trial (or trials), would undoubtedly have taken up a significant amount of court time. Further, given the nature of the allegations, a number of victims would be required to give evidence and be cross-examined. That potentially traumatic experience has been avoided by your plea of guilty. Your plea of guilty has thereby brought the matter to a conclusion at the earliest reasonable opportunity and demonstrates your willingness to facilitate the course of justice.
115Your plea of guilty carries additional weight which must be reflected in a further amelioration in sentence, as it was entered in circumstances where the pandemic has caused a substantial backlog of cases in the criminal justice system.[11]
[11] Worboyes v The Queen [2021] VSCA 169 at [39].
116It was submitted on your behalf that over and above the plea of guilty, you have demonstrated insight and remorse. It is clear from your responses to the questions put to you by Dr Deacon, that you accept full responsibility for your conduct. Dr Deacon notes that you express self-loathing, disgust, guilt and shame and that you presented as genuinely contrite and remorseful, but lacking deep empathy for the predictably traumatic impact on the victims.[12] In the circumstances I accept that you have demonstrated insight as to the nature and seriousness of your conduct and that you have expressed a degree of genuine remorse.
[12] Report of Adam Deacon, p 11-12, paras 21 and 23.
117Mr Terry submitted on your behalf that as a result of your somnophilic disorder, principle 3 of Verdins[13] is enlivened, in that general deterrence may be moderated as a sentencing consideration. As noted by Dr Deacon, the disorder from which you suffer is considered to be a rare paraphilia, characterised as a type of sexual fetishism. It is classified in the DSM-5, however there is limited scientific literature in relation to this atypical disorder.[14]
[13] The Queen v Verdins &Ors (2007) 16 VR 269.
[14] Report of Adam Deacon, p 1, para 14.
118Mr Terry relied on the conclusions of Dr Deacon as follows:
Mr Hu’s somnophilic disorder provides an explanation for the unusually complex sexual offending patterns. It does not however correlate with him not having the ability to appreciate the nature and wrongfulness of his conduct. He was well aware that his behaviour was seriously wrong throughout the years that it occurred. It appears that his somnophilic disorder reached a level of intensity and preoccupation that he struggled to exercise self-control, and to this extent, it can be considered to be a paraphilia disorder that contributed to some degree of impairing his ability to make calm and rational choices. There is no indication that Mr Hu otherwise suffered from a mental condition that affected his mental functioning or impacted in any way on the offending as detailed in the Prosecution Summary.[15]
[15] Report of Adam Deacon, p 12, para 25.
119Mr Terry concedes, correctly in my view, that Dr Deacon’s view precludes any reduction in moral culpability, however submits that principle 3 of Verdins remains applicable because of the rare and unusual form of paraphilia that motivated your offending. As I understand the submission, it is put that because your disorder is so unusual, you are in effect an ‘outlier’, or a highly unusual vehicle for general deterrence.
120The prosecution reject this submission, stating that your condition should not lead to the conclusion that you are an unsuitable vehicle for general deterrence, or alternatively, if principle 3 of Verdins is engaged, then it should only be given very minimal weight in the sentencing discretion. The prosecution did not challenge the evidence of Dr Deacon but submitted that while your disorder may explain your conduct to a degree, the requisite connection or causal link between the impairment and the offending is not established on the evidence.
121Dr Deacon’s view is that your disorder contributed ‘to some degree’ in impairing your ability to make calm and rational choices. This language is ambiguous. Your offending was not limited to a single occasion where it might be said that your disorder contributed to your decision making and conduct, or the making of a poor choice in that instance. Your conduct was cold, calculated and repetitive. Once you had rendered your victims unconscious, you then meticulously documented the incident by photographing the respective victim. Your offending involved considerable planning, multiple victims and extended over a number of years. Thus, your offending on one view, demonstrates very calm and rational conduct.
122In the relatively recent decision of Langton (a pseudonym) v The Queen,[16] the Court reiterated the requisite test when considering Verdins principles 1, 3 and 4, noting that the principles require rigorous examination of the evidence. Specifically, in relation to principle 3 of Verdins the Court said:
In the context of general and specific deterrence, the question will be whether the offender’s impairment has such an effect on their mental capacity, and in particular their capacity to moderate their behaviour, that general or specific deterrence should be moderated or eliminated as a sentencing consideration. Again, this requires some ‘realistic connection’ or ‘causal link’ between the impairment and the offending.[17]
[16] [2022] VSCA 79.
[17] Ibid, [34].
123While I accept the opinion of Dr Deacon that your disorder provides an explanation for your offending patterns, I also note that Dr Deacon’s view is qualified when he states that there is no indication that you otherwise suffered from a mental condition that affected your mental functioning or impacted ‘in any way’ on your offending.
124In the circumstances, while I take into account your disorder in the general sentencing discretion as part of your personal circumstances, the evidence does not support a realistic connection or causal link to the offending and as such, in my view, principle 3 of Verdins is not engaged.
125Turning to your prospects of rehabilitation. You come before the court with no prior criminal history, however it is clear that the complexity of your disorder will require significant specialised treatment. Dr Deacon notes that you stated to him that you did not think you necessarily required offending specific treatment as a result of your level of shame and remorse. Nonetheless, you also indicated to Dr Deacon that you are open to being guided and directed by experts in the field of sexual offending. Given the significant term of imprisonment that will be imposed, it is difficult to assess your prospects of rehabilitation at this stage. If, however, you engage in appropriate treatment, given your developing insight and your acceptance of responsibility, in my view your prospects can be assessed as reasonable.
126I take into account that you have served a significant portion of your remand during the currency of the pandemic. Periods of isolation, restrictions on services and limitations to visits were all features of the impact the pandemic has had, and continues to have, on the prison system.
Other sentencing considerations
127General deterrence, denunciation of your conduct and protection of the community are all prominent sentencing considerations. As noted above, your offending is appalling and must be condemned in the strongest terms. A message must be conveyed that conduct such as yours involving repeated incidents of drugging women, and in relation to two of the victims, repeated incidents of drugging and raping women, is extremely serious conduct that will be met with significant punishment. Further, despite the fact that the prosecution do not call for a disproportionate sentence, which is discussed further below, the community must be protected from the risk you pose. As such, community protection must also be given weight in the sentencing calculus.
128As to specific deterrence, it too has a role to play in the sentencing discretion, however in assessing the weight to be given to specific deterrence, I again take into account the fact that you have no prior criminal history, that you have gained some insight into your condition and that you are willing to accept and engage in treatment.
129In addition to the matters that I am required to take into account under s 5(2) of the Sentencing Act 1991 (‘Sentencing Act’), I must also take into account that Charges 5, 6, 7 and 12 are standard sentence offences. The standard sentence on Charges 5, 6, 7 and 12, which are charges of rape, is 10 years imprisonment.
130Having identified and considered the relevant factors in assessing the appropriate sentence as part of the instinctive synthesis, including the maximum penalty, the standard sentence and the serious nature of your offending, in this instance I have formed the view that the sentences I will impose on Charges 5, 6, 7 and 12 will be above the prescribed standard sentence.
131
In relation to Charges 3 to 9, 11 and 12, pursuant to Part 2A of the
Sentencing Actyou fall to be sentenced as a serious sexual offender.
132Section 6D of the Sentencing Act provides that when sentencing you as a serious sexual offender, I must have regard to the protection of the community as the principle purpose for which the sentence is imposed. While I do have regard to protection of the community in the general discretion, I do not propose to impose a disproportionate sentence, nor does the prosecution seek such a sentence. The nature and number of charges in this instance provide ample sentencing scope.
133Section 6E provides that, unless otherwise directed by the Court, every term of imprisonment imposed on a serious offender must be served cumulatively. In all the circumstances, balancing the need to cumulate to a degree between certain charges and applying the principle of totality, in my view, the sentence does not demand cumulation in the way anticipated by s 6E.
134The prosecution provided three cases for the assistance of the Court.
135The Queen v Xydias[18] is somewhat factually similar to your offending in that it related to multiple sexual offences, including rape, against 11 victims over some 15 years, involving the intentional drugging of victims and the filming of the offending. Mr Xydias received a sentence of 28 years.
[18] [2009] VSC 2008.
136In Director of Public Prosecutions v Barkas,[19] the defendant was sentenced in relation to three rapes on three different victims. He too administered a drug to incapacitate the victim on each occasion. His offending extended for a period of 14 years. Mr Barkas was sentenced to 13 years and 6 months.
[19] [2010] VCC 0498.
137In The Queen v Doo,[20] the defendant was sentenced in relation to charges including rape, sexual penetration of a child under 16, indecent assault and administering a drug for the purposes of sexual penetration. His offending involved 10 victims. Mr Doo was sentenced to 25 years and 6 months.
[20] [2010] VSC 325.
138These decisions were referred to by the prosecution to provide guidance in relation to relevant sentencing principles. It was submitted, however, that none were as serious in scope due to the quantity and type of offending on the indictment to which you have pleaded guilty. Further, the examples provided were matters where the standard sentence regime did not apply, thus the prosecution correctly submit that these cases can only be taken into account for guidance in relation to the non standard sentence offences on the indictment. Pursuant to s 5B(2)(b) of the Sentencing Act, they cannot be taken into account in relation to the standard sentence offences.
139In terms of current sentencing practices, the prosecution also referred to the sentencing snapshots prepared by the Sentencing Advisory Council. Relevant snapshots were provided in relation to standard and non standard sentences. I have taken these statistics into account.
140In formulating sentence I am cognisant of the fact that a number of charges are rolled up charges. Charges 1, 2, 3 and 4 are rolled up non standard sentence rape charges. Charges 5, 6, 7 and 12 are rolled up standard sentence rape charges. Charges 8 and 9 are rolled up sexual assault charges. Charge 16 is a rolled up intentionally cause injury charge.
141Finally, I take into account the principle of totality. The principle of totality is simply described in the frequently quoted passage by Thomas in Principles of Sentencing as follows:[21]
The effect of the totality principle is to require a sentencer who has passed a series of sentences, each properly calculated in relation to the offence for which it is imposed and each properly made consecutive in accordance with the principles governing consecutive sentences, to review the aggregate sentence and consider whether the aggregate sentence is ‘just and appropriate’… ‘when cases of multiplicity of offences come before the court, the court must not content itself by doing the arithmetic and passing the sentence which the arithmetic produces. It must look at the totality of the criminal behaviour and ask itself what is the appropriate sentence for all the offences.
[21] Thomas D, Principles of Sentencing, (2nd ed, 1979), 56-57.
142As such, while the total effective sentence I impose is significant, the orders for cumulation are modest, as the magnitude of your offending and the resulting sentence also require the Court to ‘stand back and look at the overall picture and decide whether the total of what would otherwise be the appropriate sentence is a fair and reasonable total sentence to impose’.[22]
[22] The Queen v Creed (1985) 37 SASR 566, 568 per King CJ.
Sentence
143Mr Hu would you please stand.
144Xiaodong ‘Frank’ Hu, you are sentenced as follows:
(a)on Charge 1 – Rape, you are convicted and sentenced to 8 years imprisonment;
(b)on Charge 2 – Rape, you are convicted and sentenced to 9 years imprisonment;
(c)on Charge 3 – Rape, you are convicted and sentenced to 10 years imprisonment;
(d)on Charge 4 – Rape, you are convicted and sentenced to 7 years imprisonment;
(e)on Charge 5 – Rape, you are convicted and sentenced to 11 years imprisonment;
(f)on Charge 6 – Rape, you are convicted and sentenced to 14 years imprisonment which will be the base sentence;
(g)on Charge 7 – Rape, you are convicted and sentenced to 14 years imprisonment;
(h)on Charge 8 – Sexual assault, you are convicted and sentenced to 4 years imprisonment;
(i)on Charge 9 – Sexual assault, you are convicted and sentenced to 4 years imprisonment;
(j)on Charge 10 – Intentionally causing injury, you are convicted and sentenced to 3 years imprisonment;
(k)on Charge 11 – Sexual assault, you are convicted and sentenced to 4 years imprisonment;
(l)on Charge 12 – Rape, you are convicted and sentenced to 11 years imprisonment;
(m)on Charge 13 – Intentionally causing injury, you are convicted and sentenced to 3 years imprisonment;
(n)on Charge 14 – Intentionally causing injury, you are convicted and sentenced to 3 years imprisonment;
(o)on Charge 15 – Recklessly causing serious injury, you are convicted and sentenced to 6 years imprisonment; and
(p)on Charge 16 – Intentionally causing injury, you are convicted and sentenced to 4 years imprisonment.
145I direct that 2 years of the sentence imposed on Charge 12, 18 months of the sentence imposed on Charges 1, 2, 3 and 7, 1 year of the sentence imposed on Charges 4, 8, 9, 11 and 15, 6 months of the sentence imposed on Charges 5 and 16 and 4 months of the sentence imposed on Charges 10, 13 and 14 be served cumulatively on each other and on Charge 6 making for a total effective sentence of 29 years imprisonment. I direct that you serve 22 years before becoming eligible for parole.
146Pursuant to s 18 of the Sentencing Act, I declare that 1380 days be reckoned as the period of imprisonment already served under the sentence I have imposed. That does not include today.
147Pursuant to s 6AAA of the Sentencing Act, if not for your plea of guilty, I would have sentenced you to a period of 40 years imprisonment with a non parole period of 30 years.
148Pursuant to s 34(1)(c) of the Sex Offenders Registration Act 2004, as a consequence of the relevant sexual offences of which you have been convicted, you are a registerable offender and you must comply with reporting obligations for the remainder of your life.
| Charge | Offence | Rolled up | Maximum | Standard Sentence | Serious Offender | Sentence | Cumulation | |
| 1 | Rape | Yes (6 x) | 25 | No | N/A | 8 y | 18 m | |
| 2 | Rape | Yes (13 x) | 25 | No | N/A | 9 y | 18 m | |
| 3 | Rape | Yes (17 x) | 25 | No | Yes | 10 y | 18 m | |
| 4 | Rape | Yes (3 x) | 25 | No | Yes | 7 y | 1 y | |
| 5 | Rape | Yes (2 x) | 25 | Yes (10 y) | Yes | 11 y | 6 m | |
| 6 | Rape | Yes (13 x) | 25 | Yes (10 y) | Yes | 14 y | Base | |
| 7 | Rape | Yes (13 x) | 25 | Yes (10 y) | Yes | 14 y | 18 m | |
| 8 | Sexual Assault | Yes (7 x) | 10 | N/A | Yes | 4 y | 1 y | |
| 9 | Sexual Assault | Yes (10 x) | 10 | N/A | Yes | 4 y | 1 y | |
| 10 | ICI | No | 10 | N/A | N/A | 3 y | 4 m | |
| 11 | Sexual Assault | No | 10 | N/A | Yes | 4 y | 1 y | |
| 12 | Rape | Yes (2 x) | 25 | Yes (10 y) | Yes | 11 y | 2 y | |
| 13 | ICI | No | 10 | N/A | N/A | 3 y | 4 m | |
| 14 | ICI | No | 10 | N/A | N/A | 3 y | 4 m | |
| 15 | RCSI | No | 15 | N/A | N/A | 6 y | 1 y | |
| 16 | ICI | Yes (4 x) | 10 | N/A | N/A | 4 y | 6 m | |
| Total Effective Sentence: | 29 years | |||||||
| Non-Parole Period: | 22 years | |||||||
| Pre-sentence Detention Declared: | 1380 days | |||||||
| Section 6 AAA Statement: | 40 years with a NPP of 30 years | |||||||
| Other Relevant Orders: 1. Serious sexual offender on charges 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11 and 12. 2. Registration under the Sex Offenders Registration Act 2004 3. Reporting for Life | ||||||||
5
0