Director of Public Prosecutions v Ingle (a pseudonym)
[2016] VCC 1430
•29 September 2016
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| WILLIAM INGLE (a pseudonym) |
---
JUDGE: | HIS HONOUR JUDGE MONTGOMERY |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne |
DATE OF HEARING: | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 29 September 2016 |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Ingle (a pseudonym) |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2016] VCC 1430 |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Subject:
Catchwords:
Legislation Cited:
Cases Cited:
Sentence:
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Director of Public Prosecutions | Ms B. Moeta | |
For the Accused | Mr C. Carr |
HIS HONOUR:
1William Ingle,[1] you have pleaded guilty to one charge of indecent act with a child under 16, this is a course of conduct charge, and one charge of incest. This also is a course of conduct charge.
[1] William Ingle is a pseudonym.
2The facts of the matter are set out in Exhibit 1, the summary of the prosecution opening. The details of the course of conduct for both charges are set out in Exhibit 1.
3Briefly stated, you were regularly committing sexual offences against your daughter whilst she was aged between 10 and 13. At that time you were aged between 46 and 50.
4The indecent act charge refers to touching of the breasts and vagina and the incest charge relates to introduction of the finger and tongue into the vagina. Any reader of these reasons can refer to Exhibit 1 to place the sentence in its full factual context. The summary is not disputed by your counsel. You have no other criminal history.
5A victim impact statement of the complainant, Holly Ingle,[2] was tendered and read to court by the complainant. The victim impact statement, from my experience in this court of hearing these types of matters, is a unique document. Your daughter is obviously an articulate and confident young person. The continually expressed sentiment in the statement is one of forgiveness by your daughter towards you. Forgiveness by a sexual assault victim is all too rare. Of course it can only take place in the context of admissions of guilt by the offender. Indeed, forgiveness is an all too rare commodity in the society we presently live in.
[2] Holly Ingle is a pseudonym.
6Admissions of guilt are also, unfortunately, rare in the context of this type of offending. Your plea of guilty, I accept, was entered at the first earliest opportunity of a committal mention following on from a full and frank record of interview with the police. It is an expression of responsibility by you for your offending and also has the additional added benefit of saving the court the time and expense of a jury trial and, more importantly, has saved your daughter from having to give evidence in the witness box before a jury. The benefit of such a plea in child sexual cases, in my view, cannot be underrated. I have heard numerous cases this year of child sexual offending in which often very young complainants have had to give evidence by way of video before a jury and be cross-examined. The benefit of a plea of guilty, of course, means that that does not have to happen and is, in my view, of immeasurable benefit to the complainant.
7When asked by your daughter to report your offending to your wife you did so. You engaged in a restorative justice program at the South Eastern Centre Against Sexual Assault and Family Violence. I have a report from the manager of that program, Caroline Worth, dated 8 August 2016. She states that she was requested by your wife to speak with you. Ms Worth consulted with both of your daughters and on three occasions, together and singly, they saw you face to face. Ms Worth reports that you behaved appropriately during those sessions and also during the 15 Skype sessions you had with either one or both of your daughters. In those sessions you apologised to your daughters for your behaviour and took complete blame for the situation in which the family found itself.
8You have attended 34 sessions with your treating psychologist, Ros Sparrevohn, as is set out on her report of 23 August 2016. You have also seen a forensic psychologist, Pamela Matthews, ten times, as is set out in her report dated 16 September 2016. The prosecutor submitted that I could take into account your daughter's attitude as expressed in the victim impact statement. He did not dispute the range that your barrister assigned to your offending here. He did submit that a custodial sentence with a non-parole period should be imposed. He handed me up a number of cases and referred me to the sentencing snapshots and I had a conversation with both counsel about the recent case of Dalgleish, reported at 2016 VSCA 148.
9On your behalf, Ms Leighfield filed written submissions and supplemented them orally in court. She tendered the reports of both psychologists, a medical report from Dr Zalman Rosenblum together with progress notes and some other matters and a number of written references. I have read and considered all of that material. The references attest that aside from this offending you are a responsible, hard working and liked member of the community.
10In her submissions Ms Leighfield set out your background, as did the report of Ms Matthews. I will not now refer to it any detail save to say that in your professional life you worked as an optometrist. You are currently unemployed and it is up in the air as to what position the professional Optometry Board will take in response to you being gaoled for this offending.
11You originally came from South Africa and married your wife in 1991. There are three children of the marriage, one son and two daughters. The reports set out your history in relation to your sexual activity and your relationship with your wife. Ms Leighfield submitted that the offending here was serious offending over an extended time and a breach of trust was involved. She also conceded psychological coercion and a power imbalance.
12However, she pointed out that the penetration was non-penile and because it was only on the outer lips there was no risk of pregnancy or disease. There were no gratuitous acts of violence or threats by you to your daughter not to reveal these matters. She submitted that the offending was in the lower to mid-range seriousness of offending for incest and indecent act offences. She pointed to the duration of the offending. She relied on your plea of guilty. She submitted that you had shown remorse and insight into your offending and had taken positive steps towards rehabilitation. She referred to the two psychological reports.
13In her report Ms Matthews, at pp.21 to 22, opined as to the factors which contributed to your offending behaviour. See also pp.2 to 3 of Ros Sparrevohn's report. Ms Leighfield submitted that those reports explain the context of the offending. Both psychologists placed you in the low risk of offending.
Ms Matthews did so after applying the risk of sexual violence protocol. At p.21 of her report she said your risk of re-offending is estimated to be low. However, she did say that your abuse of your daughter, persistently focussing on the pre-pubertal period of her development, indicated a diagnosis of paedophilia as defined by DSM-5. She said that your persistent sexual preoccupation with your daughter over a number of years was shaped by your early exposure to a variety of inappropriate psycho-sexual boundary violations, your objectification of her and sexual interest in, and arousal patterns towards her.14Ms Leighfield set out some other minor medical issues that you have and pointed to the fact you have no other criminal history. Whilst on bail you have been living with your parents in New South Wales. She submitted that in custody you will suffer some hardships due to isolation and the concerns you will feel about the hardships caused to your family by virtue of your imprisonment. I accept that these factors will make the experience of imprisonment more burdensome for you. Ms Leighfield conceded that a custodial disposition with a non-parole period should be imposed.
Sentencing Reasons
15There are a number of features to this offending which make it a serious example of such offending. You were obviously in a position of trust and control over your daughter. The offending was prolonged and your daughter was vulnerable to you. Your offending involved multiple acts of sexual misbehaviour. However, I do accept on a comparison that with other matters of this type the range pointed to by your counsel, that is it should be placed in the lower to mid-range of this type of offending.
16It is to be remembered that the purpose of the charge for which you are to be sentenced is to protect adolescents in the care of adults and to punish persons in positions of authority who exploit their vulnerability. I accept that you are genuinely remorseful, as evidenced by your plea of guilty, your admissions to the police, your attendance at the Restorative Justice Program and your attendances upon the two psychologists. You have no previous convictions or finding of guilt. You have no criminal history. Both psychologists assessed your risk of offending to be low although, as I have indicated, Pamela Matthews indicated a diagnosis of paedophilia as defined by DSM-5.
17Pursuant to s.52(2)(F) of the Sentencing Act the court must impose a sentence that reflects the totality of the offending that constitutes a course of conduct and must not impose a sentence that exceeds the maximum penalty for the offence if charged as a single offence. The principles of sentencing for a course of conduct offence are similar to those involved in sentencing for a rolled up count. Orthodox sentencing principles apply so the maximum sentence remains a yardstick by which the gravity of the offending is to be assessed even though the offence itself is charged as a course of conduct. I accept that specific deterrence has a limited role to play here because you have no other criminal history and because of the steps you have taken towards your rehabilitation, your plea of guilty, your demonstrated remorse and acceptance of responsibility.
18However, the court has to express its denunciation of this offending and the principle of general deterrence is of paramount concern for cases of this sort. I have had regard to current sentencing practices for this offence and have carefully considered the principles enunciated in the case of Dalgleish. Both counsel submitted that there are unique aspects of this case that made it difficult to compare it with sentences from other case.
19In relation to how I should approach your daughter's victim impact statement I have carefully considered the judgments in the case of DPP v Dorothy Marie Skura [2004] VSCA 53. In her statement not only is your daughter forgiving but she expresses a desire to visit you whilst in custody and, indeed, hopes that if she gets married you will be able to attend the wedding. The victim impact statement is relevant in two respects. Firstly, it shows how your daughter has approached your offending and, secondly, it is relevant to the question of your rehabilitation.
20In sentencing you I have taken into account all of the matters put by both counsel, as I have just outlined. I sentence you as follows:
on Charge 1 I sentence you to a term of imprisonment of 18 months;
on Charge 2 I sentence you to a term of imprisonment of four years.
21I direct that one year of the sentence imposed on Charge 1 be served cumulatively with the four years imposed on Charge 4, which makes a total effective sentence of five years. I direct that you should serve a period of two years and ten months before being eligible for parole.
22You are to be placed on the sex offenders registration for life. I declare under s.6AAA of the Sentencing Act that if the matter had proceeded to trial before a jury and you were convicted you would have been sentenced to at least a term of imprisonment of eight years, six months.
23I declare that the seven days that you have already served to be reckoned as part of the term of imprisonment that I have just imposed, pursuant to s.18 of the Sentencing Act.
24I have signed a s.464ZF order.
25The sex registration documents are here to be served on you if you will accept service. So if you would just take a seat for a moment, Mr Ingle.
26Apparently I said in relation to the 6AAA it is eight years with a non-parole period of six years, not six months. Mr Carr, if you would like to take these documents to your client and see if he wants to accept service of them.
27MR CARR: He will, Your Honour.
28HIS HONOUR: All right.
29MR CARR: He is aware of the procedure.
30HIS HONOUR: Are there any other orders I need to make counsel?
31COUNSEL: No, Your Honour.
32HIS HONOUR: All right. Take Mr Ingles out, thank you.
- - -
0