Director of Public Prosecutions v Jenkins (a pseudonym)

[2024] VCC 1709

IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA

AT BENDIGO

CRIMINAL DIVISION

Revised
Not Restricted
Suitable for Publication

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

V

PERRY JENKINS (a pseudonym)

---

JUDGE:	HER HONOUR JUDGE CARLIN
WHERE HELD:	Bendigo
DATE OF HEARING:	17 October 2024
DATE OF SENTENCE:	29 October 2024
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Jenkins (a pseudonym)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2024] VCC 1709

REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---

Subject:Criminal law

Catchwords:              Plea of guilty – sexual penetration of stepchild – procuring sexual act by threat – possess drug of dependence – cannabis plants – refugee background – remorse – full admissions in police interview

Legislation Cited:      Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic);

Cases Cited:Pearce v The Queen [1998] HCA 57; Clarkson v The Queen (2011) 32 VR 361; Adamson v R [2015] VSCA 194; DPP v Toomey [2006] VSCA 90; Brown v the Queen [2019] VSCA 216; Worboyes v The Queen [2021] VSCA 169; DPP v Royal [2021] VCC 1963; DPP v Castleton [2022] VCC 382; Mush v The Queen [2019] VSCA 307; DPP v DDJ [2009] VSCA 115; Loader v The Queen (2011) 33 VR 86.

Sentence:                  Total effective sentence of 11 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 7 years.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the DPP	Mr D. Cordy	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Ms N. Low	Victoria Legal Aid

HER HONOUR:

Introduction

1.Perry Jenkins[1] on three separate days over a one-month period spanning either side of her 15th birthday, you sexually abused your stepdaughter, whom I shall call SD[2], in what can only be described as an appalling breach of trust.  By following SD one evening you learned that she was in a sexual relationship with a teacher from her school.  Instead of protecting her you decided to use the situation to your advantage by essentially coercing her into having a sexual relationship with you. 

[1] To avoid the possibility of identifying a person against whom a sexual offence has been committed, this sentence has been anonymised by the adoption of pseudonyms in place of the name of the offender and witnesses in conformity with the Judicial Proceedings Reports Act 1958 (Vic), s4(1A).

[2] The initials SD were employed by the Sentencing Judge in the sentencing remarks for the teacher.  

2.Your offending came to light when the police were investigating SD's relationship with the teacher, it having been reported to police by the teacher's then girlfriend in August 2023.  When SD was being spoken to about the teacher, she also disclosed to the police what you had done.

3.You were arrested on 28 August 2023 and interviewed the following day with the benefit of an interpreter.  You made full admissions and were charged and remanded in custody where you have been ever since, a total of 428 days not including today.

4.You pleaded guilty at a committal mention on 10 July 2024 and were committed to this court.  

5.On 17 October 2024 you pleaded guilty before me to one charge of procuring sexual act by threat, four charges of sexual penetration of a stepchild and one charge of possession of a drug of dependence.

6.A plea hearing proceeded before me on the same day, and it now falls to me to sentence you for your conduct.  Your counsel, Ms Low, conceded that the only available sentence was a term of imprisonment involving a head sentence and non-parole period.   

7.In determining your sentence, I am required by law to have regard to a variety of factors which I will outline in these sentencing remarks.[3]   Some tend towards leniency, and some point the other way.  No one factor automatically prevails over any other.  Rather, I must have regard to them all and give each the weight it deserves to arrive at a just sentence.

[3] Section 5(2) of the Sentencing Act 1991.

Circumstances of the offending

8.First, I need to return to the circumstances of your offending in more detail.

9.The agreed facts upon which I sentence you are set out in the Summary of Prosecution Opening.[4]  In short, at the time of the offending, you had been in an intimate relationship with the victim's mother, for about six years and had been living with her and her children in their home since 2019.  You were referred to by SD and her siblings as 'uncle'.

[4] Exhibit A on the plea.

10.The morning after you witnessed the sexual activity between SD and the teacher, which was sometime between 30 June 2023 and 9 July 2023, you called SD into a shed at the back of the family home and told her what you had seen.  With the implicit threat that you would tell her mother otherwise, you asked SD to give you a 'blow job' and, not wanting her mother to know, she agreed.  You pulled down your pants and SD masturbated you until you were erect whereupon you put your penis into her mouth and ejaculated. This conduct comprises Charges 1 and 2. 

11.Not long after that act you took SD, who had gone to the bathroom and tried to contact the teacher, into another shed, shut the door and told her to pull her shorts down. You then pulled up her top, sucked on her breasts and pinched her nipple before penetrating her vagina first with your fingers and then with your penis, ejaculating above her vagina. You were not wearing a condom. These two instances of penetration comprise Charge 3.

12.The next time you sexually abused SD was on her 15th birthday on 14 July 2023.  In the late afternoon SD was working on a job resume in the kitchen when, under the ruse of asking her to help you with something, you asked her to come to the shed. When she entered the shed, you shut the door and removed her clothes. You sucked her breasts before penetrating her vagina with your penis, for about 10 minutes, without ejaculating.  You then licked her vagina for a short time, before telling her to get dressed and go back inside which she did. About 10 minutes later you asked her to come back to the shed where you again undressed her, sucked her breasts, licked her vagina and then penetrated her vagina with your penis until you ejaculated. During this episode of intercourse, SD told you to stop, but you ignored her.

13.SD again got dressed and returned to the house.  She phoned the teacher, this time making contact with him, and told him about your sexual offending. 

14.At about 6:00 pm, SD was in the bathroom with the door closed when you opened the door and asked her if she wanted to have sex. She did not respond. You then entered the bathroom and locked the door behind you. SD was scared and said 'OK'. You took her pyjamas off, sucked her breasts and nipples, kissed her on the lips, penetrated her vagina with your fingers and then turned her around, so she was facing the bathroom sink and you were behind her.  You then put a condom on and penetrated her vagina with your penis until you ejaculated.   You told her to get dressed and leave the bathroom, which she did while crying.  Not only did your actions cause SD to cry, she was also bleeding from her vagina. These four instances of sexual penetration, three with your penis and one with your finger together comprise Charge 4.

15.The last time you sexually abused SD was on 28 July 2023 when you were alone with SD and her siblings because her mother, your partner, was in hospital having a medical procedure relating to a pregnancy.  In the early afternoon you went to SD's bedroom and asked her if she wanted to have sex. You told her to follow you into your bedroom where you told her to undress. You also undressed and lay on your back. You told SD to climb on top of you and then penetrated her vagina with your penis before pushing her off.  You penetrated her in this manner on two more occasions before telling her to dress and leave.  After the first penetration, SD noticed you wiping semen off the head of your penis with a tissue.  After the second penetration she said she was worried about getting pregnant and asked why you were not wearing a condom.  You were not deterred and simply said she would not get pregnant.   These three instances of sexual penetration together comprise Charge 5.

16.SD went to her bedroom and phoned the teacher and told him what had happened.

17.In the evening you picked up SD's mother from the hospital as if nothing had happened.

18.The possession of drug of dependence charge, Charge 6, comes about because when the police arrived at your home to arrest you, they noticed six small cannabis plants between 10 to 20 centimetres in height planted in two containers behind the passenger seat of your vehicle.

Your personal circumstances

19.Turning next to your personal circumstances which were outlined in defence submissions and the Psychological Assessment Report of Alison Mynard. You met with Ms Mynard once in person and once via video link and were assessed with the assistance of a Karen interpreter. I have also drawn from character references from your sister and your wife.

20.You are 35 years of age and are of Karen ethnicity.  Your parents fled ethnic persecution in Myanmar to Thailand where you were born in a town called Mae Sot.   You grew up in a refugee camp with your parents, three brothers and one sister. You lived in impoverished conditions in the refugee camp often with not enough food to eat. You did not attend school until age 11 because your family could not afford it. Your attendance at school was intermittent and dependent on your need to work, find food or care for your siblings.

21.You moved to Australia with your family when you were 17 years old and eventually settled in the Bendigo area. You attended school in Year 11 but felt unwelcome and anxious due to bullying from your peers.  After you left high school, you started working with your father doing steel grinding and went on to work as a cleaner after that. You were working night shifts as a cleaner at a factory in Castlemaine at the time of your offending.

22.You got married in your early 20s and have two children from that relationship. You separated from your wife in 2017 to pursue a relationship with the mother of the victim. You have maintained a close relationship with your two children, now aged 14 and 12, and supported them financially until your arrest. You are also close with your sister and three brothers, who have all visited you in custody.  In her character reference, your sister said that she will be there to help you return to society when you are released from prison.   

23.In her report, Ms Mynard said that you engaged in binge drinking in your late teens and early 20s to 'numb [your] emotional pain and distract [you] from the feelings of helplessness and hopelessness about [your] life'. Around this time, you appeared in the Bendigo Magistrates Court for minor offences consistent with alcohol consumption. You have since stopped drinking and no longer associate with negative peer groups. In your interview you told police you are not a recreational cannabis user and two of the plants were for someone else and one was for you to use as medicine for your appetite.

24.Ms Mynard described you as suffering long term symptoms of shame, low confidence and low self-esteem.  She said you have suffered from a depressive disorder for most of your life, originating in your childhood environment of deprivation and your experience of being bullied in Australia.  She opined that your 'underlying depressive symptoms have impacted [you] in terms of impaired decision making, with impaired and clouded thinking capacity'.  

25.Ms Mynard also found that your background of deprivation had affected your emotional maturity and that your 'lack of emotional intelligence is evident in the offending, including a lack of taking responsibility, impulsivity, a lack of
self-awareness and self-monitoring of [your] emotions and urges, and a lack of self-control'.

26.Ms Mynard considered that you will 'benefit from individual counselling and treatment to increase [your] insight, reduce [your] mental health issues and increase [your] emotional intelligence', which will in turn, reduce your risk of reoffending.

Objective Gravity of your offending and moral culpability

27.Two factors of central importance in determining any sentence are the objective gravity of the offending and the moral culpability of the offender. 

28.Sexual penetration of a stepchild is an inherently serious offence and more so if the stepchild is under 18.  If there was any doubt about that fact Parliament has made it perfectly clear, as have the courts on numerous occasions.[5] 

[5] For example, as long ag as 1993, Marks J said ‘the offence of incest is particularly erosive of human relations and casts doubt on the assumption that parents are natural trustees of the welfare of their children’  in R v Sposito unreported, Supreme Court of Victoria Court of Criminal Appeal, 8 June 1993.  Similarly, in DPP v Dalgliesh [2016] VSCA 148 at [43] the Court of Appeal said ‘Society, the legislature and the courts are at one regarding the objective seriousness of sexual offending against children, and of incest in particular. Reflecting community views, courts have condemned in the strongest terms sexual offending against children by those responsible for their welfare.

29.The maximum penalty for Charges 2, 3, 4 and 5 is 25 years and because SD was under 18, they each have a standard sentence of 10 years.  Further, they are category 1 offences meaning they must be punished by a custodial sentence not in combination with a corrections order and are also serious offender offences, the significance of which I shall explain later. 

30.Procuring a sexual act by threat is also an inherently serious offence as is reflected by its maximum penalty of 10 years and the fact it is also a serious offender offence. 

31.The possession charge is obviously a lot less serious and whilst I find your explanation rather puzzling, I am prepared to accept that you did not possess the plants for any purpose relating to trafficking and therefore the maximum penalty is one year. 

32.One only has to recite the facts in this case to appreciate the gravity, and depravity, of your particular instances of sexual offending.  SD was entitled to look to you for love and protection and you failed her miserably.  They were serious examples of serious offending not least because three of them were rolled up charges comprising multiple discrete acts of sexual penetration.

33.You not only failed to protect SD from ongoing harm when you should have, you exploited the situation to satisfy your own sexual desires and thereby inflicted further harm on someone you were supposed to care for.  It was a breach of trust on many levels because as well as betraying SD in those two ways, you also breached the trust that your partner, and indeed society, placed in you as a stepfather.  

34.Whilst your offending might be described as situational or opportunistic it was certainly not spontaneous or short-lived.  The first occasion was clearly premeditated and having set the scene you then repeated your behaviour on two more occasions over the next month.  The last two occasions were particularly callous given they took place respectively on SD's 15th birthday and when her mother was in hospital. You had ample time to reflect on your behaviour between each of the three occasions and desist, but you did not. 

35.Your conduct is made worse by your failure to wear a condom on all but one instance of penile vaginal penetration thus exposing SD to the risk of pregnancy and Sexually Transmitted Diseases.  This risk existed whether or not you ejaculated inside her.  Further, during Charge 4 you did in fact ejaculate inside her without a condom and did so notwithstanding she had told you to stop.  Similarly, during Charge 5 you persisted even though SD told you she was concerned about getting pregnant.    

36.I do not consider the gravity of Charge 1 to be lessened by the fact that your threat was to do something that you should, rather than to do something you should not, as Ms Low submitted, but I do agree that Charges 1 and 2 do overlap and I must avoid doubly punishing you to the extent of that overlap.[6] 

[6] Pearce v The Queen [1998] HCA 57.

37.There can be no doubt that you knew what you were doing was wrong.  In your interview you agreed that SD had sex with you because she was scared you would tell her mother.  You admitted knowing that it was both wrong and illegal.  At least, to your credit, you also said that after the last occasion you resolved not to do it again and indeed you did not.   

38.In her report Ms Mynard appears to attribute your offending to your emotional immaturity, which in turn she attributes to your history of childhood disadvantage and upbringing in the Karen culture with its own history of intergenerational trauma.  As I said during the plea hearing it strikes me that Ms Mynard was simply hypothesising about the reasons for your behaviour, and I am not satisfied there is any causal connection between your background and the offences. 

39.I do, however, accept that your history of growing up in a refugee camp, in poverty and with limited education and a lack of emotional nurturing, reduces your moral culpability in a more general way.  Those matters were beyond your control and their effects are enduring.  The authorities are clear that it would be unfair to judge you the same as a person who had not experienced those difficulties, and I do not. 

40.Nevertheless, your crimes were so heinous that even taking into account your history, I still consider your moral culpability to be high.

Impact of your offending[7]

[7] I am required to take into account the impact of offending on victims and their personal circumstances – Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) ss 5(2)(daa), (da) and (db).

41.There is a legal presumption that premature sexual activity causes long term and serious physical and psychological harm to children.[8]  The courts also recognise that rehabilitation of children who have been sexually abused may be more difficult than rehabilitation of the offender.  In that regard, it was said in a case called Toomey:

'Frequently the damage will be profound and a long time will pass before it can be addressed at all.  In the meantime, childhood will be destroyed, self-esteem damaged, educational and career opportunities lost and the capacity to form and maintain relationships seriously impaired'.[9]

[8] Clarkson v The Queen (2011) 32 VR 361, 368 [26], 371 [33]; Adamson v R [2015] VSCA 194, [56].

[9] DPP v Toomey [2006] VSCA 90, [22] (‘Toomey’).

42.SD's victim impact statement is a good illustration of the reason for that presumption.  She describes her sense of shame and guilt over what occurred, as if she is somehow to blame for what you did.  I can assure her that she is not.  She has ongoing anxiety and panic attacks and feels isolated from and judged and misunderstood by friends and family.  

Current Sentencing Practices

43.I am required to have regard to current sentencing practices.  Since 1 February 2018, sexual penetration of a stepchild has been a standard sentence offence under the Sentencing Act 1991 with the standard sentence for an offence of mid‑range objective seriousness set at 10 years and a presumed minimum non‑parole period of the whole sentence of 60 per cent.[10]

[10] Sections 5A and 11A of the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic). The percentage increases if the total effective sentence is more than 20 years. The methodology for sentencing standard sentence offences is not that I engage in a two-step process of first assessing the objective seriousness of your offence compared to some hypothetical mid-range offence and then work up or down depending on your personal circumstances or other factors. Rather, I take into account the standard sentence and the default non‑parole period in the same way as I do the maximum penalty, and indeed all other relevant sentencing factors to arrive at an appropriate sentence by a process known as instinctive synthesis. See Brown v the Queen [2019] VSCA 216.

44.The reason for looking at current sentencing practices is to promote consistency of approach in sentencing, particularly the application of relevant sentencing principles.  Whilst no two cases are ever truly the same, and other sentences are not precedents to be applied or distinguished, sentences imposed in comparable cases may provide a convenient yardstick against which to measure any sentence proposed in the instant case.  In the case of offences subject to the standard sentencing regime such as yours, I am limited to a consideration of other sentences imposed under that regime, that is, sentences imposed for offences committed after 1 February 2018.[11]

[11] Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) s 5B(2)(b).

45.I have had regard to the most recent Sentencing Advisory Council Statistics of the higher courts (30 June 2023) for the offence of sexual penetration of a stepchild, there being no such statistics for the offence of procuring sexual act by threat.  They indicate that all 41 charges of that offence dealt with as a standard sentence received a term of imprisonment with the range being 4.33 to 11 years.  Seven to eight years was the most common sentence at almost 27 per cent, and 10 to 11 years was the next most common at almost 20 per cent. 

46.Of course, statistics are of limited assistance because they never tell you anything about the details of the case and further 41 is a relatively small number.  That said, the range of terms of imprisonment could be expected to broadly reflect the full spectrum of seriousness of the cases involved.  It is also likely that some of the sentences may have been reduced because of the combined effect of the Worboyes’[12] principle and the increased burden of imprisonment during COVID. 

[12] Worboyes v The Queen [2021] VSCA 169.

47.Of more use than statistics are sentences imposed in comparable cases.  Ms Low referred me to two standard sentence County Court cases which she acknowledged were not really comparable, but nevertheless provide some guidance.[13]   There is no need for me to recite the details.    Suffice to say, in my view they were both less serious instances of offending than yours. 

[13] DPP v Royal [2021] VCC 1963; DPP v Castleton [2022] VCC 382.

48.Ultimately my duty is to impose a just and appropriate sentence on you in the unique circumstances of this case. 

Plea of Guilty, co-operation and remorse

49.Two very significant matters in your favour are your very early plea of guilty and your remorse.  You made full admissions when interviewed by the police and as I have already said, told them that you made the decision not to do it again after the last time.  It could not be said that your interview was redolent with remorse or insight, but the language barrier may have been partly to blame for that.  Ms Mynard recorded you as knowing that you had hurt SD and her mother, although you were not able to articulate any long-term effects.  In her reference your sister noted that you had asked her not to come to court for your plea because you were so ashamed and would be too sad if she heard about what you had done.   In the end I regard you as having genuine remorse although a somewhat limited understanding of the consequences of your actions consistent with your background and psychological profile.

50.As well as being indicative of remorse and an acceptance of legal responsibility for your crimes your admissions and plea of guilty have a palpable utilitarian benefit.  They have facilitated the course of justice and spared SD and possibly her mother the ordeal of coming to court to give evidence.  You are entitled to a significant discount in your sentence for that fact.

Your character and risk of reoffending

51.You have three prior court appearances which are dated and as I have already noted are consistent with your then consumption of alcohol.  I do not regard them as significant.  Ms Mynard considered you to be at moderate risk of reoffending for sexual violence primarily because of your lack of insight, although she considered this risk would reduce with appropriate treatment. 

52.I am rather more hopeful than Ms Mynard given your limited criminal history at age 35, the way these offences came about and your plea of guilty and remorse. I am also satisfied that the lengthy imprisonment will act as a deterrent, whatever insight you may have.  When I add into the equation your family support and good work history, I consider your prospects of rehabilitation to be good.

The burden of imprisonment

53.In determining the appropriate sentence, I must consider how a term of imprisonment would be likely to impact you. 

54.I accept that your time in custody has been and will be harder by virtue of English being your second language. This not only affects your day-to-day interactions with fellow prisoners but also the number of rehabilitative programs available to you. 

Purposes of sentencing

55.Turning, finally, to the purposes of sentencing.  I am obliged not to impose a more severe sentence than is necessary to achieve the sentencing purposes of just punishment, deterrence, rehabilitation, denunciation, and protection of the community.  A custodial sentence must only be imposed as a last resort and then must be the absolute minimum required. 

56.Further, when there are multiple charges, such as here, the total effective sentence must not offend the principle of totality.  What that means is that you must not be punished any more than is proportionate and appropriate to your overall criminality.  

57.There is some qualification of those general sentencing principles in your case. First, sexual penetration of a stepchild is a special category of offence which requires the imposition of a custodial sentence.[14]  Secondly, there is a default minimum non parole period for the total sentence because of the fact sexual penetration of a stepchild is a standard sentence offence.  Thirdly, given I will be sentencing you to a term of imprisonment on Charges 1 and 2, once I come to sentence you on Charge 3 you will be a serious sexual offender.  That means in respect of the sentences on Charges 3, 4 and 5 I am required to consider protection of the community as the principal sentencing purpose and am entitled to impose a disproportionate sentence to achieve that purpose.  Finally, your status as a serious sexual offender gives rise to a statutory presumption of cumulation of individual sentences.  The more serious the overall offending the more that presumption will moderate the principle of totality.[15]

[14] not being one in combination with a community corrections order, section 5(2G) Sentencing Act 1991.

[15] Mush v The Queen [2019] VSCA 307 [89] to [91].

58.Even without those provisions your offending clearly warrants a substantial term of imprisonment.  The prosecution have not submitted that a disproportionate sentence is necessary and I am satisfied that I have enough sentencing discretion to achieve the purpose of community protection in your case without imposing one.[16]

[16] DPP v DDJ [2009] VSCA 115 at [29].

59.Similarly, I consider that the balancing of the presumption of cumulation and the principle of totality requires that I not order full cumulation in respect of Charges 3 to 5. Indeed, I consider I need to order substantial concurrency of all sentences in order to avoid a crushing and wholly disproportionate sentence. Therefore, pursuant to s6E of the Sentencing Act1991 where necessary I 'otherwise direct', to give effect to my orders for cumulation and concurrency.

60.As well as ordering substantial concurrency, I will also moderate my sentences on Charges 1 and 2 to reflect the overlap in conduct and criminality that exists between them.[17]

[17] In accordance with Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610 and Loader v The Queen (2011) 33 VR 86.

61.The courts have repeatedly emphasised that in sentencing for sexual offences against children general deterrence and denunciation are paramount sentencing considerations.  This applies particularly to offenders like you who are entrusted with the care of their victims, whether as family members or otherwise.  Anyone who is tempted to offend as you did in the belief they can do so with impunity needs to know that when their crimes come to light, they will be punished severely.

62.The case of Toomey, to which I have previously referred, emphasised the need for sentences to vindicate not only the individual victims, but also the values of society, 'fundamental to which is the protection of its children'.[18]  As the court in Toomey said crimes such as yours are extremely serious not only because they impact the individual victims, but because they damage the community as a whole.

[18] Toomey (n 9) [17], [22] per Vincent J. 

63.Although not as important as general deterrence and denunciation, the principles of specific deterrence and community protection do have some role to play in your case.  That is, as well as deterring others, my sentence needs to deter you from reoffending and to protect the community from you.

64.Of course, my sentence must also be just.  It must reflect your mitigating factors and promote your rehabilitation, that being one of the best ways to protect the community.  My sentence will allow for your rehabilitation by the fixing of non-parole period.

65.Finally, I am obliged to say how my sentences on Charges 2, 3, 4 and 5 relate to the standard sentence of 10 years.  In instinctively synthesising all relevant matters, in my view a sentence below the standard sentence of 10 years is warranted. 

Sentence

66.Weighing up the competing considerations as best I can you are convicted on each charge and sentenced to terms of imprisonment as follows.

Charge on Indictment	Offence	Maximum	Sentence	Cumulation
1	Procuring sexual act by threat, contrary to Crimes Act 1958 s 44(1)	10 years	3 years	3 months
2	Sexual penetration of a stepchild, contrary to Crimes Act 1958 s 50D(1)	25 years (Standard sentence 10 years)	5 years	3 months
3	Sexual penetration of a stepchild, contrary to Crimes Act 1958 s 50D(1) (Rolled-up charge)	25 years (Standard sentence 10 years)	7 years	6 months
4	Sexual penetration of a stepchild, contrary to Crimes Act 1958 s 50D(1) (Rolled-up charge)	25 years (Standard sentence 10 years)	9 years	Base
5	Sexual penetration of a stepchild, contrary to Crimes Act 1958 s 50D(1) (Rolled-up charge)	25 years (Standard sentence 10 years)	8 years	1 year
6	Possession of a drug of dependence, contrary to Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 s 73(1)	1 year	Convicted & fined $1000.	N/A
Total Effective Sentence:		11 years
Non-Parole Period:		7 years
Pre-Sentence detention declaration pursuant to s 18(1) of the Sentencing Act 1991:		428 days
6AAA Statement: 15 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 10 years’ imprisonment
Other relevant orders: ·    Sentenced as serious sexual offender on charges 3, 4 and 5 ·    SORA – lifetime reporting

67.I declare that you have already served 428 days in custody in respect of that sentence, not including today. 

68.If you had not pleaded guilty to the sexual offence charges, and been found guilty by a jury, I would have sentenced you to a total term of 15 years with a non-parole period of 10 years.

69.Pursuant to s6F of the Sentencing Act1991, I declare that you have been sentenced as a serious sexual offender in respect of Charges 3, 4 and 5.

Sex Offence Registration

70.Because sexual penetration of a stepchild is a class 1 offence within the meaning of the Sex Offenders Registration Act, you will be required to comply with the reporting obligations under that Act for the rest of your life.

71.That Act provides that you must be given a notice setting out your reporting obligations under the Act and what will happen if you do not comply with those obligations.   The court will arrange for that notice to be sent to you in prison. 

72.Mr Jenkins, do you understand the total effective sentence?

73.OFFENDER:  Yes.

74.HER HONOUR:  Is there anything else that I need to attend to?

75.MR CORDY:  No, Your Honour.

76.HER HONOUR:  Thank you.  I will leave the Bench.

- - -