Director of Public Prosecutions v Keating

[2018] VCC 538

IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA Revised
Not Restricted
Suitable for Publication

AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

CR 17-02463

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

v

FRANK TERENCE KEATING

---

JUDGE:	HIS HONOUR JUDGE LYON
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:
DATE OF SENTENCE:	20 April 2018
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Keating
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2018] VCC 538

REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---

Subject:
Catchwords:
Legislation Cited:
Cases Cited:
Sentence:

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Director of Public Prosecutions	Ms D. Piekusis
For the Accused	Ms M. Fox

HIS HONOUR: 

1Frank Terence Keating, you have pleaded guilty to 13 counts that between
23 September 1969 and 5 December 1977, you indecently assaulted a male. The maximum penalty for each of these offence is five years' imprisonment.

2You have no prior convictions.  You have a number of subsequent convictions for similar offending.  These were addressed on the plea by your counsel. 
I shall return to these matters in due course.

3The prosecution tendered a summary of prosecution opening on plea as
Exhibit A.  A summary of your offending is as follows:

4At the time of this offending, you were a Christian brother within the Catholic order of De La Salle Brothers and you were a teacher at De La Salle College in Malvern.  You commenced at the school on 21 September 1969 and you commenced teaching two days later.  You were between 28 and 35 years old at the time of your offending.  The eight victims of your criminal conduct were all students at the school at various times and were aged between 11 and 15 years of age.

Sam Fitzsimmons[1]

[1] Sam Fitzsimmons is a pseudonym name.

5The first charges on the indictment relate to your offending against Mr Sam Fitzsimmons.

6Sam Fitzsimmons was a 12-year-old boy, who turned 13 in October 1969.  He recalls that you were his English teacher when you commenced in Term 3 of that year.  Your offending commenced against him in that same term.

7As his teacher, you took advantage of Mr Fitzsimmons’s family difficulties and his need for someone to confide in.  He trusted you, but in the course of telling you of his difficulties, you engaged in what can only be described as a grooming activity (which is opened before me as an uncharged act), before you engaged in a sustained course of various sexually abusive conduct.

8Under the pretext of taking him aside to see how he was going, you commenced a course of conduct which involved Mr Fitzsimmons removing his pants and you commenced to rub his penis and naked buttocks in the science room.  This conduct continued once or twice a week during Term 3 and this forms the basis of Charge 1, which is a course of conduct charge.  You told Mr Fitzsimmons not to tell anyone what you were doing and of course, when you told him this, you were doing so as a teacher, a figure in the Church in the religion of his faith and as a confidant.  As part of this same charge, you admit that this conduct continued on a near weekly basis through the whole of Mr Fitzsimmons’s Form 2 year.

9When Mr Fitzsimmons was in Form 2 and as part of the same circumstances in the science room, after you stroked his penis, you flipped him over to stroke his buttocks.  You then inserted your finger into Mr Fitzsimmons’s anus.  This course of conduct occurred once in Term 1 and then about once a week for the duration of Term 2.  That forms the basis of Charge 2, which is a course of conduct charge.

10Towards the end of the third term of Form 2, you were invited to Mr Fitzsimmons’s house for dancing lessons with his mother.  These lessons occurred on about four occasions.  On each of those four occasions, you asked if you could say good night to her son, Sam.  Once you were in his bedroom, you put your hand inside his pyjamas and stroked his penis for few minutes.  That forms the basis for Charge 3, which is a representative charge.  After a few minutes, you told Mr Fitzsimmons to lift his bottom off the bed and you inserted your finger into his anus and moved it around a few times.  That is the basis for Charge 4, which is a representative charge.

Max Holmwood[2]

[2] Max Holmwood is a pseudonym name.

11I move now to Mr Max Holmwood.  Mr Holmwood commenced at De La Salle in 1970 when he was approximately 11 to 12 years old.  On about three occasions in his first form year, you fondled Mr Holmwood’s penis in the change rooms after school football training and games.  That is the basis of Charge 5, which is also a representative charge.  In 1973, when Mr Holmwood was in Form 4, you again approached him as he moved towards the change rooms after
a football game and you inserted your finger into his anus.  That is Charge 6.

Cody Milne[3]

[3] Cody Milne is a pseudonym name.

12I turn now to Cody Milne.  In 1972, Mr Milne commenced in Form 1 at the college.  You were his maths teacher.  During a maths class, you came up behind him, put your hand up his shirt and caressed his back.  This occurred on a further three to four occasions.  That is the basis for Charge 7, which is a  representative charge.

Riley Brunskill[4]

[4] Riley Brunskill is a pseudonym name.

13I turn now to Riley Brunskill.  Mr Brunskill was 13 or 14 years of age when you first commenced to offend against him.  When he was in Form 2 and during class, you, as his teacher, came up and rubbed his back, chest and stomach under his shirt.  These were uncharged acts.  Mr Brunskill felt terrified at this intimate touching.  He felt helpless, as you were his teacher and this was occurring in class.  On another occasion in the same year, you touched his back and then moved your hand inside his trousers and underpants and move your hand around the front and touched the area just above his penis for about 30 seconds.  This type of touching, just above his penis, occurred approximately three times.  That forms the basis for Charge 8,which is a representative charge.  Mr Brunskill was ashamed and confused by your actions because of his Catholic faith.

Timothy Huxam[5]

[5] Timothy Huxam is a pseudonym name.

14I turn to Timothy Huxam.  In 1974 when Mr Huxam was 12 or 13 years old, you were his English teacher.  In a class near the start of the year, you called him out to the front where he stood, facing the blackboard.  You started to tuck in his shirt, using both hands and pushed one hand inside the front of his shorts.  You moved your hand back and forth over his genitals.  Using this technique of inspecting Mr Huxam’s uniform and tucking in his shirt to again rub your hands over his genitals, occurred on a second occasion.  Charge 9 is a  representative charge.  Mr Huxam was confused by your conduct.

Rory Bunton[6]

[6] Rory Bunton is a pseudonym name.

15Mr Bunton was 12 or 13 years of age when you committed your crimes against him.  On two occasions after football training, you put your hand inside his football shorts and fondled his genitals under his underwear.  This is Charge 10.

Dylan Dennis[7]

[7] Dylan Dennis is a pseudonym name.

16Dylan Dennis was 13 years of age when you assaulted him in 1975.  On two occasions after football or sports training, you offered him a lift home.  Once in your car, you told him to pull down his pants.  You fondled his penis and scrotum for some time.  This is Charge 11, which is a representative charge. You knew his parents were struggling financially.  Before the second incident, you reminded Mr Dennis of the availability of the Form 2 scholarship and asked if he wanted his parents to be proud of him.  You then told him to meet you at the car and that is when the second incident occurred, which is part of Charge 11.

17Charge 12 occurred when there was a swimming carnival in Sale.  On the Saturday night, whilst his roommate was watching television, you walked into the bathroom where Mr Dennis was having a shower.  You held one arm and you masturbated his penis.  That is Charge 12.

Lincoln Dooley[8]

[8] Lincoln Dooley is a pseudonym name.

18Mr Dooley was about 14 or 15 years old when you offended against him. One day after athletics in Form 3, you drove him to the train station.  You put your fingers down his tracksuit pants about two centimetres and moved your fingers back and forth.  You stopped suddenly and he left.  That was
Charge 13.

19You continued as a teacher at the school until a further complaint was made in 1978.  In the knowledge of that complaint, the order of De La Salle Brothers took no disciplinary action against you.  Rather, you transferred to South Australia and then to Queensland.

20Your moves to other schools simply facilitated the continuation of your predatory sexual abuse of children.  In 1998 in Victoria and in 2003 in Queensland, you have subsequently been convicted of a total of 34 charges of, effectively, indecent assault on children.  As a consequence, after your time as a teacher, you were sentenced by His Honour Judge Crossley in this court to
a sentence of three years, with two years and four months of that sentence being suspended.  In 2003, you were imprisoned in Queensland for a further period of six months.

21This offending did not come to light until about the early part of 2015.  When you were interviewed by police on 5 May 2016, you initially:

·First, denied the allegations made by Mr Fitzsimmons and repeated that they did not happen;

·Second, said you could not remember Cody Milne, but admitted that caressing a boy’s back was something you would do;

·Third, admitted to grooming the boys;

·Fourth, could recall the name Riley Brunskill, but could not remember anything else, but thought your actions towards him were possible;

·Fifth, could not recall Timothy Huxam;

·Sixth, denied tucking in boys shirts;

·Seventh, did not recall Rory Bunton, but admitted fondling their genitals was part of your way of acting;

·Eight, denied touching boys under their underwear in the change rooms;

·Ninth, admitted touching boys on the outside of their underwear, but not Rory Bunton;

·Tenth, denied touching Lincoln Dooley, but admitted that the offending described by Mr Dooley was “the way I acted”.

22In a further record of interview in June 2016,  you made partial admissions and partial denials to the allegations made by Dylan Dennis.  You admitted to going to Sale for the weekend, but you stated that that his allegation was a lie.

Delays in complaint

23I turn to the issue of delays in the complaints.  It is apparent that your victims almost all felt powerless to do anything about your predatory approaches.

24Mr Fitzsimmons came from a devout family with a strong Catholic faith.  Within that, you occupied and exploited a position of leadership and power in the church. You were his teacher and most importantly, you profess to be his confidant. You exploited the difficulties that he was experiencing in his family.  Your abuse of Mr Fitzsimmons was callous, sustained and audacious.  You continued the abuse within his family home.  You removed from him all safe havens.  Unsurprisingly, Mr Fitzsimmons feared that he would be disbelieved and feared, after your words to him not to tell anyone, that he would be punished if he divulged the secret of your offending.

25Mr Holmwood felt powerless to tell anyone.  He had a poor relationship with his father. His mother was still a devout Catholic.  He had the courage however to tell the Royal Commission of your abuse.

26Likewise, Mr Milne was able to report your actions to the Royal Commission.

27Mr Brunskill was, in part, confused by his faith and by the fact that you were his teacher.

28Mr Huxam was confused and could not tell his parents, because he did not have a good relationship with them.

29As an adult, Mr Bunton was able to tell his wife what you did.

30As for Mr Dennis, after you abused Mr Dennis in your car, you brazenly went into the family home and had a cup of tea with his parents.  Mr Dennis’s parents had a strong Catholic faith and he felt unable to tell them.  He finally told a fellow volunteer in his workplace as an adult.

31Mr Dooley told the police of your actions in September 2015.

32You have relied, at least to some extent, on the fact that in the many years that have passed since your offending, you have made a long effort to put your life on a different path.  It was submitted that you have undertaken extensive counselling, borne with equanimity the ostracism that you have faced, accepted menial work, married, gone to gaol twice, tried to lead a good life, and that you have tried to do some good things for others.  In other words, you have tried to move your life on a different and upward trajectory.

33Nine victim impact statements were tendered in evidence.  By contrast to the trajectory of your own life, your actions have caused or profoundly contributed to an almost universal lifelong anguish and trauma amongst those that you preyed upon.  Your actions have had long effects on their ability to trust, to conduct meaningful relationships and on their ability for intimacy.  Some of the quotes from the victim impact statements are as follows.  Your actions:

·“Disrupted every element of my life”;

·“Affected the entire path of my life”;

·“I still engage in regular psychological counselling”;

·Another, on two occasions “I planned my suicide”;

·Another, “To this day, I have ongoing nightmares of being at that school, trying to get out, but there is never an exit”.

34As adults, a number of those that you sexually assaulted have endured adulthoods of alcohol abuse, sometimes drug use, ineffective family relationships and their breakdowns and unsatisfying, broken work histories. Your victims have spent their lives coping with what you did to them.  So, as your trajectory went up, for many of them, theirs went down.  In the background of the delay, as you made efforts to turn your life around, I must not forget that many of your victims have suffered a great deal of misery for that whole time.  It is likely that many, if not all, will carry the serious consequences of your actions with them for the rest of their lives.

35I commend those who attended at the original hearing and those who again attend today, for the dignity and integrity with which they conducted themselves through yet another reliving of these ghastly experiences.

36As I have already outlined, the seriousness of your offending comes not merely from the fact that you were an adult abusing children, but from your position of leadership, authority and power as a Christian brother and a carrier of the faith that these boys and their parents held.  You were a teacher, a sports coach and in the case of Sam Fitzsimmons, you were his confidant, in circumstances where he had no one else to talk to about his family problems.

37Furthermore, it is apparent from what I have outlined in respect to each of those that you abused, that you gambled heavily on each of those factors to protect you from the law and the consequences of your actions.  So much is shown when you were caught out in 1978, your order simply moved you on quietly. You went quietly, with no contrition or reflection or regard for those boys.  You simply continued offending.

38In my opinion, the seriousness of your offending is not dimmed by the passage of time, or the good things that you may have done in the interim.  The factors that I have outlined still stand to make your offending exploitative, manipulative, callous and humiliating.  I have read your retrospective attempts to explain your mindset at the time, for example, that you were trying to make them feel good. Quite frankly, Mr Keating, I do not believe a word of that.  Your conduct was, in my opinion, carried out without empathy for those boys.  It was driven only by your own lascivious desires for gratification.

39Those that sexually exploit children deserve the utter condemnation of our community.  That principle applies equally to all such offending, whether it is committed today or was committed nearly 50 years ago.  The sentencing principles which I must apply, are those of general deterrence, denunciation and just punishment.  Whilst these are not the most serious instances of sexual exploitation that were available on the criminal calendar from 1969 to 1977, your conduct and exploitation from the position which you held, as I have already outlined, must attract severe punishment.  Moreover, your moral culpability for your actions was high.

Personal circumstances

40I turn now to your personal circumstances.

41You are now 75 years of age and you were born in September 1942.  You were born into a poor family and you the middle of five children.  You were educated through the order of De La Salle Catholic brothers, that you were later to join. You were recruited into the order at aged 14 and completed your commitment to the church and your scholastic and educational studies by 1963.

42You started teaching in 1964.  As has been outlined, this offending occurred between 1969 and 1978 when you were teaching at the Malvern School of
De La Salle.  Over the years, you moved higher through the ranks of teaching and completed further qualifications in education, a Bachelor of Special Education at Flinders University in 1979/1980 and a Masters of Education in 1996.

43As I have already outlined, notwithstanding that the order was aware of your offending by 1978, you were moved to continue teaching in South Australia, Queensland and Victoria.  You also spent time undertaking carers work in
New South Wales.

44On 17 February 1998, you were sentenced at this court by His Honour Judge Crossley to three years' imprisonment, with two years and four months of that sentence suspended (that is, you were given eight months to serve).  That sentence related to your plea to 21 counts of indecent assaults which occurred between 1972 and 1978 at De La Salle.

45Then, on 4 November 2003 at the District Court of Queensland, you were sentenced to a further period of three years' imprisonment, partially suspended, with the effect that you served approximately six months' imprisonment.  This sentence related to something in the order of 13 charges of indecent assault committed by you between 1981 and 1982 against boys attending the
De La Salle school, to which you were transferred in Queensland.

46Your efforts to gain insight into and to rehabilitate from your offending have been extensive.  Putting aside a very early effort, you, of your volition, saw
a psychiatrist in New South Wales in 1991, Dr Calthorpe, who you saw for about six years.  On the plea, I received the psychological report of Vicki Prior, dated 12 March 2018, the report of Dr William Glaser, dated 21 October 2003, (which was prepared for your Queensland court appearance) the report of Associate Professor George Mendelson, dated 9 March 2018 (relating to your treatment in the period 2009 to 2012) and letters from your GP relating to medical conditions and your mental health plan.

47In my view, the report of Ms Prior is only of very limited use.  She reports that by her testing in 2016 and 2017, you were suffering from psychological distress. No doubt, when you were then facing another period of imprisonment, you would naturally feel distress.  Beyond that, Ms Prior stated that you had demonstrated an ability to acknowledge and admit your offending behaviour. Furthermore, she stated that you acknowledged the pain that you had caused to those that you had assaulted and that you had affected many lives badly.  Whilst I accept that, I find very little value in the opinions that she expresses at the end of her report.  However, I am prepared to accept her opinion that you have permanently changed your ways and that your statements of regret and remorse are genuine.  Perhaps the report’s greatest use is for the fact that it is a demonstration that you have persisted with psychological counselling for

a very long time after your last reported offending.

48Similarly, the reports of Dr Glaser and Dr Mendelson are those of treating psychiatrists, rather than forensic psychiatrists.  In other words, there is not so much of a pinpointing and classification of behaviours, as an outline of the fact that you persisted with treatment for a very long time and well after there was either a legal obligation to do so, or a legal imperative (and by that, I mean the prospect of you coming to court again).  In those circumstances, I can only conclude that your attempts to rehabilitate have been genuine.  Given the opinions expressed by Doctor Glaser and Professor Mendelson, I am prepared to accept that your efforts at rehabilitation have been successful.  I furthermore note that you completed the sex offenders program whilst in prison in 1998.

49Returning to the narrative of your life, your teaching career has only come to an end in the last 20 or so years.  In that period, you have worked as a truck driver and a factory worker until your retirement in 2015.

50In 1994, after you left the order, you married your wife, Mrs Jenny Keating.  In the full knowledge of your offending and your periods of imprisonment,
Mrs Keating has remained by you.  It is apparent that you have led a lawful and somewhat productive life in that period.  You have done some good works and cared for others.  I was provided with references from your wife and three others which attest to the good that you have done in your local community.

51Nevertheless, as I have already pointed out, when you were interviewed in relation to these matters, it could not be said that you embraced your offending. This is especially so in the first interview of May 2016.  Nevertheless, I accept, by the time you were charged, you were fully cooperative and readily entered
a plea of guilty.  Whilst it may be viewed pragmatic, I also accept as an expression of remorse, the fact that you did not apply for bail at the committal mention when you entered a plea of guilty, but instead went into custody.  You have remained in custody since 6 December 2017.

52Finally, in this respect, I note that you have used your time in custody well and productively.  You wrote a letter of apology to the students you assaulted.  The letter was presented as an exhibit, but not read in court.  Rather, a copy of the letter was made available to those former students who wished to read it.  This course was adopted in order to respect their wishes.  Nevertheless, I consider this letter to be a further indication of the insight that you have gained into the wrongfulness of your offending.

53I should mention that the resolution of these matters does not see the end of your criminal charges.  You face further charges in Queensland.  I understand that some of those matters are contested.

54You were ably represented on your plea by Ms Fox of Queen's Counsel.  
Ms Fox made several principal submissions in respect to the appropriate sentencing principles.

55The plea of guilty was made at a very early time and should be accorded
a great deal of value.  The plea, it was submitted, should be taken not only to have utilitarian benefit, but as an indicator of remorse and acceptance of responsibility.  As such, it should be considered to facilitate the course of justice.

56I note that the Crown accepts that the early plea of guilty, the expressions of remorse and rehabilitation, all operate here to have some mitigating effect.  
I also accept that these factors operate to mitigate the sentence to be imposed upon you.

57It was submitted that the delay in this matter operates as a significant factor in mitigation, especially as there is evidence of substantial (if not complete) rehabilitation, your advancing age and the length of time since you last offended.

58I do not consider that the passage relied upon in submissions from the judgement of Maxwell P in the case of Merritt, Piggott & Ferrari is particularly apposite to your situation.  This was not a case where the investigation or prosecution were leisurely or dilatory.  In fact, both were conducted with alacrity. Rather, the delay here was caused by the secretive nature of your offending, from your use of your position and authority and that you offended against young boys.  In this way, you were the architect of the delay in the prosecution and in the finalisation of these matters.

59I am however prepared to recognise that you have used the last 25 or so years constructively and towards your rehabilitation. But I cannot entirely ignore the suffering of those you assaulted over that same period of time.

60Nor can you complain unduly about your advancing age in the face of the delay. Once again, you have had the benefit of a reasonably good life for many years, because you commanded the silence of your students.  The lives of those you abused have been afflicted for what should have been their best adult years.  In those circumstances, I do not consider that the submission that the delay in this case has put you in a more difficult position because of your age is made good.  I intend to take some account of your age, to ensure that the sentence
I impose is not crushing, nor that you necessarily must spend the rest of your remaining life in custody for these offences.

61Ms Fox made submissions that in light of your rehabilitation and that there has been no re-offending since 1981, specific deterrence has no role to play in the sentencing for these offences.  Ms Piekusis for the Crown, agrees with this.  
I have already outlined a number of matters in relation to these issues.  It is sufficient to say that I have confidence in your rehabilitation and I consider that you pose little to no risk of re-offending.

62Ms Fox submitted that I ought to have regard to the sentencing practices at the time of sentencing, to the extent that that is possible.  This arises, she submitted, because:

“It would be wrong for a prisoner to be sentenced to a substantially higher   sentence than an offender who committed like offences, at or about the        time of the offence in issue, simply because of the lapse of time”.

63Ms Fox was unable to provide me with any particular evidence as to sentencing practices at the time of your offending.  Rather, Ms Fox pointed to the sentence imposed by Judge Crossley in 1998 and to the maximum penalties for the offending at the time of your offending.  Of course, I must sentence you according to the maximum penalty that was available at the time of your offending, and not according to the increased maximum penalties which have subsequently come in.  I do not consider however that Judge Crossley’s sentence should act as some sort of precedent or fetter on the sentencing discretion that I must exercise.  In any event, I do not understand that that was the submission made by Ms Fox; rather, it was submitted that that earlier sentence may provide some light or indication on the sentencing practices at a time closer to the offending.

64I note that you were sentenced as a serious sexual offender on all but the first two counts in 1990 and that you fall to be sentenced as a serious sexual offender on this indictment.  It is not submitted by the Crown that this offending calls for the imposition of a disproportionate sentence.

65It was submitted that the principle of totality operates to moderate the individual sentences that I should impose in respect to this indictment.  Further it was submitted that as you were previously sentenced for offences arising from the same time period in circumstances in Queensland and Victoria, you have lost the opportunity for concurrency in Victoria, given the delay in these matters. You have also lost the opportunity to serve any single continuous prison sentence.

66Whilst the principle of totality must operate to ensure that the overall sentence that I impose for this offending is not crushing, I do not consider that your sentence should be particularly moderated for the fact that there has been
a delay in these matters coming to the attention of the court.  I have already outlined at length my conclusions in respect to the cause of the delay in this matter.  I consider those same considerations apply in respect to the submission made on your behalf.

67Ms Fox recognised that Charges 1 and 2 were laid as “course of conduct” charges.  She submitted, (correctly in my view) that where a course of conduct charge covers multiple offences, the maximum penalty remains a yardstick by which the gravity of the offending is to be assessed.  What this means is, that even where multiple offences occur, the sentencing judge cannot simply move to the maximum penalty that offence, especially in circumstances where there were significant mitigating factors.  I will bear this in mind in respect to both Charges 1 and 2.

68Charges 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 were representative charges.  Ms Fox submitted that a representative charge does not permit a disproportionate sentence to be imposed.  Rather, the effect is to put the sentence in context and it may operate to deny a measure of leniency that may have been afforded, if the offence was isolated. 

69Ultimately, Ms Fox submitted that it was open for this court to impose a partially suspended sentence in relation to your offending.

70Ms Piekusis submitted that the objective gravity of your offending is indeed high. It involved a breach of trust, an abuse of power and these were offences committed against young children.  Moreover, a number of the children you targeted were vulnerable, as they had difficulties at home and looked upon you as a confidant.  You committed these sexual assaults when you were between 28 and 35 years old, you are a teacher, a man and a religious figure.  
Ms Piekusis submitted that there was a fear of punishment and disbelief amongst those that you assaulted, which added to your confidence that this offending would remain secret.  In the case of Mr Fitzsimmons, it was submitted you assaulted him at home and at school, depriving him of safety in either place.

71Ms Piekusis identified individual aspects of your offending behaviour and submitted that your conduct was brazen and persistent, in circumstances where each person you assaulted was powerless.

72In the circumstances, it was submitted that your moral culpability is indeed high and that you understood at the time what you are doing was wrong.  The Crown submitted that general deterrence is the dominant sentencing principle, together with denunciation and just punishment.

73Ms Piekusis referred to the cases of Toomey, Morris, Lane, Buckley and Bales. I have read those cases and the principles set out in them by the Court of Appeal.  It was submitted that a partially suspended sentence was not within range.  Rather, that you ought be sentenced to a period of imprisonment, with a non-parole period being set.

74In the end, Mr Keating, I have concluded that the sentence I impose upon you should be a total effective sentence, with a non-parole period.

75Mr Keating, you may remain seated while I pronounce the sentences.

76On Charge 1, a count of indecent assault on a male, you are convicted and sentenced to two years' and six months' imprisonment.

77Ms Piekusis, is the order that Mr Keating be declared a serious offender made after the first, or with the first charge? 

78MS PIEKUSIS:  With the first charge, Your Honour.

79HIS HONOUR:  Thank you.

80I declare you to be a serious sex offender.

81On Charge 2, the charge of indecent assault on a male, you are convicted and sentenced to two years' and nine months' imprisonment.  I make that the base sentence and I first order a cumulation of seven months from Charge 1 on the base sentence. 

82On Charge 3, indecent assault on a male, you are convicted and sentenced to two years' imprisonment.  I order that three months of that sentence be cumulated on all other sentences.

83On Charge 4, indecent assault on a male, you are convicted and sentenced to two years' imprisonment.  I order that three months be cumulated.

84On Charge 5, indecent assault on a male, you are convicted and sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment.  I order that three months of that sentence be cumulated on the base and all other sentences.

85On Charge 6, indecent assault on a male, you are convicted and sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment.  I order that one month of that sentence be cumulated on all other sentences. 

86On Charge 7, indecent assault on a male, you are convicted and sentenced to one months' imprisonment.  That sentence is to be served concurrently with all other sentences. 

87On Charge 8, indecent assault on a male, you are convicted and sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment.  I order that two months of that sentence be cumulated.

88On Charge 9, indecent assault on a male, you are convicted and sentenced to ten months' imprisonment.  I order that two months of that sentence be cumulated.

89On Charge 10, indecent assault on a male, you are convicted and sentenced to ten months' imprisonment.  I order that two months of that sentence be cumulated.

90On Charge 11, indecent assault on a male, you are convicted and sentenced to 14 months' imprisonment and I order that four months of that sentence be cumulated. 

91On Charge 12, indecent assault on a male, you are convicted and sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment.  I cumulate two months of that sentence on all other sentences.

92On Charge 13, indecent assault on a male, you are convicted and sentenced to three months' imprisonment.  I cumulate one months of that sentence.

93The total effective sentence is five years' and three months' imprisonment. 

94I order that you serve three years before you are eligible for parole. 

95I take into account and declare that you have served 135 days pre-sentence detention, excluding today and reckon that period as already served. 

96I order that you be placed on the sex offender's registration list for life and there are consequences for that. 

97Noting that it is an entirely artificial exercise, the declaration I make is that all things being equal on this offending, but for the plea of guilty, I would have imposed a sentence of eight years, with five years and 11 months to serve. 

- - -