Director of Public Prosecutions v Laidlaw
[2023] VCC 1946
•20 October 2023
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA AT MELBOURNE CRIMINAL DIVISION | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
CR-23-00168
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| JOHN LAIDLAW |
---
JUDGE: | HER HONOUR JUDGE SYME | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 18 August 2023 | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 20 October 2023 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Laidlaw | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2023] VCC 1946 | |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Subject:CRIMINAL LAW
Catchwords: Indecent assault upon a male person – Indecent assault – Sexual penetration of a person aged between 16 and 18 – Institutional abuse – Christian Brothers Congregation – High objective seriousness – Plea of guilty – No remorse – Advanced age and ill health.
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1958 (Vic)
Cases Cited:Mill v R [1988] ALR 1.
Sentence: 7 years and 6 months imprisonment with a non-parole period of 3 years.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the DPP | Dr D. Gang | Ms M. Fitzpatrick |
| For the Accused | Mr J. Portelli | Mr J. Harris |
HER HONOUR:
1John Laidlaw, on 23 June 2023, you pleaded guilty to nine sexual offences which were committed between 1966 and 1990. They represent further offending in addition to that for which you were sentenced in July 2019.
2All of the offending involved young men and boys who were in your care when you were a teacher at a number of institutions run by the Christian Brothers Congregation, which I will call CBC from now on, and they were students.
3I have deidentified the complainants by adopting pseudonyms and a suppression order exists in relation to one complainant.
4The specific charges you have pleaded guilty to are as follows:
5Charge 1 – between May and December 1966 indecent assault against the person I will refer to by the name of Axel Boyer,[1] a male under the age of 16 years, contrary to s 68(3) of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) version dated 1 August 1966. The maximum penalty for this offence was 10 years' imprisonment.
[1] A pseudonym.
6Charge 2 – one charge of indecent assault against the person I will refer to by the name of Everett O’Neal[2] , a male under the age of 16 years contrary to s 68(3A) of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) dated 1 March 1973. The maximum penalty for this offence was five years.
[2] A pseudonym.
7Charge 3 – one charge of indecent assault against the person I will refer to by the name of Sebastian Carroll[3] contrary to s 44(1) of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) version dated 29 August 1984. The maximum penalty for this offence, at the time, was five years.
[3] A pseudonym.
8Charge 4 – one charge of sexual penetration with a person above the age of 16 but under the age of 18 against, again, the person I have referred to as Sebastian Carroll[4], contrary to s 49(1) of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) dated 29 August 1984. Your plea carries with it an acceptance by you that at the time, the complainant was under your care, supervision or authority. The maximum penalty for this offence was three years' imprisonment.
[4] A pseudonym.
9Charges 5 and 6 – two charges of indecent assault against the person I will refer to by the name of Kade Fowler[5] contrary to s 44(1) of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) dated 29 August 1984. The maximum penalty for each offence was five years' imprisonment.
[5] A pseudonym.
10Charge 7 – one charge of indecent assault against the person I will refer to by the name of Robbie Melton[6] contrary to s44(1) of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) dated 27 May 1987. The maximum penalty was five years' imprisonment.
[6] A pseudonym.
11Charges 8 and 9 – two charges of indecent assault against the person I will refer to by the name of Jasper Sullivan.[7] The maximum penalty was five years' imprisonment.
[7] A pseudonym.
12In addition to the sentences imposed today, you will be subject to additional registration requirements under the Sex Offenders Registration Act 2004 (Vic).
BACKGROUND
13You were born in 1939. You became a member of the Christian Brothers Congregation (CBC) in 1957 and remained so, apparently, until you were sentenced in 2019. You were aged between 27 and 51 years while you committed these and other offending for which you were previously sentenced. You are now 84 years old.
14The Christian Brothers Congregation (CBC) is a religious community within the Catholic Church which operated many institutions throughout Australia. These institutions included primary and secondary schools.
15After you completed your own schooling, you were trained to become a Christian Brother and teacher within that order. You were known as Brother John Sutherland Laidlaw and between 1960 and 1993, you worked as a teacher at about 15 different schools throughout Australia.
OFFENDING
16The prosecution opening contains full details of your offending. Those facts, I am told, are not in dispute.
17Between 1963 to 1990, while you were performing duties at various schools throughout Victoria, you abused your position and authority to commit sexual offending against many young male students.
18You were sentenced by His Honour Judge Berman in 2019 for offending against six students between 1963 and 1984. Those offences were committed in similar circumstances to the current offences. These matters are unrelated except that they were committed in similar circumstances.
Charge 1: Offending against Axel Boyer between 24 May – 16 December 1966
19Between 1963 and 1966 inclusive, you were a staff member at CBC College Warrnambool teaching students between Grade 3 and Year 12. Axel Boyer, who was born in September 1953, commenced at the school in 1966. He was approximately 13 years of age and a Form 1 (Year 7) student when he was indecently assaulted by you.
20You were one of his class teachers and his choir master. He was one of the main singers in the choir which would practise weekly. Towards the latter half of the school year, just before the annual school concert, you informed him that you had a singing exercise that would assist with nerves. You led Boyer and another student from the classroom to the changerooms of the Old Collegians Football Club.
21You instructed both boys to undress to their underwear, which they did. You also removed your outer clothing. You instructed Boyer to sing a high soprano note. He complied. You moved your hand inside his underwear and cupped his genitals with your hand, fondling them for a few seconds. You then removed your hand. You were apparently unconcerned that another child was present.
22You looked at the other boy who immediately objected. You instructed both boys to dress and return to the school grounds, which they did.
23Boyer was confused by your actions and was initially too scared to disclose to his parents what had occurred. He told his mother eventually. The following morning, she spoke to the Principal, Brother Williams. Following this meeting, Boyer has no recollection of you at the College. His mother explained to him that the incident had been sorted and that it would not occur again.
24You were transferred to St Joseph’s CBC in North Melbourne the next school year, indicating, at least to me, that the Order decided to solve the problem you presented by simply shifting your location.
25However, the child received birthday cards from you up until his 21st birthday - a period of seven years. These cards triggered a stress reaction in him, reminding him of the sexual abuse. This was a particularly selfish act by you and one which underlines your continuing lack of care for the harm you have caused.
26Boyer did not speak about the sexual abuse again until approximately 30 years later when he told his older brother, and then, police, in June 2019.
Charge 2: Offending against Everett O’Neal between 3 February 1974 – 16 December 1975
27St Kevin’s College is a Boy’s CBC in Toorak. The college taught boys between Grade 3 to Form 6 (Year 12). You were a staff member at the senior campus of the College on two occasions. The first time, between July 1973 and 1978 inclusive.
28Everett O’Neal was born in December 1960. At the commencement of Grade 6 in 1973, he transferred to St Kevin’s and remained there at the senior campus until partway through Form 6 in 1978.
29He was approximately 14 years of age and in Form 2 or 3 (Years 8 or 9) at St Kevin’s College in 1974, or 1975, when he was indecently assaulted by you.
30You coached the sporting teams. O’Neal normally had limited interaction with you.
31In either 1974 or 1975, at a school recess period during the cricket season, he was batting and another student was bowling at the nets. You were standing nearby when another student bowled the cricket ball which bounced high and struck O’Neal’s head.
32You approached him after he was struck. You instructed him to follow you to a sports pavilion, about 200 metres away. The pavilion contained a change room and a table which was used to massage or treat injuries.
33Once inside the pavilion, you instructed O’Neal to lay on the treatment table facing up, which he did. You approached, moved your hands to his head, and asked him how he was feeling. You moved your hands down the child’s body, asking him, at each point of his body, how that part ‘was’.
34You touched his head, chest, and stomach, and then moved your hands to his groin. You grabbed hold of his genitals, fondled them for a short time, and asked whether it felt ‘all right’. This continued until a noise outside prompted you to stop. O’Neal did not consent for you to touch him and there was no medical reason to do so.
35O’Neal was initially shocked and had a sense of disbelief, and was not sure how to process what you had done. It was not until about 20 years later that he eventually told a friend who had also been a student at St Kevin’s. He made a statement to police in June 2019.
Charges 3 & 4: Offending against Sebastian Carroll between 3 September – 18 December 1984
36Parade College is a Boy’s CBC in Bundoora that was run by CBC and taught boys between Forms 1 and 6 (Years 7 and 12). You were a staff member in 1984 and 1985.
37Sebastian Carroll was born in February 1968. He commenced his secondary education at Parade CBC, Bundoora, in 1980. He was in Form 1 (Year 7) aged 12. He left in Form 5 (Year 11) in 1984 when he was aged 16. It was at this age that he was indecently assaulted and sexually penetrated by you.
38In 1984, Carroll was involved in college sports. He was a member of the College’s First XI cricket team and the Victorian Schoolboys’ Cricket team. You were a coach of both teams, and as a result, he interacted with you throughout the whole of 1984 to January 1985.
39You had a practice of requiring all students to remove their shorts and underpants to shower after cricket practice or after any form of physical activity.
40There was also an expectation that all students be visible to you, purportedly so you could check that they washed themselves properly.
41The first occasion that Carroll was sexually assaulted by you was at the beginning of the cricket season in third term, while he was having a shower after cricket practice. As he was naked and showering, you approached him, put your arm under the running water, and provided the excuse that you were checking the temperature.
42You ran one hand across the boy's shoulder, down his back, while your other hand moved towards his groin and rubbed it across his exposed penis (Charge 3). It was a quick action. You moved away and walked to the next shower cubicle. This relates to Charge 3. Carroll was shocked. After this incident, he was careful, and tried to avoid you.
43However, you demanded Carroll participate in practice matches for the Victorian Schoolboys’ team where sessions were after school hours. Just prior to Christmas 1984, there was a practice game at the College oval. Carroll was the only student from Parade College. Upon completion of the game and after the other team members had left, you instructed Carroll to assist with packing up the equipment. Once this was completed, you directed him to shower, telling him he was ‘dirty and sweaty’ and that he would not be allowed into your car unless he did so.
44Carroll complied with your instructions. While he was showering, naked, in the communal area, you entered the shower stall. You were naked and stood directly in front of him.
45You placed your hands on either side of his shoulders pushing him down until he knelt in front of you. You placed one hand to his head, keeping the other hand on his shoulder. You pulled the boy’s head towards your exposed erect penis. The complainant understood that you wanted him to suck your penis, but he kept his mouth closed.
46You continued moving Carroll’s head in a back-and-forth motion towards your penis. The water was still running. On about the second or third time that you manoeuvred Carroll’s head towards your penis, his mouth opened, and you penetrated his mouth with your penis. You continued moving his head back and forth with your hands more times until you ejaculated into his mouth.
47After you ejaculated, you stepped away. Carroll spat the semen onto the ground and attempted to rinse his mouth out. You laughed, turned and walked away without speaking. Carroll was crying. He never gave you permission to sexually touch or orally penetrate him (Charge 4).
48After finishing washing himself, Carrol dried and dressed himself, and walked outside. You told him you would take him home and instructed him to sit in the front passenger seat of your vehicle, which he did.
49On the trip home, you told Carroll that what had happened in the shower was between you and he. You instructed him not to tell anybody. You threatened him that if he wanted to remain in the Victorian squad, then he should not speak about the incident.
50Carroll remained quiet and did not say anything. His family life was dysfunctional at the time, and he did not feel as though he had anyone to tell. Carroll decided to leave the College at the completion of Year 11 as a result of your actions. He was no longer a member of either the College or the State cricket teams.
51The offences against this student were distinct and separate events, both very serious.
CHARGES 5 & 6: Offending against Kade Fowler between 9 September – 10 October 1985
52Kade Fowler was born in January 1969. He commenced his secondary schooling at Parade College in 1981 in Form 1 and completed Form 6 (Year 12) in 1986, when he was aged 17. He was 16 years of age and a Year 11 student in 1985 when he was indecently assaulted by you.
53At the relevant time, the College was operated as described above by the CBC and you were a staff member during 1984 and 1985, while Fowler was in Forms 4 and 5 (Years 10 and 11).
54He was involved in the football team and was a middle-distance runner. The College competed annually in interschool sporting competitions involving other State Catholic Colleges. Leading up to this annual carnival, there was regular training for the competing students.
55In 1985, when Fowler was aged 16, he was to compete in the middle-distance running events. In the lead-up to this carnival, his training preparation was hampered due to a lower back/hip injury.
56Fowler informed you of his injury. You told him to meet you in the upstairs classroom during recess. At the arranged time, you were alone in the classroom with him.
57You told him you would help with the injury. You instructed him to unbutton his shirt. You approached him and moved your hands to his lower back, feeling around his lower back and hip area. After a short while, you instructed him to unbutton his school trousers. Fowler felt very uncomfortable but believed you were trying to help with his injury and did not question you because of your status as a Christian Brother. He complied.
58You slipped your fingers inside his underpants, moved them down and pressed both sides of his groin. You suggested the injury may have originated from there. While pressing his groin, you asked if the area was sore. The boy replied that it was not. He was feeling uncomfortable. Next, you placed your hands across the boy's testicles and began fondling them with your fingers. Fowler felt your skin on his skin and for a few seconds that remained. He was shocked. This is Charge 5.
59After a few seconds, you stopped and moved your hands to the complainant’s buttocks. You moved one of your fingers between his buttocks and slid it up towards his anus (Charge 6).
60As this occurred, the complainant stepped back to distance himself from you, out of your reach. Your hands were no longer inside his underwear. Fowler continued stepping back and at the same time, was pulling up his shorts and buttoning them up.
61He told you he was okay and that he was going to follow up with treatment from a physiotherapist and left the classroom.
62Fowler returned to his friends who were sitting in the school grounds. He immediately disclosed the incident, but never reported it to the authorities until he was an adult. He did not give you permission to touch or fondle his genitals or slide your fingers between his buttocks.
63These were two distinct events, committed within the same time frame.
Charge 7: Offending against Robbie Melton between 1 March – 12 April 1990
64Robbie Melton was born in December 1972. In 1985, aged 12 or 13, he commenced his secondary education in Year 7 at St Kevin’s College, Toorak. He remained there until he completed Year 12 in 1990, when he was 18 years old. He was approximately 17 years old when he was indecently assaulted by you.
65At the time Robbie Melton was a student, it was run by the CBC for boys between Grade 3 and Year 12. The second time you were a staff member was from January 1989 to December 1993 inclusive.
66You were actively involved in many of the school sporting activities and lived at the brothers’ residence on the campus. Melton’s only dealings with you were related to school sport, in which he was heavily involved. He was also a Year 12 student leader and counsellor.
67Melton, when aged 17 in 1990, was the College swimming captain. There was a weekend breakup party of the school swimming team at the school pool. The only people around at the school on this day were those involved in the swimming breakup party. Melton needed to leave the party early for his part-time employment, so he went to the closest changing facilities approximately 80 metres away from the pool area.
68He walked to the facilities, and showered, leaving on his speedos. After completing his shower, he was drying himself and in the process of dressing for work. He wrapped a towel around his waist and put on a t-shirt. He heard the door open and saw you enter and walk towards the urinals, looking into each toilet cubicle.
69You approached Melton and started up a conversation. He was feeling uncomfortable and began to step back away from you. You continued to approach until he could not step back further. He was literally cornered. Your behaviour was no doubt menacing for the young man.
70You reached out and grabbed his t-shirt and started tugging it down, each time pulling and stretching the t-shirt further down, down past his genitals. Eventually, you stretched the t-shirt right down and let go. The t-shirt flung up and in one swift movement, you reached out, grabbed the complainant’s towel, and pulled it off his body revealing his speedos.
71You looked down towards Melton’s genitals and commented that he still had his bathers on. Melton instantly pushed you away and gathered his belongings without getting changed and went back to the pool area where he met his father. The complainant never gave you permission to sexually touch him.
72He did not tell anybody about this incident at the time, nor did he communicate with you for the remainder of the year. He told police in March 2019.
Charges 8 & 9: Offending against Jasper Sullivan between 25 May – 11 August 1990
73Jasper Sullivan was born in February 1973. He attended St Kevin’s College Toorak between Forms 5 and 6 (Years 11 and 12) in 1989 and 1990. In 1990, he was 17 years of age and a Year 12 student at the College when he was digitally penetrated and indecently assaulted by you.
74As above, St Kevin’s College was operated by the CBC and catered for boys between Grade 3 to Form 6 (Year 12). You were a staff member at the senior campus of the College from July 1973 to December 1978 and then again, from January 1989 to December 1993 inclusive.
75Sullivan initially met you at the beginning of Form 5 (Year 11) when he was summoned to your office. You introduced yourself as a friend of one of his previous sporting coaches. You advised him that you were a volunteer at the Collingwood AFL Club.
76Football season was between May and August 1990. The complainant was very involved with Australian Rules football during his school years. He was captain of the College football team and trained with the Collingwood AFL team, for which he needed permission from the school.
77Sullivan’s dealings with you were through both the College and the Collingwood AFL. You were a regular at the school football training and matches.
78In June 1990, Sullivan badly injured his knee whilst training with the Collingwood AFL seniors. He was upset and felt his injury and lack of formal permission to train with Collingwood had negatively impacted on the College’s football season. He felt isolated within the school. He was on forearm crutches and found getting to and from school difficult. He was constantly getting into trouble for late attendance.
79On the day of the subject of this offending, he arrived at school late. He was standing in the vicinity of the canteen when you approached him and asked why he was not in class. Sullivan told you he was late at school and that he was avoiding being caught by the Form 6 coordinator.
80You instructed him to follow you and that you would assist him not to be caught. He was grateful and limped on his crutches alongside you as you entered through a door on the other side of the quadrangle. The room you had entered was long and narrow. Sullivan had never been there before and believed that it was a bedroom or private sitting room.
81You gave Sullivan a can of Coke from the bar fridge in the room. You asked him about his injured knee and asked to inspect his scar. You bent down and undid the complainant’s shoes, insisting that he stand and drop his trousers, giving the excuse that you wanted to inspect his leg and muscles to look for muscle withering. He was scared and accustomed to doing what he was told at school by teachers. He complied.
82You felt Sullivan’s calf muscle and in a pseudo-massage style, examined his leg muscles, commenting on muscle depletion. You felt his knee briefly and then moved your hand to his upper leg and inner thigh. You placed your hand across his groin and rubbed it against his testicles on the outside of his underwear (Charge 8).
83Sullivan was paralysed with fear. After a short time, you took your own trousers down to your ankles and insisted on showing him your scarred knee. You leaned across him, continually grabbed his muscles, and rubbed the back of your hand against his testicles on the outside of his underpants. You pulled him into you and attempted to place his arms around you. He did not return this attempted hug.
84You then slid your hands down the back and inside of Sullivan’s underpants and grabbed his buttocks. You cupped his buttocks with both of your hands, grabbing him firmly inside his underwear. You attempted to kiss the boy on the mouth, but he moved his head away, so the kiss connected on his cheek. Your firm grip on Sullivan’s buttocks caused him pain. He was in fear and panicked. You forced one of your fingers into his anus. This caused immediate pain (Charge 9).
85Sullivan immediately tensed and pushed back against you, resulting in you being unable to continue fingering his anus. He pulled up his trousers and put his shoes back on. He then limped out of the room on his crutches whilst also trying to do up his trousers. Sullivan did not give permission for you to sexually touch him.
86He felt sick and angry at what you did. The yard was full of students and it was in the middle of recess. He disclosed, in part, what had happened to a group of boys. Shortly after, you approached Sullivan wanting to speak to him. The other students within the vicinity immediately scattered.
87When Sullivan arrived home, he was still angry and told his sister what you had done and a few weeks later, he anonymously called a sexual assault 'phone-in' line and reported you. He complained to police in March 2021.
OBJECTIVE SERIOUSNESS
88All your offending is of a high level of objective seriousness.
89When assessing the objective seriousness of each offence, there are several aggravating features which all of the offending has in common, and I will refer to such matters globally.
90The breach of trust is the most significant aggravating feature. You breached the trust of the parents who entrusted you to keep their children safe at school and to educate them both in their academic or sporting pursuits, and in matters of morality and religion.
91You breached the trust of the children and the trust they had in you as they were placed under your authority. As their teacher, they were required to follow your directions and not question you. As a person who represented the religion chosen for them by their parents, you had a moral authority over them. They felt compelled to comply with your directions even when those directions made them very uncomfortable. You were aware of this trust, and I refer directly to paragraph 36 of the Candlish report which I will reference below.[8]
[8] Paragraph 36 of the Report prepared by Psychologist, Mr Simon Candlish, dated 25 June 2019.
92This two-fold breach of trust of the children and their parents is common to all of the charges, and, in effect, enabled you to commit them and, in most cases, be confident that you would not be apprehended or rebuffed. Even when a complaint was made to your superiors, no proper action was taken, and you were simply moved to another school. You continued to offend.
93For all these offences, the child was taken to or located in a secluded part of the school, making them even more vulnerable and unable to seek assistance. They had little option but to do as you required.
94For each offence, there was a vast difference in age between you and the child, thus highlighting the already existing power imbalance. For those offences where the victim’s age is not an element of the offence charged, the youthful age of the victims is an aggravating feature of the offending.
95In most cases, the touching or penetration was completed in a short time frame. However, this was usually due to the complainant pulling away or being interrupted by some other intervention. Where the event was of longer duration, such as Charges 4 and 9, the offending event is more serious.
96Where you required the children to partially undress or where you undressed yourself, the event was even more confronting and therefore, more serious. This is relevant to many of the offences.
97Where your actions caused physical pain, such as Charges 6 and 9, the objective seriousness is greater. The complainant in Charge 9 was physically incapacitated, therefore, even more vulnerable.
98The events in Charge 4 are particularly serious. The penetration of the child’s mouth with your penis and then ejaculating into his mouth was no doubt a very confronting act. This offending was accompanied by a threat not to tell which further increases the objective seriousness.
99I have assessed the objective seriousness of each offence considering the circumstances of your behaviour and the circumstances of your victims. The maximum penalties relevant at the time of your offending is a guide to the sentencing process.
100It was seemingly suggested by counsel for the prosecution that the fact that some of your offending would now be differently defined and result in different charges being laid with far greater maximum penalties is a relevant consideration. I want to make it quite clear that it is not.
101Obviously, I am required to use the maximum penalties which then existed and the sentencing practices, as far as I am aware of them, as a guide to my sentencing considerations now, considering the objective seriousness of each offence and the offending as a whole as part of the instinctive process.
VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENTS
102The court is aware of the debilitating consequences of such offending for victims and their families. Some of you would no doubt wish to call yourselves survivors.
103Each of the victims or their families have provided information detailing not only the immediate consequences of your criminal actions, but how your behaviour, committed as it was when they were in their formative years of their moral, sexual and emotional development, has impacted and continues to impact, their welfare.
104Your actions continue to result in ongoing anguish to some extent for each of them, decades after your offending. Depression, anxiety, lack of trust and feelings of guilt have been experienced to a greater or lesser extent by each of the victims or survivors.
105In turn, their families have had to bear an extra burden of supporting and helping them through their troubled times, often not knowing until recently the root cause of their lifelong struggles.
106I doubt that this proceeding today will bring them much relief.
107I simply say to each of the survivors and their families that you have been heard and your struggles have been considered. Sadly, the consequences of offending such as this are known to be the common results of such offending.
PERSONAL CIRCUMSTANCES AND BACKGROUND
108Information about your personal background was presented to the court in the form of a report by psychologist Simon Candlish which dated 25 June 2019. This report was available to His Honour Judge Berman for the previous sentence proceedings. Judge Berman noted at paragraph 72 of his judgment some dishonesty in parts of that self-report, particularly, your acceptance of responsibility for that offending. I also note that inconsistency with your plea to the current matters. It is noted that in 2019, psychometric testing suggested that your profile was consistent with a person who was aware of their shortcomings but wished to appear socially acceptable.
109I do not disagree with any of His Honour Judge Berman’s observations of your personality, your probable hebephiliac presentation, and your entirely selfish personal sexual gratification which drove all of your offending.
110You gave no further information for the current sentence proceedings. Insofar as is relevant to this sentence, it is noted that the Candlish report, in general terms, documents a nurturing home environment in which you were not exposed to any violence or abuse. You report no mental health difficulties throughout your life.
111You excelled academically and attended a prestigious boarding school. Your view about developing misshapen views of sexuality at that school, by which you apparently seek to explain your current offending, is not particularly helpful. Mr Candlish did not observe it to be particularly relevant.
112Your counsel does not suggest that there are any features of your background which impact on your moral culpability for the offending.
113Your current position is more complex. Your current medical condition impacts on your welfare in general. You are now 84 years of age. Your counsel submitted that because of your ill health, including a 2015 diagnosis of Parkinson’s disease, your time in custody will be more burdensome. No further information was proffered. It was not suggested that you are not receiving appropriate medical care. I accept that your physical health is significantly compromised. Any humane observer will accept that this extended time in custody will therefore be difficult.
114I am told that when able, you have contributed to prison life and have kept yourself appropriately occupied. Your counsel suggests that you accept your time in custody will be extended.
REMORSE
115Sometimes, a plea of guilty can be evidence of remorse. It is not the case for you, but that factor does not increase the seriousness of the offending. Specific deterrence is not a relevant sentence consideration given your age and the sentence to be imposed.
116In 2019, psychologist Mr Candlish opined that your view of the offending during the time relevant to both sets of offences was that the children were not harmed by your offending and that you were entitled to act in a sexual way toward them. There is no information to suggest that this view has altered over time.
117The prosecution opening contains information that in relation to complainant Carroll, at a time after the offending, you masturbated in his presence. This is uncharged, but relevant to your later claim to Mr Candlish that you were not attracted to children as 'sex objects'. This self-report and your denial of ever engaging in sexual penetration (per paragraphs 32-39 of the Candlish report) is clearly not true.
118Despite significant offending over many years, with now 12 boys, you adopt that position that you are somehow innocent of predatory sexual behaviour. This view is simply unsustainable, but you appeared to maintain it, notwithstanding information that in 1996, you underwent a form of counselling in the United States which was apparently aimed at addressing such sexual activity.
119I have no information that your view has altered over the years. You did not express any insight into the consequences of your offending in 2019 and I have no updated information, apart from that which was submitted by counsel.
120I observe that in 1973, a document called a 'Visitation Report' was prepared by CBC supervisors. It commented directly on you, stating that you were 'psychologically unfit for the job'. This was in reference to 'improper conduct' with senior boys. Much of the report that I received was redacted, however, it is obvious to any objective observer that the CBC was aware of at least two occasions of your sexual misbehaviour in that time frame.
121It is further reported that prior to 1973, those in charge of the CBC at Ballarat were aware of what they referred to as 'indiscretions' by you toward two senior boys, separately. The report states that these events had been reported to the superior. It is not possible to ascertain if this report relates to any matter before the court now or previously. Neither Judge Berman’s matters, nor any matter before me, relate to Ballarat matters.
122The only possible conclusion to draw from the evidence before the court is that you were spoken to about your unacceptable behaviour sometime in 1973. You continued to commit more criminal offences against vulnerable boys for a further 17 years. For reasons best known to CBC, no effort was made to assist those who had suffered your misbehaviour to go to the police, and you were simply transferred to different schools. Your offending continued. You have not expressed any remorse for your offending. I do not know if those who failed to stop you have accepted responsibility.
123I make this observation neither to justify or increase the assessment of the objective seriousness of the offending nor to apportion blame to the CBC. That is not my purpose. I make these observations to address the contents of some the Victim Impact Statements which express regret, and even feelings of guilt, for not standing up to you and/or not reporting criminal activity to the authorities in time to stop you offending against others.
124It is obvious on any reading of the heavily redacted 1973 visitation report that your behaviour was well known in the CBC community, and well known by those in authority. Not only was nothing done by them to support the victims of your behaviour, active steps were taken to 'shift you on' to different schools where, unsurprisingly, you offended again.
125My purpose of observing this is because it is wrong that the victims of your offending blame themselves and place responsibility on themselves for your continued offending. The responsibility was yours, and not theirs.
SENTENCING CONSIDERATIONS
Delay
126There was a very long delay between these offences occurring and the sentence I impose today. For most of those years, the complainants or victims or survivors lived their lives haunted by the humiliation of your offending and the gross breach of trust which accompanied it. The consequences for the victims are acknowledged above.
127You, on the other hand, have enjoyed years during and since the offending untroubled by it, pursuing a life fulfilled by teaching, travelling, and fulfilling employment.
128As observed by His Honour Judge Berman, you were the architect of this delay. The power and authority you held over each victim ensured no complaints were made. Such was your position and apparently, your confidence, that the Christian Brotherhood would not see fit to expose your behaviour; that you always thought you were safe from the legal consequences of your offending. I observe the obvious, that this behaviour was criminal then, as it is now.
Serious offender
129As a result of these convictions, the court must record the fact that you are to be sentenced as a 'serious offender'. Accordingly, the court must regard the protection of the community as the principal sentencing purpose. In the context of these sentences, the prosecution does not seek a disproportionate sentence, nor does it seek a full accumulation of the individual sentences to be imposed. I acknowledge, however, that the principle of totality is one of less significance when sentencing a serious offender, such as in your case.
130On the other hand, your age, ill health and sex offender registration are suggested to reduce your risk of reoffending.
131
Plea
132It is observed from the chronology filed by the prosecution that the complaints in these matters were made and investigated shortly after you indicated a plea of guilty to the charges for which you were sentenced in July 2019. The charges on the current indictment were not laid until June 2022.
133Due to the committal process in February 2023, all victims were subject to cross examination. A trial date was listed in this court to commence in June of this year. You entered a plea as the trial was due to commence.
134It is not submitted that the plea was made at the first available opportunity. However, you are entitled to a modest discount on the individual sentences imposed to acknowledge the assistance in general to the administration of justice and that the witnesses were not required to be called a second time.
Totality
135The first consideration in totality is your other criminal offending. As above, it is noted that on 3 July 2019, you were sentenced by His Honour Judge Berman in relation to a series of similar offences against six different victims at four CBC institutions where you were employed as a staff member. Those offences were committed between 1963 and July 1984. You have no other criminal record.
136In relation to that offending, the Candlish report, at paragraph 100, observed as follows:
Since the mid-1980s, Mr Laidlaw has been effective in managing this interest (in reference to sexual interest in children) to ensure he has limited his contact with children and has not engaged with any further inappropriate contact. It is also clear that Mr Laidlaw has displayed self-control and self-awareness which has assisted him to manage risk effectively in the past and this appears likely in the future.
137This finding is obviously based on inaccurate information. The sentence that I am dealing with relates to four victims of your behaviour after July 1984.
138You are not entitled to any good character consideration on your sentence. You have committed offences in total over a 24 year period. I note no further offending is reported after 1990, but this is of minor benefit.
139In July 2019, you were sentenced to a total term of four years and six months with a non-parole period of three years and two months. You have been in custody since 3 of July 2019. You became eligible for parole on 6 of July 2022, allowing apparently for COVID emergency management days.
140You have remained in custody pending these matters, due to an expectation of further imprisonment for these matters. The delay in bringing these matters to conclusion entitles you to some benefit in the calculation of the ratio of non-parole-period to total term.
141Section 6E of the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) presumes accumulation when imposing sentences for this type of offending. The relevant provision of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1985 (Vic) was in similar terms.
142This offending occurred, in part, in the same time frame as previously sentenced offending.
143It is noted that His Honour Judge Berman gave you some credit for as he found no offending after 1984. Most of the current offences were committed after 1984. Notwithstanding that, the principle of totality requires that the overall sentence to be imposed remains appropriate for the whole of your offending, and that is the whole of your offending from 1963 to 1990.
144The case of Mill v R [1988] ALR 1 can be instructive at the approach to be taken in fairness to you. This court ought ask itself what the appropriate head sentence would have been had this offending been sentenced at the same time as the previous offending. This may have an ameliorating effect on the head sentence and will certainly affect the non-parole to parole ratio.
PURPOSES OF SENTENCING
145Section 5 of the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) is relevant, and I accept that each of the listed purposes of sentencing are relevant even though they sometimes pull in opposite directions.
146Additionally, I am required to consider the sentencing practices relevant at the time of your offending. Neither party provided me with any such information. As noted above, the fact that most of the offending, if it occurred now, would yield greater maximum penalties is not in the slightest bit relevant to my current considerations.
147As it is likely that you will be in custody for much of the remainder of your life, and you will not be permitted contact with children upon any possible release, your risk of reoffending is very much limited. General deterrence, denunciation and recognition of the harms caused to your victims are important sentencing considerations for the imposition of a just sentence.
SENTENCE
148I now sentence you as follows:
149On Charge 1, I sentence you to a term of three years' imprisonment. This will be the base sentence.
150On Charge 2, I sentence you to a term of imprisonment of two years. Six months of this sentence is to accumulate on the base sentence.
151On Charge 3, I sentence you to two years and six months' (that is 30 months) imprisonment. This sentence will accumulate six months on the base.
152On Charge 4, I sentence you to two years and six months' imprisonment. Eighteen months of this sentence is to accumulate on the base.
153On Charge 5, I sentence you to two years and three months' imprisonment. Six months of this sentence is to accumulate on the base.
154On Charge 6, I sentence you to two years' imprisonment. Three months of this sentence is to accumulate on the base sentence.
155On Charge 7, I sentence you to 18 months' imprisonment. Six months of this sentence is to accumulate on the base.
156On Charge 8, I sentence you to two years' imprisonment. Six months of this sentence is to accumulate on the base sentence.
157On Charge 9, I sentence you to two years and six months' imprisonment. Three months of this sentence is to accumulate on the base sentence.
158The total effective sentence is seven years and six months' imprisonment. I fix a non-parole period of three years. This sentence will commence today. There is no effective pre-sentence detention.
159By way of explanation, you have been in custody effectively since 3 July 2019, a period now of four years three months and about two weeks. The total effective term of all of your offending is therefore, taking into account what I have sentenced today, 11 years, nine months and two weeks.
160This and the fact that you were eligible to apply for parole in July of 2022 has been considered in fixing the non-parole period. I set a non-parole period that is considerably more generous than would normally apply. That non-parole period will commence today, but in calculating it I have taken into account the time you have served both in the previous non-parole period and after that date expired.
161Pursuant to s 6AAA of the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic), had it not been for your pleas of guilty, I would have sentenced you to a term of imprisonment of 10 years and nine months' duration with a non-parole period of five years.
162Under the provisions of the Sex Offenders Registration Act, a further registration notice is required and hereby made. Dr Gang, is there anything further?
163DR GANG: No, thank you, Your Honour.
164HER HONOUR: Mr Portelli, is there anything further?
165MR PORTELLI: No, thank you, Your Honour.
166HER HONOUR: If there any questions about the particular sentences, the accumulations, my associate has all of those printed out. Mr Portelli, do you require, after we have cleared the courtroom, some private time to speak to your client?
167MR PORTELLI: Yes, thank you, Your Honour.
168HER HONOUR: We can arrange that for you, all right. We will now adjourn. I will ask that the court be cleared and as soon as that is done and my staff have finished what they have to do, I will allow Mr Portelli some private time to speak directly to his client.
169Mr Portelli, the sex offender's registration will be signed by me in a minute and forwarded directly to your client at Hopkins.
170MR PORTELLI: Understood. Thank you, Your Honour.
171HER HONOUR: Thank you, counsel, for your submissions.
---
0
0
0