Director of Public Prosecutions v Mantor (a pseudonym)
[2025] VCC 894
•27 June 2025
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA AT MELBOURNE CRIMINAL DIVISION | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| VANCE MANTOR (A PSEUDONYM) |
---
JUDGE: | HIS HONOUR JUDGE DOYLE | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 7 April 2025, 12 June 2025 | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 27 June 2025 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Mantor (a pseudonym) | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2025] VCC 894 | |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Subject:CRIMINAL LAW - Sentence
Catchwords: Guilty by jury verdict - Indecent act with or in the presence of a child under the age of 16 years - Attempted indecent act - Attempted sexual penetration of a child under 16 – Offender aged between 15 – 18 years old at the time of offences – Victim is the offender’s niece - Degree of coercion – unstable upbringing – Currently the carer of this father – Diagnosed with cancer after being charged – Undergoing chemotherapy – Offender’s age at the time of the offending – Delay – Verdins limbs 5 and 6 enlivened.
Legislation Cited: Sentencing Act 1991; Crimes Act1958; Sex Offenders Registration Act2004.
Cases Cited:Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; 249 CLR 571; R v Verdins [2007] VSCA 102; Alec (a pseudonym) v The King [2023] VSCA 208; DPP v Smith [2023] VSCA 294; R v Boland [2007] VSCA 242; R v Nutter [1995] Unreported 8 November 1995 (Charles and Callaway, JJA and Vincent, AJA); R v Better [2003] VSCA 71; Whitecroft (a pseudonym) v R [2025] VSCA 143; DPP v Rootsey [2018] VSCA 108; Sherritt v R [2015] VSCA 1; R v Mills [1998] 4 VR 235; Azzopardi v The Queen [2011] VSCA 372; Boulton v The Queen [2014] VSCA 342.
Sentence: Total Effective Sentence of 14 months’ imprisonment with a two year Community Corrections Order.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the DPP | Ms B. Goding | Solicitor for the Office of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused | Ms A. Burnnard | Dribbin & Brown Criminal Lawyers |
HIS HONOUR:
1Vance Mantor,[1] on 22 June 2023, you were found guilty by unanimous jury verdict of Charge 1, indecent act with or in the presence of a child under the age of 16 years. You were found guilty by a majority jury verdict of Charges 2, 5, 6 and 8, indecent act with or in the presence of a child under the age of 16; and Charge 7 attempted indecent act; and Charge 9, attempted sexual penetration of a child under 16. The jury were hung on the balance of the charges which were ultimately discontinued on 13 December 2024.
[1] A pseudonym.
2
The maximum penalties are as follows: indecent act with a child under the age of 16 - 10 years' imprisonment; sexual penetration of a child under the age of 16 - 10 years' imprisonment; attempted indecent act with a child - 5 years' imprisonment; attempted sexual penetration of a child under the age of 16 - 20 years' imprisonment where the court is satisfied the complainant was under
12 at the time of the offending. There is no issue with that in this case.
3You were born on in April 1997.
4The victim in this case is Kate Stiener.[2] You are the victim's maternal uncle. The victim's mother, Ms Emma Stiener,[3] is your eldest sister. The offending occurred when the victim was aged between approximately five and nine years old.
[2] A pseudonym.
[3] A pseudonym.
The offending
5The facts of the offending are based on the victim's VARE interview. The prosecution summarised the trial evidence of the facts on which the jury verdict was based, which were not the subject of any argument on the plea. The victim made her VARE at the Knox SOCIT on 28 May 2018.
6In the VARE, she told police you had been committing sexual offences against her since she was four or five years old. She said this offending commenced at her grandmother's old house in Dandenong when you approached her and said to her 'I need to show you something'. She said you then asked her to follow you into the bedroom, where you showed her pornographic material on sites such as 'xnxx.com'. The prosecution relied on this as an uncharged act in the trial. For the purposes of sentencing in this case, it is part of the context in which the subsequent charged acts took place.
Charged acts
7Between 31 May 2012 and 3 March 2014, when you were aged between 15 and 16, you and the victim were at her grandmother's house in Dandenong. She was often at this address, as were other family members. She sat next to you while you played video games. You touched her leg, moving your hand up and placing it on her vagina, over her clothes, for approximately 10 to 15 seconds. She then moved away. (This is the basis of Charge 1 – Indecent act with or in the presence of a child under the age of 16).
8During that same period, on another occasion when you and the victim were at the Dandenong address, she was sitting in your room. You came over to the bed, pulled her pants down and licked her vagina for two seconds. She then pushed you away.
9Between 29 October 2015 and 30 June 2017, at a house on Fintonia Road, Noble Park, she was in your bedroom, watching you play video games. You pulled down your pants and underwear to expose your penis. You asked her to put her hand on your penis. She refused. You attempted to encourage her, saying 'do this, it’s really easy' and 'come on, Rebecca used to do it'. You grabbed her hand, placing it on your penis and moved her hand up and down. (This is the basis for Charge 5 – Indecent act with or in the presence of a child under the age of 16).
10During this period, another incident occurred at the Noble Park address when she was again watching you play video games in your room. You told her you had forgotten something at your 'aunties' house, a different building at the same address. You took her into an alleyway in the backyard and exposed your penis to her. You placed her hand on your penis and moved it up and down for approximately 30 seconds to one minute. (This is the basis of Charge 6 – Indecent act with or in the presence of a child under the age of 16).).
11On another occasion at the Noble Park address she was sitting on the corner of your bed. You said your leg was hurting. You moved towards her and pulled your pants down. You attempted to put your mouth onto her vagina, but she stood up and left the room to watch television in a separate room. (This is the basis for Charge 7). You later asked her to come back into your room. You pulled your penis out of your underwear and placed her hands on your exposed penis. (This is the basis for Charge 8). You told her to put your penis in her mouth, telling her to 'try, try, try', pushing her head towards your penis. She did not want to, pulling her head away and feeling like she was going to throw up. You let her go.
Arrest and interview
12The VARE of the victim was made when she was 10 years old in 2018.
13On 31 May 2018, you were arrested at your home address on Chandler Road in Noble Park. You were interviewed at Dandenong police station. You denied the allegations. A further record of interview was conducted on 17 July 2019 where you again denied all allegations.
Victim Impact Statements
14Multiple Victim Impact Statements were tendered, and many were read out in Court. It is apparent from those statements that the impact of your offending has been substantial, wide ranging and is ongoing. I will briefly summarise those statements.
15The victim has suffered significantly due to your offences. She stated that she experiences night terrors and panic attacks. She describes the effects of the offending on her life as 'irreversible'. She has struggled with the feeling that the offending was her fault, and that she did not understand at the time that you had groomed her. She says you led her to believe the attention you gave her was normal and this gave her a sense of belonging. She says this affected her social interactions with other groups at school, trying to fit in and just belong.
16She says her relationships have been deeply impacted by your offending. She has built walls around herself. She struggles with anxiety. She says even now as a teenage girl she shuts down when boys try to speak to her because she does not trust anyone.
17She says the prolonged court proceedings have had a massive impact on her life. She says her whole life has been overshadowed by the effects of the abuse and the ongoing court process. Talking about her abuse brought it back to her over and over.
18She says she is slowly learning to trust again, and she says what you did will not define her.
19She also says that the impact of the offending and the Court process has affected her studies, and she was not able to achieve in VCE what she had hoped, and in the end, she completed an unscored VCE.
20The victim's father speaks of the betrayal he feels by you, someone he trusted to protect the victim. He speaks of the impacts of your offending on his marriage and his home, which he had to leave due to no longer feeling safe. He expresses feelings of guilt, anger, and grief, but also strength for his daughter.
21The victim's mother and your sister, speaks of the devastation to her family, of her daughter's suffering and describing it as 'the most agonising experience of [her] life'. She speaks of the impact on her marriage, which suffered, as well as having to move house, change schools, and discontinuing her psychology degree. She states that the joyful memories between the two of you have been replaced with unbearable sadness. Your offences are a weight she carries every day.
22Your sister, Ashlee Mantor,[4] says when she was told about your offending by Emma Stiener, she 'broke'. She describes feelings of 'deep sadness, anger, and shock'. She says you broke her trust, as her brother, and now she mourns the brother she once loved and trusted.
[4] A pseudonym.
23Jena Marlin,[5] another sister of yours, expressed her deep sorrow for the loss of innocence of her niece, and the loss of the brother she grew up with. She describes the hurt this has caused for her and her family, stating that the victim was 'betrayed by one of our own'.
[5] A pseudonym.
24Your mother describes her pain as 'unimaginable'’ and the shame of her son committing such an offence as 'unbearable'. She speaks of the journey ahead for your family to rebuild and support the victim from the effects of this offence. She now struggles to trust and trust in the family unit'.
Gravity
25The maximum penalties, which I have outlined, reflect the seriousness of the offences in this case. The community rightly regards sexual offending against children as abhorrent and ordinarily a substantial sentence of imprisonment with a non-parole period would be the outcome, particularly where the mitigatory benefits of a plea of guilty such as remorse, closure to the victim, and avoiding the need for her to give evidence are not present.
26Such offending causes enormous emotional and psychological harm to victims and that is evident in the Victim Impact Statement of Ms Stiener in this matter. The impacts of your offending have been multi-facetted, and substantial for the victim and many people in your extended family; and they inform the need of the sentences to reflect just punishment. The impact of your offending is an important matter in deciding the appropriate sentences but, of course, it must not swamp all the other relevant matters related to sentencing in this case.
27Sexual offences are generally considered the more serious the younger the age of the victim. In this matter the victim was very young, just five years old, when the offending started. The offending period covers three to four years. The age gap between you and the victim is 10 years.
28This offending involved a very significant breach of trust. You were the victim's uncle, and you were allowed to be alone with her, a small child, because you were a family member. You breached this trust by persistently committing serious sexual acts against her.
29The offences involved a degree of coercion which is apparent from the summaries of the charged acts. This is an aggravating factor, and it is relevant to your moral culpability. You also warned the victim that if she told anyone she would be in trouble with police and the family. This reflects your understanding of the wrongfulness of your conduct by demonstrating your desire to avoid detection; and those warnings ensured the victim's silence which allowed you to continue offending against her throughout the charged period.
30The offending occurred over years and on several occasions. This was, as submitted by the prosecution, recurrent offending. The prosecution further submitted that in line with the sentencing authorities the offending became progressively more serious and your moral culpability more substantial as it continued. I accept this submission.
31The acts themselves were serious examples of indecent acts against a child, including making the victim put her hands on your penis (Charges 8, 5 and 6), trying to put your mouth on her vagina (Charge 7), and licking her vagina (Charge 2). There was also the attempt to have her perform oral sex on you. These were degrading and nasty acts perpetrated on a young child. You were young yourself but you were 10 years older so you should have had a protective attitude towards her, but instead you sought to groom her and use her for your sexual gratification.
Age at the time of the offences
32Your counsel, Ms Burnnard, submitted, and it is not in dispute, that you were between 15 and 16 when Charges 1 and 2 were committed. You were, therefore, a child in the eyes of the law at the time of the commission of those offences. Based on the date range in the indictment, Charges 5 through to 9 occurred when you were between the ages of 18 and 20. Ms Burnnard submitted the trial evidence suggests that you were closer to 18, and that I should accept this on the balance of probabilities. You turned 18 in April 2015. In your record of interview, you said you were living at Fintonia Road in Noble Park when you turned 18. Fintonia Road was the location of Charges 5 to 9. The evidence is that you graduated from high school at a different address in Kidds Road.
33At the trial, the victim agreed that after living at Fintonia Road, you lived in Werribee in approximately 2016, and then you moved to live with your father in Chandler Road, Noble Park, around January 2017. You turned 19 in April 2016, and 20 in April 2017. A payslip from October 2016 shows that you were living in Werribee by that time.
34Based on that submission and the trial evidence, I accept on the balance of probabilities you were more likely 18 years old at the time of the offences covered by Charges 5 to 9. I will return to the importance of your age at the time of the offending to sentencing in this case.
Procedural history
35You were charged with these offences on 18 January 2021, approximately 18 months after your second record of interview. That is a not insubstantial gap, that I take into account in assessing delay in this matter. This matter was first listed for trial on 18 July 2022 but was adjourned to 13 February 2023, due to prosecution counsel testing positive for COVID, and there were other issues with your representation.
36Eventually your trial proceeded on 13 June 2023, with partial verdicts delivered on 22 June 2023. I then remanded you in custody and a further trial date was fixed for 13 November 2023, on the balance of the charges on which the jury had not returned a verdict.
37The trial was adjourned to February 2024, and later again adjourned due to the decision of the Court of Appeal in DPP v Smith[6]. Prior to the June 2023 trial in this matter, in accordance with the recommendation of the intermediary, I attended at the child witness service with prosecuting and defence counsel to speak briefly with the complainant. That was prior to a short further special hearing. Following on from the decision in Alec[7], the Court of Appeal in Smith decided this was impermissible. I granted you bail on 8 December 2023 on the basis that, at that time, you had an unassailable appeal point but the High Court overruled the Court of Appeal's decision in Smith. All of that time the trial was held in abeyance until the High Court delivered its decision.
[6][2023] VSCA 294.
[7][2023] VSCA 208.
38Once the High Court decision was delivered on 13 December 2024, the remaining charges were discontinued by the prosecution. The plea was heard on 7 April 2025 and then adjourned by me for further information to be provided in respect of treatment for your health condition in custody; and, so that Pamela Matthews, psychologist, could be called to give evidence; and, for an extended pre-sentence community corrections order report to be provided.
39That these offences took place nearly a decade ago is not unusual in sexual offences where it routinely takes victims years before they are able to report the offending they were subjected to. Further, the victim was a young child at the time of the offences, and you told her not to tell anyone, so it is hardly surprising the matters did not immediately come to light. In any case, the matter was reported in 2018, which is not a lengthy period after the last of the offences. Nonetheless I am dealing with you for offences committed now nearly a decade ago.
Time in custody
40You were in custody between 26 June and 8 December 2023. You were assaulted by another prisoner in July 2023, and you were moved into protection at Hopkins and then transferred to Ravenhall prison
41I am told and I accept that in custody you gained weight and suffered rectal bleeding due to abruptly stopping the use of steroids prescribed to you for a medical condition. You also had other health issues including weakness in your left arm which was later found to be related to a cancer diagnosis.
Personal history
42Your personal history is set out in the psychological report from Pamela Matthews, the defence written submissions and again in the CCO assessment report that I requested. Not unusually, you are the source of the information on which these accounts of your upbringing are based. Another source of information was your record of interview. Some of what you said about your upbringing is not accepted by the prosecution.
43You were born in Queensland, moving to Victoria when you were a toddler. You were raised by your mother and father. You were the second youngest of six siblings. Your father owned a car wrecking yard, and your mother was a homemaker and an aged care worker.
44You say, and this much I accept, that your childhood was unstable and crowded and you regularly moved house, having to accommodate extended family. You went to three different primary schools.
45There was conflict between your mother and father which you say became more volatile over the years, and they divorced when you were a teenager. That I accept. You say you witnessed multiple violent acts from your mother on various family members.
46You say you were exposed to drugs and alcohol at an early age. Your father's excessive alcohol consumption increased when you were 14 years old. You claim your mother began dealing heroin after suffering a back injury, which meant she could no longer work in aged care. This is disputed and I have heard no evidence about this. In the circumstances, I cannot act on this assertion.
47You also say you were exposed to pornography and discussions about sex at the dinner table.
48You say that for a time you were left in the care of your brother and sister, when your mother left home, leaving you and at one point you were left by yourself.
49You had trouble in school, experiencing severe bullying between Grade 2 to Grade 5, before moving to Carwatha College, where you stayed until the completion of Year 12. After graduation, you worked at McDonald's in Noble Park for 18 months. You then completed a two-year electrical apprenticeship. You have had various other roles, including another two years at McDonald's. You enrolled in a game development and design course at Chisolm TAFE, but you dropped out after a year, because it required a Working with Children Check.
50Since 2018, you have been caring for your father. He has multiple medical conditions, and you assist him with his daily tasks. Whilst you were in custody, you undertook courses including traffic control and a bakery course. You receive a carer's pension on a fortnightly basis, and you have recently lodged an NDIS application due to your cervical spinal cord tumour.
51Most recently, you undertook a course in game development, and you were designing a game before your radiotherapy.
52You have had two significant relationships, the first in 2016 which ended when the charges in this matter came to light, and you were interviewed by police. The second relationship began in 2022 and lasted four months but finished when your partner moved overseas.
53Several character references were provided.
54Una Mallet,[8] a friend of yours, provided a character reference. She talks about the passion you demonstrate for game development and her support for you.
[8] A pseudonym.
55Another friend, Jamie Selvin,[9] speaks about her positive interactions with you over the last six years. She has observed you wanting to study and improve your life.
[9] A pseudonym.
56Daniel Walton[10] refers to your close friendship, and says you are 'responsible, reliable, and compassionate'.
[10] A pseudonym.
57Your father, who has an ulcer, describes your perseverance to care for him, despite the physical pain it causes you with your own medical issues. Your father relies heavily upon you for his health and finances and struggled when you were remanded in custody in June 2023.
Health
58In mid-2024, you were diagnosed with a cancer of the cervical spinal cord. This diagnosis was confirmed by surgery which took place on 31 July 2024. In November 2024, radiotherapy was scheduled but was postponed pending a further surgical opinion. In January/February 2025, you underwent 28 sessions of radiation therapy. Due to the position of your tumour on your spine, removal of the tumour operatively is not possible because of the likelihood of a catastrophic outcome. On 14 April 2025, you commenced the first of 12 chemotherapy cycles. Your chemotherapy involves five days of treatment followed by a three-week break.
59The prognosis for your cancer is unknown. There is no cure. There is potential for the treatment to fail and for your cancer to have life threatening or catastrophic consequences.
60In a letter dated 29 March 2025, your general practitioner, Dr Karantonis, confirms the diagnosis that I have set out. He describes your operation as 'decompressive neurosurgery with a laminectomy from C2-C6'. The purpose of this operation was to reduce the compressive effects of the tumour on the spinal cord. It was at that time your treating team decided that the risks of catastrophic neurological outcome from an operation to reduce tumour bulk was deemed too high.
61Dr Karantonis says your prognosis is currently unknown. He says there is 'hopeful expectation of disease control and possible stabilisation'. In his opinion, it would be unsafe and unwise to proceed with chemotherapy whilst being in prison. He says patients having chemotherapy are reasonably expected to have immediate access to tertiary emergency care should adverse reactions occur, and delays in that type of care can be life threatening.
62Dr Karantonis says the outcomes from treatment could vary from life threatening to catastrophic with quadriplegic paralysis from cervical spine injury a possibility.
Treatment in prison
63The prosecution sought information from the Department of Justice in respect of treatment conditions for your chemotherapy in the event of a further prison sentence.
64A letter dated 26 May 2025 from Ms Ashlea Shaune, General Manager of Adult Health Oversight, set out the circumstances of treatment for a condition such as yours in the prison system. Ms Shaune also gave evidence at the plea hearing and was cross-examined.
65In her letter, Ms Shaune says that people in prison have access to primary, secondary and tertiary healthcare. Secondary healthcare refers to services provided by a medical specialist. Some prisons have the capacity to deliver some secondary services onsite. However, most people in custody requiring secondary or more complex healthcare services are referred to St Vincent's Hospital, unless that hospital does not have the required expertise.
66If I sentence you to a further period of imprisonment, you will receive a medical reception assessment from a medical officer within 24 hours of entering prison. The assessor will review collateral information provided from your treating clinicians. If Justice Health is informed in advance that a custodial sentence is to be imposed, and if you consent, Justice Health will ensure that reports will be passed on to relevant custodial health providers.
67She also says in the letter that people in prison who have cancer are supported to access necessary treatments, including chemotherapy and radiation therapy. The treatment regime planned for you can be accommodated in custody. Custodial health service staff can administer and supervise oral chemotherapy tablets onsite. Custodial health staff can monitor for any side effects or complications arising or disease progression, such as those mentioned in the letter from Dr Karantonis. Onsite care can be provided as clinically indicated.
68People requiring regular transportation to St Vincent's Hospital or other community-based health services are typically accommodated at metropolitan prisons.
69Ms Shaune said there is no reasonable suggestion that your treatment cycles would be interrupted if you were further imprisoned. In relation to side effects whilst in custody, her evidence was that placement in a metropolitan site to facilitate access to a hospital is an option, and metropolitan prison sites have 24/7 centres including nurses and doctors around the clock.
70She agreed that a custodial setting may place limitations on prescription medication, but said a plan can be put in place to deal with these issues.
71She said you would have advocacy around your health needs.
72She said prisoners receive a medical rating in custody. Chemotherapy has a rating of M1, which is the highest rating.
73When cross-examined, she accepted that interruptions to your treatment are possible but not likely. This would depend on advance planning. She conceded there would be some disadvantages in receiving chemotherapy whilst in prison. She accepted that in the case of urgent medical conditions arising from your treatment, access to immediate hospital treatment is not as easy to facilitate; however, she felt such situations could be managed.
Psychological evidence
74A psychological report dated 28 March 2025 from Ms Pamela Matthews was tendered.
75She said in that report you experienced poor mental health in adolescence. You had anxiety and you engaged in drug taking, 'party' behaviour, going to clubs, using cocaine and MDMA, and that you felt 'frantic all the time'.
76Ms Matthews considers you suffer from Major Depression related to your current circumstances and that you are likely to provisionally meet the diagnostic criteria for borderline personality disorder. She says you are at high risk of suicide. You reported suicide attempts/plans in 2014, 2018, 2019 and 2020. You experience feelings of lethargy, hopelessness, worthlessness, disturbed sleep, poor concentration and overeating.
77
That original report from Ms Matthews contains a risk assessment finding, but no actuarial risk assessment was conducted. The prosecution sought to
cross-examine Ms Matthews on her conclusions with respect to your risk of offending and in relation to her findings as to the relevance of your upbringing to the offending in this case.
78A further addendum report dated 11 June 2025 was provided, in which Ms Matthews explained her decision not to conduct an actuarial assessment. In that second report she referred to the Static-99 risk table as it relates to you, Mr Mantor, and offered the opinion that the risk was similar to what she had concluded. Ultimately, although she was cross-examined about the issue of risk, the prosecution did not take issue with her findings.
79She considers that your offence profile is most consistent with 'adolescent limited ... sexual offending' and that there is 'an approximate 90 per cent chance of [you] not further sexually offending', and the risk further reduces when you turn 30 years of aged.
80She says also that your offending is consistent with known research related to adverse childhood and adolescent experiences, such as unstable living circumstances, being bullied in your primary school years, family breakdown, exposure to family violence, exposure to parental substance misuse and poor mental health. She emphasised that your offending occurred during a developmental period in your life which, given your age, she said there are major changes occurring in the frontal lobe and it is a period in which risk taking and impulsivity are heightened.
81In her addendum report, she says a chaotic home life, with no boundaries between family members, was linked to a higher likelihood of contact offending. She states that in your case the offending was likely a result of:
… additional maladaptive coping strategy and another potential consequence of insecure attachment and self-regulation deficits often developed in chaotic households marked by caregiver absence and inconsistency.
82Under cross-examination, she conceded it was always difficult to get exact replications in literature, but said the trajectory is that 90 per cent of adolescent sexual offenders do not reoffend after they turn 20.
Mitigating factors
83Turning then to the mitigating factors relied on in this case. Ms Burnnard submitted that the significant matters in mitigation include:
(a) your youth at the time of the offences and a consequent reduction in your moral culpability;
(b) the circumstances of your upbringing;
(c) the significant delay in court proceedings;
(d) your physical and mental health; and
(e) the risk that a further imprisonment will have a detrimental effect on your mental health and that you will experience imprisonment as more burdensome because of your mental health, which is a submission that Verdins limbs 5 and 6 apply.
Youth
84
The consequences of the delay in this case is that I am sentencing you as a
28-year-old for offences which you committed when you were between the ages of 15 and 18. For some of these offences you were a child in the eyes of the law, and had the offending been brought to police attention immediately, you would have been dealt with in the Children's Court where the focus of sentencing is on rehabilitation, and general deterrence is not a relevant sentencing principle. Even for the offences where you were 18 years old, the principles related to sentencing youthful offenders would have had full application and rehabilitation would have been, if not the primary focus of sentencing, certainly a very important factor for the court to consider.
85In the case of PJB[11], the Court of Appeal heard an appeal related to indecent assaults by the appellant on his sister committed many years earlier, between 1977 and 1982, when the appellant was aged between 13 and 19 years. Nettle JA said:[11]
Decisions of this court in R v Nutter and R v Better recognise that where offences which have been committed while an offender is a child or immature and are not prosecuted until many years after the event, there is good reason to mitigate penalty, or at least to do so where the offender has achieved a significant degree of rehabilitation and there has been no further offending. Although such an offender falls to be sentenced as an adult, common sense and fairness dictate that the assessment of the nature and gravity of the crime, and of the offender's moral culpability, take into account what was done was done as a child, or as a person of immature years, and not as an adult or a person of greater maturity. Counsel for the appellant is also correct that general deterrence ordinarily has a lesser role to play in the sentencing of children and immature young people than in the case of mature adults, and that it is significant that the appellant has not re-offended in more than 24 years.
[11]R v Boland [2007] VSCA 242.
86There are a series of authorities which adopt those principles. I briefly discussed them with counsel this morning. Just yesterday in the Court of Appeal in the decision of Whitecroft[12], for very serious sexual offending, where the sentencing judge had imposed a sentence of two and a half years with a minimum non-parole period of 18 months (offending that was committed when the appellant was aged between 15 and 17 years old), and where the sentencing judge had said the sentences were substantially moderated and constrained by the principles that I have referred to in PJB, the sentence was held to be moderate and restrained and that the sentencing judge had clearly applied the relevant mitigatory factors.
[12](a pseudonym) [2025] VSCA 143.
87I have also considered the decision of Better[13]; again, a case where some 20 years had elapsed.
[13][2003] VSCA 71.
88PJB itself, which was a trial; involved more serious offences than this case (not to downgrade the very serious nature of these offences) resulted in a substantial suspended sentence other than for 372 days.
89Then there was a decision of DPP v Rootsey[14] where an offender who committed a rape at the age of 16 was sentenced many years later and received a sentence of two years and six months with a non-parole period of 16 months.
[14][2018] VSCA 108.
90There is also the decision of Sherritt[15], which related to serious sexual offences committed 20 years earlier when the appellant was a child aged between 14 and 17, which resulted in a two-year Community Correction Order.
[15][2015] VSCA 1.
91There are of course differences between those cases and this case. In most of those cases, the matter proceeded as a plea of guilty and in most of those cases there was a longer time gap between the offending and the sentencing, almost double in most of those matters.
92You are no longer a child or a young offender, but I must give additional weight to the need to facilitate your rehabilitation because of your age at the time of the offences.
93You have not been convicted of any offences in the intervening years since you committed the last of the offences in this case and that is a matter relevant to the weight to be given to rehabilitation and the assessment of your prospects of rehabilitation. The principles in cases such as Mills[16] and Azzopardi[17] are important in this case, even though you are no longer a young offender at 28 years old.
[16][1998] 4 VR 235.
[17][2011] VSCA 372.
94Your age at the time of the offences is also important in the assessment of your moral culpability. Ms Matthews referred, in her report, to the offending having occurred during a developmental period of your adolescence and she gave evidence at some length about frontal lobe development in males continuing well past teenage years. As the prosecutor said, the sentencing authorities in respect of young offenders reflect such matters.
95You were an immature child at the time of the first offences although - well an immature teenager - and then a young offender at the age of 18 when Charges 5‑9 were committed. Your moral culpability must be assessed through your youth. Your age at the time of the offences does significantly reduce your moral culpability for this very serious sexual conduct towards a young child. Moreover, your age at the time of the offences also necessitates a reduction in the emphasis placed on general deterrence in formulating the sentences.
96That said, the high objective gravity of the offences and the various aggravating factors are normally associated with high culpability and the need for general deterrence remains, albeit reduced. In my opinion even though you were between 15-18 you understood the wrongfulness and criminality of your actions and your moral culpability, even considering your youth, remains significant, particularly in relation to the later charges when you were 18 years old.
97However, your age at the time of the offences necessitates considerable moderation of the sentences to be imposed.
Delay
98It is now some seven years since the matters were originally reported to police. There was a delay between your second interview and the charges being laid and a trial listing was adjourned for reasons not attributable to you. The further delay since the verdict in this case cannot be attributed to you. You were in prison for some of that time. You have had this matter hanging over your head for two years since the verdict and you now face the prospect of being returned to prison. This is a not insubstantial burden that you have had to undergo in that time, and I take this into account in sentencing.
99Furthermore, you have not been convicted of any other offending in that time, which is a matter that I must consider in assessing your prospects of rehabilitation. The delay in this case is a significant matter in mitigation. I just make this observation. Of course the delay as observed by the victim in her victim impact statement, has also caused her significant issues over the years that this case has been before the courts.
Bugmy principles
100Some of the matters relating to your upbringing arise from what you said in the record of interview, and all matters are self-reported. I cannot be certain of all the factual matters which are said to underpin your difficult upbringing, such as the allegations relating to your mother, which I have been told are disputed.
101I am satisfied that your upbringing was unstable to a degree and that your family was an 'enmeshed' close family, which was the term used by Ms Matthews to describe the fact that your extended family lived in each other's pockets, which she suggested was a risk factor for offending of this type.
102Your unstable upbringing does have some relevance to the assessment of your moral culpability, but I am not satisfied it rises anywhere close to the level of deprivation, as described in the High Court case of Bugmy[18]; and I accept the prosecution argument that the evidence to support a significantly deprived upbringing lacks credibility. However, a person's upbringing may still be relevant to the assessment of moral culpability. I have taken into account that the likely contribution to your personality development and the offending of the factors outlined by Ms Matthews as a matter relevant to your moral culpability.
[18] [2013] HCA 37.
Health
103Where an offender's health has the result that imprisonment will be significantly more burdensome than for a person in normal health, this will be a circumstance of mitigation. A court must consider whether the offender's ill health will make imprisonment a greater burden, not whether imprisonment will make the offender's ill health a greater burden.
104I am satisfied that your current state of health will increase the burden of your imprisonment. You will be required to serve a sentence whilst undergoing chemotherapy for a cancer that is life-threatening, and which may have catastrophic consequences. You will be separated from community support, and it seems inevitable that your current treating team will not be able to continue. If complications arise from your chemotherapy arranging immediate treatment is not likely to be as smooth as it would be if you were in the community.
105These factors will no doubt have a psychological and emotional impact on you at a very difficult time as regards your health. Furthermore, your health condition is likely to limit your activities within the prison and dictate what your prison placement will be.
106That said, I am satisfied, based on the evidence of Ms Shaune, that you will receive the necessary chemotherapy in prison and you will have advocacy around your treatment needs. I am satisfied Corrections will put in place a plan for your treatment.
107Nonetheless, the fact that any prison sentence I impose will be served whilst you are undergoing chemotherapy for cancer is a significant matter in mitigation as increasing the burden of a further period of imprisonment.
Verdins
108
Ms Burnnard submitted that Verdins principles 5 and 6 apply based on
Ms Matthew's diagnosis of major depression and your suicide risk. She submitted it is self-evident that prison will weigh more heavily on you due to your depression and there is a serious risk of a downturn in your mental state. I accept these principles apply in this case and I have taken them into account in mitigation.
Serious Sexual Offender
109If prison sentences are imposed on Charges 1 and 2 you become a serious sexual offender for the subsequent offences. This means that community protection must be considered the most important sentencing purpose for those charges, and the presumption of concurrency is reversed, and sentences are cumulative unless otherwise ordered. Of course those provisions do not exclude the operation of the totality principle, which requires that the overall total effective sentence must be just and proportionate to the total criminality of your offending.
Submissions
110Your counsel, Ms Burnnard, conceded this was serious offending. She also conceded the importance of general deterrence having some importance in deciding the appropriate sentence. However, she submitted that you have excellent prospects for rehabilitation given your youth at the time of the offending, the risk assessment of Ms Matthews, the absence of further convictions, and the character references. She submitted that the importance of specific deterrence and protection of the community are substantially reduced and have little role to play having regard to the time served and the delay in finalising this matter. She submitted mercy has a role to play given your background, your age at the time of the offending and your current health. She submitted that just punishment can be achieved by a combination sentence of time served (166 days) and a Community Correction Order.
111She referred to the decision of Boulton[19] and emphasised that in Boulton the Court of Appeal stated that community correction orders might be appropriate even for serious offending. In Boulton the Court of Appeal said this:
Given that a community corrections order could be imposed for a period of years, with conditions attached which would be both punitive and rehabilitative, is there any feature of the offence, or the offender, which requires the conclusion that imprisonment, with all of its disadvantages, is the only option.
[19][2014] VSCA 342.
112
The prosecutor in this matter, Ms Goding, submitted uncontroversially that this was a serious example of sexual offending against a very young child and the impact on her has been profound. She submitted general deterrence, denunciation, and just punishment are all of particular importance. She submitted that notwithstanding your health, and the delay in this matter and your youth at the time of the offending, the only appropriate sentence was a head sentence with a
non-parole period to reflect the objective gravity of the offending and relevant sentencing principles.
Prospects of rehabilitation
113Assessing your prospects of rehabilitation is not a straightforward exercise in this case. In your favour are the following factors. Your age at the time of the offences, the fact that you have not been convicted of any offences in the intervening period, and the risk assessment of Ms Matthews. On the other hand, the objective gravity of the offending in this case is high. You sexually abused a five-year-old girl in a serious way. Furthermore, you deny the offending and you have shown no remorse or insight. In the CCO assessment report which I ordered, your general risk of reoffending is assessed as medium risk. The main factor in relation to that assessment is that you score high in pro-criminal attitude, which as I follow the report, is based on your continued denial of the charges.
114However, having regard to all matters in this case, I find that you have good prospects of rehabilitation.
Principles
115In sentencing for these serious offences, general deterrence although reduced, has a role to play, and the sentence must reflect just punishment. It is also necessary through the sentence I impose to denounce the sexual abuse you perpetrated on your niece when she was a small child.
116Given the factors relating to your prospects of rehabilitation and your current circumstances and the delay, specific deterrence has reduced importance, but you do continue to deny the offending and specific deterrence still has some significance. Community protection must be considered as well. I have already referred to the fact that you will be a serious sexual offender in relation to Charges 3 and onward.
117The need to facilitate your rehabilitation is an important objective of sentencing in this case for the reasons that I have outlined in these remarks.
118Balancing these competing sentencing objectives is not an easy task in this case. This is a case of high objective gravity offences with aggravating factors and substantial impact on the victim, but which were committed when you were a child and a young offender where there has been substantial delay in the court process and where you are now undergoing chemotherapy for cancer. In the end, I have decided to impose a combination sentence of imprisonment and a Community Correction Order, but you will be required to serve a further period of immediate imprisonment.
119In respect of the sentences of imprisonment that I impose, because this is a combination sentence, they are considerably compressed and furthermore, the periods of cumulation are considerably moderated. If you breach the Community Correction Order the sentences would be much longer. It is an unusual sentencing exercise where it is a combination sentence.
120The sentences I impose are as follows:
121Charge 1, you are convicted and sentenced to two months' imprisonment.
122Charge 2, you are convicted and sentenced to four months' imprisonment.
123Charge 5, 6 and 7, in respect of each charge you are convicted and sentenced to six months' imprisonment.
124In relation to Charge 8, you are convicted and sentenced to eight months' imprisonment.
125In relation to Charge 9, you are convicted and sentenced to 10 months' imprisonment.
126Two months of the sentence in relation to Charge 8, one month of the sentence in relation to Charge 6, and one month of the sentence in relation to Charge 5 is to be made cumulative on the base sentence of 10 months on Charge 9.
127So in deciding the periods of cumulation in relation to 7, 8 and 9, I have taken into account that that was one incident effectively. That makes a total effective sentence of 14 months.
128I declare 166 days pre-sentence detention in this matter.
129I then intend to impose a two-year Community Correction Order with the following conditions: supervision, mental health, and offending behaviour programs. I will allow for 150 hours of unpaid community work. If your health is such that you cannot complete those hours, you can make an application for variation at that point. In my view there needs to be some further punitive consequence for this offending, which means you have approximately eight and a half months to serve pursuant to this sentence.
130Do you consent to a Community Correction Order in those terms?
131OFFENDER: I do Your Honour.
132HIS HONOUR: Yes. Can we print out the document and have that provided to Mr Mantor. Could you take it down please, Ms Burnnard?
133MS BURNNARD: I will do that.
134HIS HONOUR: Yes.
135MS BURNNARD: And in answer to Your Honour's question earlier, my instructor has certainly sent those documents, two weeks ago.
136HIS HONOUR: Yes, all right. Great, thank you.
137In this case there is one class 1 offence (Charge 9), two class 2 offences - and what 7 and 9 are classified as a single class 1, is that right? Have I got that right?
138MS GODING: Yes, that's correct, Your Honour.
139HIS HONOUR: Yes. Well the upshot of all of that is you are placed on the Sex Offender Register for life.
140MS GODING: For life, yes.
141HIS HONOUR: You will be provided with documents in relation to that. Look, could Mr Mantor just go out the back for a moment. I will stand down while we print out the documents. I will come back, and they can be signed, all right.
142(Short adjournment.)
143HIS HONOUR: Ms Burnnard, you have had him sign that. We have also got here the - - -
144MS BURNNARD: Both of those documents.
145HIS HONOUR: He's also signed the acknowledgement.
146MS BURNNARD: Yes, both of those documents have been signed, Your Honour.
147HIS HONOUR: Yes, yes, all right.
148MS BURNNARD: While on my feet, my learned friend and I would be grateful if Your Honour would mind repeating the numbers, just so we are very clear.
149HIS HONOUR: Yes, yes. No, no, fair enough, I changed one of the - so the numbers are:
a)Charge 1 - two months
b)Charge 2 - four months
c)Charges 5, 6 and 7 - six months on each of those
d)Charge 8 - eight months
e)Charge 9 - 10 months.
150Two months of Charge 8, one month of Charge 6, one month of Charge 5 cumulative, making 14 months total effective sentence.
151MS BURNNARD: Thank you. That accords with our understanding.
152HIS HONOUR: Yes. And that is my fault, I made an error with respect to the cumulation. I can impose a combination sentence here because the balance is less than 12 months after deduction of the pre-sentence detention.
153MS GODING: Yes, there's no issue with that.
154HIS HONOUR: Yes. So that's what I have done. I thank both of you and your instructors for your help in this difficult matter.
155Mr Mantor can go into custody. I will provide you with these documents signed by me. If you can take - look hang on, custody management issues.
156MS BURNNARD: Those were emailed through by my instructor to Your Honour's associate yesterday and also sent to Corrections.
157HIS HONOUR: Right.
158MS BURNNARD: I can repeat them aloud if that would be of assistance.
159HIS HONOUR: Yes. I'll just read you what is on he - all right. They just read 'Mr [Mantor] was diagnosed with cervical spine tumour in mid-2024, currently undergoing oral chemotherapy, second week of his third cycle. To commence next cycle on 10 July. Currently on medication that is set out there'.
160He will need an immediate medical assessment, which I am told will happen.
161MS BURNNARD: Yes, Your Honour.
162HIS HONOUR: Based on Ms Shaune's advice.
163MS GODING: Your Honour pleases.
164MS BURNNARD: May it please the court.
- - -
0
10
0