Director of Public Prosecutions v Niatin

[2025] ACTSC 473

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

DPP v Niatin

Citation: 

[2025] ACTSC 473

Hearing Date: 

17 October 2025

Decision Date: 

22 October 2025

Before:

Baker J

Decision: 

(1)    For the offence of sexual intercourse without consent (CC2024/11897), the offender is convicted and sentenced to 1 year and 9 months’ imprisonment, commencing on 28 November 2024 and expiring on 27 August 2026.

(2)    For the offence of attempted sexual intercourse without consent (CC2025/4970), the offender is convicted and sentenced to 1 year, 1 month and 15 days’ imprisonment, commencing on 13 October 2025 and expiring on 27 November 2026.

(3)    The overall sentence will be a term of imprisonment of 2 years, commencing on 28 November 2024 and expiring on 27 November 2026.

(4)    A non-parole period of 15 months will be imposed, commencing on 28 November 2024 and expiring on 27 February 2026.

Catchwords: 

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – sexual intercourse without consent – attempt sexual intercourse without consent – where victim was a sex worker – where sex workers are particularly vulnerable to offences of this kind – where offender faced hardship in custody due to language difficulties – where offender faced deportation upon release from custody – sentenced to 2 years’ imprisonment – non-parole period of 15 months

Legislation Cited:

Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) s 44

Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 33, 65

Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) s 44

Cases Cited:

DPP v Dalgliesh (a pseudonym) [2017] HCA 41; 262 CLR 428

DPP v Aghahosseini [2024] ACTSC 237

DPP v Ayoub (No 5) [2023] ACTSC 140

DPP v Earle [2023] ACTSC 93

DPP v Hudson [2023] ACTSC 333

DPP v Hudson [2023] ACTSC 333

DPP v Ivanovski [2025] ACTSC 237

Hili v R [2010] HCA 45; 242 CLR 520

R v Al-Harazi (No 7) [2017] ACTSC 350

R v El-Debel; R v Kahlon (No 7) [2022] ACTSC 313

R v Emberton [2022] ACTSC 286

R v Palmer [2017] ACTSC 357

R v Pham [2015] HCA 39; 256 CLR 550

R v Saran [2019] ACTSC 37

Shrestha v R (1991) 173 CLR 48

The Queen v Miller [2019] ACTCA 25

The Queen v Miller [2019] ACTCA 25

The Queen v Mitchell [2002] NSWCCA 380

Parties: 

Director of Public Prosecutions

Rony Niatin ( Offender)

Representation: 

Counsel

N Deakes ( DPP)

E Chen ( Offender)

Solicitors

ACT Director of Public Prosecutions

ACT Legal Aid ( Offender)

File Number:

SCC 127 of 2025

BAKER J:

Introduction

1․Rony Niatin (the offender) has entered pleas of guilty to one count of sexual intercourse without consent (CC2024/11897), contrary to s 54(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) (the first offence), and one count of attempted sexual intercourse without consent (CC2025/4970) also contrary to s 54(1) of the Crimes Act, by virtue of section 44 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) (the second offence). Both offences were committed against the same victim and arose from within the same course of conduct. The maximum penalty for each offence is 12 years’ imprisonment.

2․The offending occurred in a licensed sex work establishment, a regulated but entirely lawful industry and occupation in the Australian Capital Territory. The offending began as initial consensual activity but strayed to nonconsensual acts for the sexual gratification of the offender.

The offending

3․On the evening of Friday, 22 November 2024, the victim commenced a shift at Harlots Canberra in Fyshwick in the Australian Capital Territory. Harlots Canberra is a brothel and the victim worked there as an escort.

4․Shortly before 11:59pm, the offender and his friend entered Harlots Canberra. At around 12:10am on Saturday, 23 November 2024, the victim entered the introduction room inside Harlots Canberra where she met the offender and his friend. The victim introduced herself to both. A short time later the offender informed Harlots staff that he would like to make a booking with the victim. The offender’s friend made a booking with another escort.

5․After passing a health test and showering, the offender entered a room with the victim and paid the victim some cash.

6․The victim noticed the offender was overtly touching his penis, and asked him to put on a condom before engaging in any further acts. The offender wished to perform cunnilingus on the victim. She reached for a dental dam beside the bed. (A dental dam is a form of protection worn over the vagina and anus to protect the wearer from sexually transmitted diseases). The victim tried to give the offender a dental dam. The offender said to the victim “no, we don’t need that – we don’t need that”.

7․The offender proceeded to use his mouth and tongue to perform cunnilingus on the victim’s vagina unprotected for about five seconds, before placing his fingers into the victim’s vagina. The victim told the offender “okay, darling, if you put a condom on, we can get straight into it”.

8․The offender put a condom on and the victim performed fellatio on the offender. The victim noticed that the condom appeared to be tight. She told the offender he should take it off, and put another one in its place. The offender replaced the condom on his penis. The offender and the victim then engaged in consensual penile-vaginal sexual intercourse, with the offender behind the victim while she was in a kneeling position on the bed facing away from him.

9․Whilst in this position, the victim felt the offender stop briefly before continuing. She noted it felt like skin-to-skin contact, rather than the feeling of latex. The victim told the offender “no”, and to put a condom on. She then watched the offender pick up and place the same condom back onto his penis before continuing intercourse in the same position.

10․A short time later, the victim felt the condom was no longer on the offender’s penis whilst he was inside her. She could no longer feel the latex. She began to say “no” and “stop” again repeatedly.

11․The offender used his hands to push the victim’s upper body into the bed and her head was pushed into the blankets. The offender continued to have unprotected penile-vaginal sexual intercourse with the victim.

12․The victim told the offender repeatedly throughout the interaction that he needed to wear a condom. The victim formed the view that the offender either did not understand what she was saying, or that he was refusing to listen.

13․As the offender was engaging in penile-vaginal intercourse with victim, the victim felt the tip of the offender’s penis near her anus. She felt immediate pain in her anus and told the offender to stop. The victim was unsure if the offender’s penis penetrated her anus. The victim did not consent to anal intercourse.

14․The victim immediately stopped the appointment by pretending the duration of the services had lapsed. They put their clothes on and returned to the reception area of the establishment. The offender’s friend was in the reception waiting for the offender.

15․Once the offender was in the reception area, the victim informed other staff that she had been sexually assaulted. The offender and his friend left. Police were subsequently notified. Later that morning, police arrived at the brothel and gathered evidence before taking the victim to the Canberra Hospital to undergo a medical examination.

16․At around 11:00am on 28 November 2024, police located the offender at his work at a construction site in Campbell. The offender was arrested and cautioned. He was then conveyed to the ACT Watch House. He has remained in custody since that time.

The Victim Impact Statement

17․The victim provided a Victim Impact Statement in which she described the effects of the offending upon her. She said that since the offending, she has felt “very isolated”. She said that she did not feel comfortable telling her family or her friends about what had happened. She did not want to go out or leave her home. She said that she no longer felt safe in the world.

18․When the victim did return to work, she found she was dissociating, which affected her ability to be present in a booking. The offending also affected her relationships with her colleagues. She has reduced her work hours to limit the negative impact upon her colleagues and clients. As a result, she has sustained a lot of financial loss.

19․The offending has also had a negative impact upon the victim’s intimate relationships and her ability to trust other people, particularly in intimate moments.

20․The victim concluded:

In order to continue living my life I have had to push down my feelings about this incident, and I am carrying all my emotions about this around with me. I bottle up all my emotions, and sometimes I just can’t anymore, and it all comes out, and it makes life really difficult.

I want this man to know how he treated me was not ok!

The offender’s subjective case

21․The offender is a citizen of Vanuatu. He arrived in Australia approximately three years ago. He overstayed his visa in order to work. Australian Border Force have confirmed that the offender is an unlawful non-citizen. He will be deported upon the expiry of any custodial sentence imposed.

22․In his interview with the author of the Pre-Sentence Report (which was conducted in English), the offender described a supportive upbringing in Vanuatu with his parents, two older brothers and two sisters. The offender’s father and eldest brother are both now deceased. The offender was 14 years old when his father passed away. He assumed financial responsibility for his mother and siblings after this time. As an adult, he has continued to provide financial support to his mother and younger sister, whilst also supporting his wife and three children.

23․The offender denied any past or current issues with drugs or alcohol. He told the presentence report author that he was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the commission of the offences. He described this as a “rare night out”. The offender identified alcohol as a contributing factor in the commission of the offences. He has not consumed alcohol since that time.

24․The offender has no criminal history. He was of good character prior to the commission of the present offences. Whilst in custody, he has been employed as a sweeper, reflecting his commitment to work and prosocial activities.

25․The offender gave evidence via a Bislama interpreter in the sentencing proceedings. He said that his life in prison has been “very hard”. He explained that he has “no friends, I cannot communicate, I can’t speak English very well, I am isolated and alone in the prison.” Since his incarceration, the offender has been unable to provide financial support to his family in Vanuatu, and “can no longer pay for the electricity, the water bills, the school fees or hospital bills..” The offender also expressed remorse, saying “if I was able to apologise to [the victim], I would apologise and … ask her forgiveness”.

Determination

26․The following features of the offending are relevant to the assessment of the nature and circumstances of both offences:

(i)The victim, as a sex worker, was in a position of vulnerability;

(ii)The offending was opportunistic and not planned;

(iii)The duration of the service was 20 to 30 minutes. The offending was of a considerably shorter duration. It is not possible to state the length of either offence, other than to say that neither were momentary, nor prolonged, and that the first offence was of a longer duration than the second;

(iv)The removal of the condom exposed the victim to the risk of sexually transmitted disease and, in respect of the first offence, pregnancy;

(v)The first offence was a rolled-up count consisting of more than one act of penetration, although occurring in very short succession. As the offender’s counsel submitted, it is properly characterised as a course of conduct;

(vi)There was some force used, in particular pushing and forcing the victim’s head into the blankets in relation to the first offence;

(vii)Whilst the victim did not suffer severe injuries, she sustained soreness in and around her anus (relevant to the count of the second offence) and some tenderness to the back of her head;

(viii)The second offence (attempted anal intercourse) came close to completion. It was only the victim’s resistance that hindered the penetration.

27․The Agreed Facts records that the victim “formed the view that the offender either didn’t understand what she was saying or was refusing to listen” (emphasis added). It is difficult to understand why the victim considered that there was a possibility that the offender did not understand what she was saying. She had repeatedly said “no” and “stop” to the offender. It is clear from the Agreed Facts that the offender’s level of understanding of English was sufficient for him to communicate with the victim earlier in the encounter. The Pre-Sentence Report author was able to conduct an interview with the offender in English. In his evidence in the sentence proceedings, the offender acknowledged that the words “yes” and “no” are the same in Bislama as in English.

28․Nonetheless, the victim was the subject of the offending, and it is clear from the Agreed Facts that she had a doubt about whether or not the offender understood what she was saying. In these circumstances, I am not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the offender knew that the victim was not consenting to sexual intercourse without a condom.

29․This is not, however, a matter which greatly reduces the objective seriousness of the offences. In circumstances where the victim repeatedly said “no” and “stop”, the offender’s recklessness is of a high order. As the offender acknowledged that he understands the meaning of “yes” and “no”, any lack of understanding of the victim’s lack of consent is likely to have been attributable to the offender’s consumption of alcohol at the time of the offending. As the offender’s counsel properly acknowledged, this is not a matter that operates in mitigation of the sentence to be imposed.

30․Taking into account all of the above considerations, the need for denunciation and for deterrence, both general and specific, is high. As Berman AJ observed in DPP v Hudson [2023] ACTSC 333 at [61] – [62]:

[S]ex workers are particularly vulnerable to offences of this kind. The very nature of their employment requires that they have sex with strangers when they are alone. … Such people should know that if they go beyond what has been agreed and commit offences of sexual violence upon a sex worker who has made it clear that he or she does not consent, then the criminal law will mark the wrongfulness of such conduct with significant sentences.

Offenders are sentenced in order to protect the community of which sex workers are a part. They deserve the protection of the criminal law just as much as accountants, factory workers, doctors and bus drivers.

See also The Queen v Mitchell [2002] NSWCCA 380 at [19]; The Queen v Miller [2019] ACTCA 25 at [34].

31․The victim powerfully explained the harm which the offending had caused in her victim impact statement, to which I have already referred. The sentence to be imposed must also adequately recognise this harm.

32․I accept the offender’s evidence that he is remorseful for the harm that he has caused to the victim. He has good prospects of rehabilitation.

33․The offender has spent 329 days in custody, since 28 November 2024, following his arrest. By reason of the language barrier, the offender is “isolated and alone” in custody. The prosecution accepted that the offender’s custody has been more onerous as a result of his language difficulties: see R v Al-Harazi (No 7) [2017] ACTSC 350 at [193].

34․During the offender’s time in custody, he has not been able to financially provide for his family in Vanuatu, as he was prior to this incarceration. The prosecution accepted that this constitutes family hardship which should be taken into account on sentence: see R v El-Debel; R v Kahlon (No 7) [2022] ACTSC 313 at [51].

35․The offender pleaded guilty in the Magistrates Court. I will reduce the sentences by 25% to take account of his early guilty pleas.

36․The prosecution provided a table of comparative cases. This table includes interstate sentences imposed for offending relating to sex workers. As the offender’s counsel submitted, these interstate decisions are of little guidance, as they concern offences which carry different maximum penalties, and were determined in different statutory sentencing regimes: see DPP v Earle [2023] ACTSC 93 at [19].

37․The sentences imposed for similar offending in this jurisdiction included DPP v Ivanovski [2025] ACTSC 237; DPP v Aghahosseini [2024] ACTSC 237; DPP v Hudson [2023] ACTSC 333; DPP v Ayoub (No 5) [2023] ACTSC 140; R v Emberton [2022] ACTSC 286; The Queen v Miller [2019] ACTCA 25; R v Saran [2019] ACTSC 37; and R v Palmer [2017] ACTSC 357. The prosecution’s table of those sentences is annexed to this judgment.

38․Of course, I have carefully considered the sentences imposed in these decisions, as required by s 33(1)(za) of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), whilst bearing in mind the limitations of such comparative cases: R v Pham [2015] HCA 39; 256 CLR 550 at [29]; DPP v Dalgliesh (a pseudonym) [2017] HCA 41; 262 CLR 428 at [51]–[53]; and Hili v R [2010] HCA 45; 242 CLR 520 at [48]–[49].

39․There is no dispute that the only appropriate sentence to be imposed is one of full-time imprisonment. Taking into account all of the matters I have described above, I will sentence the offender for the offence of sexual intercourse without consent to imprisonment for 1 year and 9 months (discounted from 2 years and 4 months). For the offence of attempted sexual intercourse without consent, I will sentence the offender to imprisonment for 1 year, 1 month and 15 days (discounted from 18 months).

40․The prosecution acknowledged that, as the two offences occurred within short succession, there should be a measure of concurrency in the sentences imposed. The sentence for the offence of attempted sexual intercourse without consent will be accumulated by three months upon the sentence for sexual intercourse without consent.

41․The offender will be deported upon his release from custody. The offender’s counsel conceded that this matter does not operate, of itself, to mitigate the sentence to be imposed. This concession was properly made. The offender’s liability to deportation arises from his failure to abide by the conditions of his visa, rather than as a result of the offending.

42․However, the offender’s counsel submitted that the offender’s deportation is of potential relevance to the structuring of the sentence to be imposed. Specifically, the offender’s counsel submitted that as the offender will be deported upon his release, I should impose a partially suspended sentence, rather than setting a non-parole period. The offender’s counsel submitted that this would avoid the offender having to apply for parole, which may be difficult in light of his language difficulties.

43․The offender’s counsel acknowledged that this course would not be appropriate if I formed the view that the offender should receive a minimum term of 12 months imprisonment or more: see s 65(2) of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act.

44․I am not satisfied that it is appropriate for the offender to receive a minimum term of less than 12 months’ imprisonment. Taking into account all of the matters that I have set out above, I consider that the appropriate minimum term is 15 months’ imprisonment. It remains appropriate for the Court to set a non-parole period, notwithstanding that the offender will be deported upon his release: see Shrestha v R (1991) 173 CLR 48 at 71 - 73. It will be incumbent on Corrective Services to ensure that he has assistance in preparing his application for parole.

Orders

45․The orders of the Court are:

(1)For the offence of sexual intercourse without consent (CC2024/11897), the offender is convicted and sentenced to 1 year and 9 months’ imprisonment, commencing on 28 November 2024 and expiring on 27 August 2026.

(2)For the offence of attempted sexual intercourse without consent (CC2025/4970), the offender is convicted and sentenced to 1 year, 1 month and 15 days’ imprisonment, commencing on 13 October 2025 and expiring on 27 November 2026.

(3)The overall sentence will be a term of imprisonment of 2 years, commencing on 28 November 2024 and expiring on 27 November 2026.

(4)A non-parole period of 15 months will be imposed, commencing on 28 November 2024 and expiring on 27 February 2026.

I certify that the preceding forty-five [45] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Sentence of her Honour Justice Baker.

Associate:

Date:

ANNEXURE A – Table of Comparative Cases

Case Name	Objective Features	Subjective Features	Sentence
DPP v Ivanovski [2025] ACTSC 237 Burns AJ	Charges: 1x sexual intercourse without consent The offender made a booking with the victim, who was a sex worker. The offender told the victim he wanted to have unprotected sex. The victim made it clear she did not offer “natural services”. The offender initially wore a condom. However, during the booking, the offender removed the condom. The offending was opportunistic and not prolonged, there was no threat of violence, the victim was put at risk of disease and pregnancy, the offender was clearly aware of the victim’s non-consent and there was a profound negative impact on the victim.	Assessed as suitable for an ICO. No criminal history. Offender used cocaine and methylamphetamine. Good work history. Breakdown of marriage prior to offence, but in a new relationship at the time of sentencing. Denial of offending.	2 years and 6 months’ imprisonment. Suspended after 12 months upon entering a GBO for 1 year and 6 months.
DPP v Aghahosseini [2024] ACTSC 237 McCallum CJ	Charges 4x rolled up counts of sexual intercourse without consent 2x act of indecency without consent taken into account 3 other criminal incidents (burglary, escape from custody) were also sentenced for. The offender, who was 37, contacted the 19-year-old victim on Grindr. The offender offered payment for the victim to meet him and undress while the offender masturbated. The victim agreed but stated he would not engage in sex. The offender engaged in several acts of sexual intercourse without consent, including penetrating the victim’s anus with his finger and his penis, and inserting his penis into the victim’s mouth. The victim was protesting and in pain during the offending. The offender knew the victim did not consent to any of the acts, the victim suffered pain and discomfort, force was used during the offending, and the offending involved several skin-on-skin acts.	Born in Iran and immigrated to Australia in 2013. Illicit substance user. Positive relationship with mother. Psychiatric diagnosis most consistent with schizophrenia, however culpability not reduced for sexual offending. Previous employment. Likely to be deported.	2 years and 6 months’ imprisonment for each count of sexual intercourse without consent, fully cumulative. Total sentence: 6 years and 1 month’s imprisonment. NPP of 4 years.
DPP v Hudson [2023] ACTSC 333 Berman AJ	Charges 3x sexual intercourse without consent 1x attempt sexual intercourse without consent 1x sexual assault in the third degree 3x act of indecency without consent The offender’s friend paid for the services of the victim, who was a sex worker. The offender committed several acts of indecency without consent on the victim. The offender then used force on the victim by straddling her chest, telling the victim he wanted to “face fuck” her, and putting his penis in her mouth. The victim found a condom and put it in her mouth to protect herself. The offender attempted to then penetrate the victim’s vagina with his penis but could not as his penis was not erect. The offender roughly penetrated the victim’s vagina with his fingers while holding her down, causing injuries to her genitalia. The offender then attempted to punch the victim but swung and missed. This was a degrading series of assaults which occurred despite the victim’s protests, force was used which caused injury, the use of a condom was only due to the victim’s actions to protect herself, and the offender acted with entitlement.	32 years at time of sentencing. No prior sexual offending but above average risk for sexual reoffending. Family hardship. Exposed to domestic violence and alcoholism as a child – Bugmy considerations enlivened. Found guilty after trial. Continued to deny guilt, and lacked remorse.	Sexual intercourse without consent: 18 months’ imprisonment for each count Attempted sexual intercourse without consent: 15 months’ imprisonment Sexual assault in the third degree: 18 months’ imprisonment Total sentence: 4 years and 9 months’ imprisonment. NPP of 2 years and 6 months.
DPP v Ayoub (No 5) Mossop J	Charges 1x inflict actual bodily harm with intent to engage in sexual intercourse 1x sexual intercourse without consent 1x common assault The offender attended a brothel while under the influence of methamphetamine and paid for a standard service. While in the room with the victim, the offender put his hand around her neck and choked her without her consent. The offender aggressively and repetitively penetrated the victim’s vagina with his fingers, and held open the victim’s mouth to spit in it. The choking was serious enough to cause bruising to the victim’s neck. The victim was in a vulnerable position as a sex worker, and struggled to get away from the offender. The offending was assessed as in the mid-range of objective seriousness.	Regular criminal history over a long period, but no prior sex offending. History of drug use from childhood. Mental health condition complicated by drug use.	Inflict actual bodily harm – 20 months’ imprisonment Sexual intercourse without consent – 14 months’ imprisonment Total sentence: 30 months’ imprisonment. Suspended after 18 months and 22 days.
R v Emberton [2022] ACTSC 286 Kennett J	Charges 1x aggravated robbery 1x destroying or concealing evidence 1x sexual intercourse without consent The offender contacted the victim, an independent sex worker, requesting her services. When the offender arrived at the victim’s apartment, he pulled a knife from his pocket and demanded money. After the victim gave him some money, the offender directed the victim to take off her clothes and have sex with him. After ejaculating, the offender took the victim’s phone and deleted her call log and message history. It would have been clear to the offender that sexual acts were only agreed to on a commercial basis, and that he was proceeding without consent. The offending was assessed as towards the upper end of the mid-range of objective seriousness.	Primary motivation was financial strain Strong prospects of rehabilitation No criminal history 25% discount for guilty plea	Sexual intercourse without consent: 31 months’ imprisonment. Total sentence: 4 years and 5 months’ imprisonment. NPP of 2 years and 4 months.
The Queen v Miller [2019] ACTCA 25 Burns, Loukas‑Karlsson and Bromwich JJ	Charges 1x sexual intercourse without consent The victim was a sex worker who informed the offender that sexual activity involving her anus was not to occur. The offender agreed and paid for a two-hour period involving extra services. While performing oral sex upon the victim, the offender inserted his finger into her anus. The offending was not premeditated, was impulsive and occurred over a very short period of time. The vulnerability of sex workers was recognised.	Close relationships with family Full time employment Offending fuelled by alcoholism Antiquated but significant criminal history High risk of general reoffending.	2 years’ imprisonment, fully suspended upon entry into a GBO. On appeal, the sentence was found to be manifestly inadequate, however the Court exercised its residual discretion to dismiss the appeal.
R v Saran [2019] ACTSC 37 Loukas-Karlsson J	Charges 4x act of indecency without consent 3x sexual intercourse without consent The offender and the victim worked together as cleaners for a hotel. Over the course of two separate days the offender groped the victim, masturbated in front of the victim and undressed the victim. On one of the days, the offender engaged in penile-vaginal intercourse with the victim on three occasions without the victim’s consent. Offending was opportunistic, but formed part of a continuing course of conduct. The victim was entitled to a safe workplace.	Low risk of reoffending No criminal history Hardship to family Deportation and extra-curial punishment Refusal or cancellation of visa on character grounds	17 months, 18 months and 18 months’ imprisonment for each count of sexual intercourse without consent. Total sentence: 4 years’ imprisonment. NPP of 2 years.
R v Palmer [2017] ACTSC 357 Mossop J	Charges 1x sexual intercourse without consent The offender had consumed a large amount of alcohol and was very intoxicated. The offender attended an escort agency and paid the victim for oral sex only. During the service, the offender instructed the victim to have sex with him. She declined as it was not a part of the service. The offender then struck the victim with an open hand to the face, pulled her hair and rolled on top of her. The offender penetrated the victim’s vagina with his penis despite her pleas to stop. The victim managed to escape, and alerted her managed. The offending was relatively brief in duration, but occurred when the victim was alone and vulnerable. Violence was involved, but only transient injury was caused. The offending was not premeditated, the offender’s goal was self-gratification, and the offender ignored repeated protests. The offending was assessed as in the mid-range of objective seriousness.	18 years old at the time of offending. No prior criminal history. Remorse demonstrated. Conviction would significantly hinder employment prospects. 20% discount for guilty plea.	24 months’ imprisonment, suspended after 5 months.