Director of Public Prosecutions v Ramsey
[2024] VCC 1282
•20 August 2024
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA AT MELBOURNE CRIMINAL DIVISION | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
Case No. CR 21-02015
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| SCOTT RAMSEY (A PSEUDONYM) |
---
JUDGE: | HER HONOUR JUDGE RIDDELL | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 29 July 2024 | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 20 August 2024 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Ramsey | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2024] VCC 1282 | |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Subject:Sentence
Catchwords: Sexual offending against children under 16 --- Father committing offences against two biological children --- Plea of Not Guilty --- Course of Conduct --- Committed in the family home --- Son aged eight to ten years --- Daughter aged three – five years --- Attempted incest --- No prior offending --- Solid Employment history --- Standard Sentences ---Serious Sexual Offender --- Sexual Offender Registration
Legislation Cited: Sentencing Act 1991 --- Sex Offenders Registration Act 2004
Cases Cited:DPP v Dalgleish(a pseudonym) [2017] VSCA 360 --- DPP v Toomey [2006] VSCA 90; Bromley v The Queen [2018] VSCA 329 --- R v Verdins [2007] 16 VR 269 --- McPherson v The Queen [2021] VSCA 53 --- R v Brown [2018] VSC 742 --- Lugo v The Queen [2020] VSCA 75 --- DPP (Vic) v Tullipan (a pseudonym) [2021] VSCA 191
Sentence: Eight years and 7 months imprisonment --- Non-parole period of 5 years imprisonment
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the DPP | Mr A. Grant | Office of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused | Mr A. Hands | Brown McComish Solicitors |
HER HONOUR:
1Scott Ramsey[1] after a nine day trial, a jury found you guilty of sexual offending against two of your children. Those offences occurred over a period of approximately two years between November 2017 and October 2019. They were committed against your son Stephen[2] who was aged between eight and 10 years old, and against your daughter Nicole[3] who was aged between three and five years old. You were aged between 37 and 39 during your offending. You are now 43.
[1] A pseudonym
[2] A pseudonym
[3] A pseudonym
2The offending occurred in the family home in Portland where you lived with your partner Nicole Baker[4], and your three children, Liam[5], Stephen and Nicole.
[4] A pseudonym
[5] A pseudonym
3Specifically, the jury found you guilty of two charges of sexual activity in the presence of a child under 16, two charges of sexual assault of a child under the age of 16 as a course of conduct, one charge of attempted incest, and two charges of encouraging a child under 16 to engage in sexual activity and two charges of common law assault. It is now my task to sentence you in line with that jury verdict.
Summary of offending
4The charges and verdicts reflect six different incidents of offending. Some of those incidents are part of the course of conduct charges.
Charge 1, Charge 2, Charge 3 and Charge 4
5The first incident was on an occasion between 1 November 2017 and 31 October 2019. On this occasion, you, Nicole and Stephen were playing together in Nicole's room. While you were sitting on the floor, you began to play with your penis in the presence of Nicole and Stephen (Charge 1 and Charge 2, reflecting both children, namely engaging in sexual activity in the presence of a child under 16). Stephen saw that your penis had become erect.
6You then used one hand to play with your own penis while you used your other hand to touch and rub Stephen's penis over the top of his shorts (Charge 3 – Sexual Assault of a child under 16 as a course of conduct). Stephen pushed your hand away and he said this appeared to make you sad. Nicole then played with your penis (Charge 4 – Sexual assault of a child by causing or allowing her to touch your penis as a course of conduct).
7The act of touching Stephen on the penis during this incident is part of a course of conduct charge. In relation to the course of conduct more broadly, Stephen said during his VAREs that you used to ‘do things to his doodle’. Stephen said you touched his penis on other occasions and that ‘Basically, he just plays with my doodle, sometimes… When I have my pants on, he just, finds it in my pants, on top of my pants, and he starts playing with it… he just like goes up and down.’
8The act of allowing or causing Nicole to touch your penis during incident one is also part of a course of conduct charge. Nicole explained that she had touched and rubbed your penis on other occasions. She described using her hand to rub your penis on an occasion when you were in your bedroom. You had told her that your penis was sore and after she had rubbed it for five minutes that your penis was feeling better. Your penis was out of your pants and you had pulled your pants down. You explained to her how she should rub your penis.
9You also told Nicole that she could touch your penis when you were in the bathroom and getting dressed. At one point you told her to stop because it was too hard. In her VARE she said ‘Because daddy said I could and then he said, “Stop.” ‘cause it was actually too hard.’ Nicole was then asked ‘what did dad say was too hard?’ and answered ‘Pressing on his doodle’.
Charge 7
10On a date between July 2018 and October 2018 you were in Nicole's room. Stephen saw that you were kneeling. You had asked Nicole to take off her underwear. You then attempted to penetrate her vagina with your penis by attempting to force it in. She said ‘Ow, ow, it hurts’ and you stopped. (Charge 7 – attempted sexual penetration of a child under 16.) You gave Stephen $20 so that he would not tell anyone what he had seen.
Charge 8
11Between 1 November 2017 and 1 January 2019, Stephen was in his room playing on his computer when you asked him to come into Nicole's bedroom. You told Stephen to ‘put [his] doodle on Nicole’s privates.’ Stephen asked ‘What?’ and you repeated yourself. He refused. (Charge 8 – Encouraging a child under 16 to engage in, or be involved in sexual activity.)
12In response, you lifted him up by the throat and pushed him against the wall. Stephen picked up a block and hit you with it. You released him and told him to go away.
Charge 10 and Charge 11
13Between 1 July 2019 and 31 October 2019, you, Stephen and Nicole were playing barbies in Nicole's room with her doll house. Stephen told you that he had had enough and was going to play with his computer. It was at that point that you initiated sexual contact.
14You pulled your pants down and exposed your erect penis. You then told Stephen to pull his pants down so that Nicole could play with his penis (Charge 10 – Encouraging a child under 16 to engage in sexual activity - Stephen).
15Stephen refused and you grabbed him by the neck and lifted him up against a wall and told him not to ‘say no again’ (Charge 11 – Common law assault).
16You then let Stephen leave to play his computer and you told him not to tell anyone about that incident.
Charge 12
17On an occasion between 1 July 2019 and 31 October 2019, you and Stephen were arguing about a computer game. You grabbed him by the neck and pushed him up against the wall in the hallway. This resulted in Stephen's shoulder becoming bruised.
18Stephen described that you had been similarly violent to him on other occasions and that that was why he did not tell anyone about the sexual offending (Charge 12 – Common Law Assault).
Charge 13
19On 11 October 2019 you and Ms Baker separated. At some point as you were leaving the home Nicole said that you tongue kissed her. (Charge 13 – Sexual assault of a child under 16 by causing or allowing her to kiss you on your lips with her tongue). She explained that a tongue kiss is like a normal kiss, but people who are kissing put their tongues out. Stephen says he saw you French kissing with Nicole and said this was the first sexual activity that he could remember between you and Nicole.
Complaints
20After your separation you moved your campervan to a block of land you owned near Portland. Sometime between 11 and 31 October 2019 Ms Baker was in the car taking the three children to see you at the campervan. In the car Nicole made a comment about ‘Dad having secrets’, and that she ‘tongue kissed Dad'. Ms Baker did not think much of it. However, Nicole then said that she ‘touches Dad’s private parts when he gets changed.’ She used the word ‘doodle.’
21Later that night Ms Baker followed up Nicole's comments. She gave evidence that Nicole repeated the comment about tongue kissing and then told her about ‘touching Dad when he gets changed. She told me it’s embarrassing. She said it happened in the bathroom and her bedroom.’ Ms Baker asked her if she ‘poked it’, meaning your penis but Nicole said no and demonstrated playing with or pulling on your penis. Ms Baker asked Nicole if it happened ‘one time or more than once’. Nicole told her ‘It happens all the time. It’s embarrassing. Dad said not to tell Mummy.’
22On 31 October 2019 Ms Baker had two kinder mum friends visiting. Both gave evidence at the trial. During that visit Nicole made a comment about you forcing her to tongue kiss you and that it was ‘your secret’, and then said ‘Mummy don’t tell them what else he does when he makes me keep him happy while he was getting dressed.’ She used the word ‘gross’.
23When the two friends left they went to Portland Police Station to make enquiries about what they should do. The result was that they made statements. Police attended at your home and spoke to Ms Baker. She attended the police station with Nicole on 31 October 2019 and Nicole made her VARE on 1 November 2019.
24After doing so, Ms Baker described coming home where Stephen and Liam were present. She said Nicole ran to Stephen and said ‘I didn’t tell them our secret.’
25Later, Stephen asked to speak to Ms Baker. He told her that it was true that Nicole had secrets with you. He described Nicole touching your penis, that you had touched his penis through his pants, and that you had also taken your penis out of your pants and played with it.
26Stephen made VAREs on 15 November 2019 and 12 February 2020.
27Stephen was a most articulate child. He gave reasons as to why he had not told anyone about your offending. He said that various behaviours made him feel ‘embarrassed and disgusted’. He said you gave him bribes and him not to tell anyone and that ‘Because he’s my dad and he’s the boss of me… so I have to listen to him.’
28In relation to Nicole, he gave the following evidence – ‘So, because Nicolete [sic] - he's been doing it basically since Nicolete was, like, old enough to, like, walk. So she doesn't know it's wrong and so he obviously just - like, he knows that I think it's wrong so he gives me money.’
29That evidence given by Stephen is consistent with expert evidence called by Defence in the trial from Pamela Matthews, Psychologist. Ms Matthews stated that a very young child will not understand when sexual acts are occurring that are wrong, and so believe they are normal, but as they mature they become conscious of the fact that such behaviour is wrong.
Record of Interview and Evidence
30You participated in a record of interview in relation to the allegations made by Nicole and denied the offending.
31You ran a trial and gave evidence denying the offending.
Sentencing Principles
32Sexual crimes against children are inherently serious. They violate the basic norms of civilised behaviour. They strike at the value the community places on the need for care of young children, in particular, by those in positions of responsibility and power over them. That is especially so where the offending involves a breach by someone in a position of care or trust. Where that person is a parent the breach of trust is particularly grave.[6]
[6] DPP v Dalgleish(a pseudonym) [2017] VSCA 360
33Sentencing courts must send a message of denunciation. Sentences must deter others from offending in this way and must seek to protect the community and in particular, any other child or young person, from being abused by a person in a position of trust over them. The sentence I impose must demonstrate to others the serious consequence of violating such laws. [7]
[7] DPP v Toomey [2006] VSCA 90; Bromley v The Queen [2018] VSCA 329
Impact on the Victims
34Courts and the community far better understand the immediate but also the potentially far-reaching consequences of this type of offending. It tends to have an immediate impact on a child's sense of security and can have a long-term impact on various aspects of a victim's life. It affects self-confidence and the fabric of relationships based on trust. Self-doubt and anxiety are common themes for victims. Hypervigilance is common.
35The impact on your children and their mother reflects those similar themes. I take into account the impact on Stephen and Nicole, and also on their older brother Liam. The children have each provided eloquent and powerful victim impact statements but have asked that they are not read out. As such I will not recite their contents.
36The breach of trust involved in offending such as this is also eloquently expressed by Ms Baker in her victim impact statement. She describes you as someone she ‘deeply loved and trusted.’ She says:
'I believed in his goodness and never doubted his love for our family… I couldn’t fathom the idea that the person I loved so deeply could commit such horrendous acts. I was blinded to the dark reality unfolding before me. The knowledge that I couldn’t shield my children from harm will haunt me for the rest of my life. I feel like I have failed them as their mother, and that is a heavy burden to carry.'
37There are many mothers like her – caring, loving, diligent parents who are betrayed by their partners. Acts are committed in secret by another parent who is manipulating their children and confusing their sense of what is right and wrong. No mother or co-parent should blame themselves for the deceitful acts of an abusive parent but sadly many do.
38Ms Baker's interest is in caring for children. She has worked in childcare for many years. Her dream was to become a foster carer, as she says ‘providing a safe and loving home for children in need’. She fears that she has lost that dream because of your offending. It would be a significantly unfair consequence of your offending if the innocent parent was disadvantaged in that way.
39Ms Baker also describes the impact of your offending on the three children, saying,
This experience has seriously impacted our lives. The trust and security we once had are gone, replaced by fear and uncertainty. Our children’s innocence has been stolen… I now struggle with trusting anyone.
The impact on my children has been heart-wrenching. They’ve faced difficulties in school, exhibited severe behavioural changes and even attempted suicide, requiring ongoing counselling to cope with the trauma.
‘My ability to work has been limited, leading to significant financial strain. I live with constant financial insecurity and lack the time and energy to work because I must attend numerous appointments for myself and my children as we try to recover from the trauma.
40She says she battles PTSD while also supporting her three traumatized children.
41I take those matters into account specifically and those general experiences which are likely for all three victims here.
Objective Gravity
42In assessing the objective gravity of your offending, I take into account the following features.
43You are their father. The gross breach of trust reflected in your offending is the most aggravating feature here. Stephen and Nicole were entitled to your love, care and protection. They should have been able to look to you for safety and security. You not only breached their trust, but the trust of their mother, your partner. Equally you have breached the relationship with your older son Liam. He too has been impacted.
44The other aggravating features of your offending are as follows:
a. Your offending was committed over a number of years.
b. It occurred in the family home where the children were entitled to feel safe and to be safe.
c. Your offending was committed against two victims.
d. It involved encouraging sexual contact between the two children.
e. Both children were very young, though Nicole was particularly young.
f. Both children had diagnoses of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and Autism Spectrum Disorder.
g. You encouraged the children to keep your offending a secret and engaged in bribing Stephen to buy his silence.
45Both parties concede that the most serious offence here is the attempted penetration of Nicole's vagina with your penis. I agree. That act of attempted incest is an abhorrent offence.
46Nicole was between the ages of three and four years of age at the time of that offending. You had her stand in front of you for the purpose of penetration and put your penis onto her vagina for that purpose. The act of penetration only failed because of her protest. That act occurred in Stephen's presence.
47That is a serious example of the offence of attempted incest.
48In relation to the course of conduct charges it is difficult to quantify how often you engaged in that offending. Given the descriptions by Stephen and by Nicole, I accept it was reasonably frequent. In relation to Stephen it involved touching over his clothing, however it was nonetheless an invasion of his privacy. In relation to Nicole it involved encouraging her to play with your penis.
49Your act of encouraging Stephen to penetrate Nicole's vagina with his penis is particularly serious. Fortunately, he refused. That refusal was met by your grabbing him by the neck and lifting him off the ground and pinning him against the wall.
50On the occasion reflected in Charge 11 you also lifted him and held him by the neck against a wall. That is a particularly serious example of a common law assault given the surrounding circumstances and taking into account your age difference and his young age.
51I accept the submissions of your Counsel that the act of kissing reflected in Charge 13 is the least serious of the sexual offences here. Nonetheless, it is offensive and the jury clearly saw it not as an innocent childish act by a young child, but as meeting the elements of sexual assault of a child under 16.
52Overall, your moral culpability for this course of offending against your two young children is very high.
Personal Background
53
I turn to your personal circumstances. They have been summarised in two reports. The first, a report from Clinical Neuropsychologist Leanne Kennedy dated
29 January 2020 and second, a report from Psychologist, Dr Aaron Cunningham, dated 16 July 2024. I note that the neuropsychological report was not for the purpose of sentencing.
54You were born in Victoria and your father worked as an interstate truck driver while your mother worked as a cleaner and a nurse. You are the oldest in a sibship of three and you have a younger brother and a younger sister.
55You did not have a good relationship with your father and were happy when he was away with work. You told Ms Kennedy that he assaulted you many times from the time you were 13 years old. You said you were assaulted with sticks, logs and chains. In 1998 your father was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis and thought he would die. You and he reconciled with him telling you that you were the best son a father could have. However, he later retracted that statement when his health improved, which no doubt was devastating to you.
56You enjoyed a good relationship with your mother however she passed away in 2021 from cancer.
57You attended Maryborough East and Talbot Primary Schools and Maryborough Highview Christian Community College. In Year 7 you were diagnosed at the Royal Children's Hospital with ADHD and were medicated. Your grades and concentration improved, however you ultimately left school before completing Year 12.
58Nonetheless you completed a Certificate IV in Information Technology at TAFE in 1999, followed by a Diploma of Information Technology in 2002 and started a Bachelor Degree in Information Technology at Federation University between 2001-2002. You did not complete that course on account of the cost.
59You left home at the age of 16 and lived with a girlfriend before you lived independently. You lived in share homes and rental accommodation before you lived with your now ex-partner Ms Baker.
60You began your relationship with Ms Baker in 2006. She worked in childcare and babysitting throughout your relationship. You and she variously lived near Ballarat or in Portland in homes you or she owned separately or together.
61You bought a house together in Wendouree before moving to Portland at the end of 2008.
62You built a house in Portland in around 2011 or 2012.
63You have three children born of that relationship. Liam is now 16, Stephen is now 14 and Nicole is now 10. Liam, Stephen and Nicole have diagnoses of ADHD and Autism Spectrum Disorder.
64Stephen is currently prescribed Concerta for ADHD, however over the years has had to trial a number of different medications. Stephen is also prescribed anxiety medication Fluoextine and has been taking that for a number of years. Nicole also takes medication as you understand it, to assist with maintaining her attention. Those matters were outlined in intermediary reports provided as part of the trial.
65In addition, Ms Baker had a variety of health issues and you have provided support and care for her over a number of years during your relationship.
66Your relationship with Ms Baker was on and off however, ended just prior to these matters coming to light as I have described. You have not seen your children for five years since these offences were reported.
67You now have a new partner who you have been with since 2021.
68You have a good employment history. You worked at IT firms in Castlemaine for four years. You then worked as a trade assistant for an electrical company for one year before working as a systems communication officer for an Engineering Firm. You worked in this latter position full time for fifteen years before you were remanded as a result of the verdicts on the trial.
69I heard evidence during your trial from two colleagues from the Engineering firm. One has also provided a written reference for the purpose of your plea.
70She had worked with you since 2008 and stated ‘As far as I know he is very honest.’ She described you in her written reference as a ‘a doting father’ and that the ‘allegations [are] so out of character.’
71Your other colleague also worked with you since 2008 and described you as ‘a rule-follower’.
72Clearly, this offending is out of kilter with the person they know.
73In addition, Ms Cecilia Carvalho, your counsellor, and a friend Mr Trevor Meade have written references for your plea. Mr Meade says that he and his wife were ‘completely shocked’ to hear about the charges. Ms Carvalho was similarly ‘shocked and dismayed’ but says that you have been ‘receptive to counselling’. I take those matters into account, in particular the fact that you have seen a counsellor voluntarily.
R v Verdins
74
As I noted, you are a person who is also diagnosed with ADHD. According to
Dr Cunningham, clinical assessment and psychometric testing was consistent with an Autism Spectrum Disorder which he states is a more accurate diagnosis.
75You are under the treatment of a psychiatrist and have more recently commenced Concerta medication. You report that you feel a lot better on that medication and your concentration has improved.
76
There is very little in the reports to describe the impact of your Autism on you.
Dr Cunningham says on testing you presented with a pattern of weakness in verbal comprehension relative to non-verbal reasoning, slower processing speed, impairment in understanding the thoughts and feelings of others and learning differences. You performed in the above average range of non-verbal fluid intelligence. There was no sign of any intellectual disability.
77According to Ms Kennedy you are in the average range for intellectual ability, verbal skills, information processing and the high average or superior ranges for visual perceptual reasoning and analysis. Your verbal working memory function is in the high average range. She says you have good executive function. She says 'There were no findings of significance that might contribute to committing the alleged act.'
78Dr Cunningham reported that you found imprisonment ‘very scary’ initially, however he says there was ‘no indication of significant emotional distress or mental illness.’
79Despite those reports, Mr Hands submitted that all limbs of R v Verdins[8] are enlivened. There is no basis for that submission. There is very little evidence about the impact of your Autism on you, and significantly, no evidence to establish any connection between your Autism and the offending or to your experience of incarceration. For those reasons I reject those submissions.
[8] R v Verdins [2007] 16 VR 269
Plea of Not Guilty
80You ran a trial which is your right to put the Prosecution to its proof. Of course that necessitated both of your children and Ms Baker giving evidence.
81You also gave evidence, denying the offending. The jury by their verdicts accepted that your children told the truth and were reliable to the standard of beyond reasonable doubt. They rejected your account.
82The fact you ran a trial does not in any way aggravate the offending. However, it means you do not receive any discount for a guilty plea. Perhaps more importantly, you do not receive any discount on account of any remorse. You have shown no remorse for your offending against your children. You continue to deny it.
Prospects of Rehabilitation
83Those matters are relevant to my assessment of your risk of reoffending in the following way. You have not demonstrated any insight into your offending, nor any understanding of risks, triggers or reasons for your offending. In that way, your risk of reoffending is elevated.
84I must also consider the fact that you offended against two victims, and that your offending was repetitive and occurred over a number of years.
85Given those matters, your prospects of rehabilitation are somewhat guarded.
86Counsel submitted there are a number of protective factors, such as a solid history of employment, support from your family and a current relationship. However, those factors also existed at the time of your offending and as such they cannot be considered to be particularly protective.
87Nonetheless, you do have the ongoing support of your partner, father, brother, sister and aunties and you believe you will have employment upon your release from custody. Those are positives more generally for your life and I take them into account.
Standard Sentence Offence
88The Standard Sentence Scheme applies to two charges on the indictment.[9] They are Charge 10 of encouraging a child to engage in sexual activity regarding Stephen and Charge 13 of sexual assault of a child under 16 by way of tongue kissing regarding Nicole. The standard sentence for each of those offences is a term of four years' imprisonment. That is a figure fixed by Parliament to reflect what is said to be an objectively mid-range example of an offence of this kind. It is not a starting point, nor an end point. Like the maximum penalty it is a guidepost and I take it into account.[10]
[9] The standard sentencing provisions do not apply to the other charges on the Indictment as a result of the date range of those charges.
[10] McPherson v The Queen [2021] VSCA 53
89In relation to the acts constituting Charge 10 I am of the view that that is an offence which broadly equates to a mid-range example of that offence.
90In relation to the acts constituting Charge 13 and noting the array of factual scenarios such an offence can cover, I am of the view that is less serious than a mid-range example of that offence.
Current sentencing practices
91I have taken into account current sentencing practices for these offences.
92In considering current sentencing practices for a standard sentence, I must only have regard to sentences previously imposed for those offences as standard sentence offences. That does not limit the matters I am otherwise required or permitted to consider in determining the appropriate sentence for standard sentence offences,[11] nor is it intended to affect the approach to sentencing, known as instinctive synthesis.[12]
[11] R v Brown [2018] VSC 742; Sentencing Act 1991 s5B(3)(a)
[12] Lugo v The Queen [2020] VSCA 75; Sentencing Act 1991 s5B(3)(b)
93As always in looking at any other sentence there are similarities and differences between the offender and the offending. Ultimately, I am required to impose a just sentence in all the circumstances and that is what I have endeavoured to do.
Serious Sexual Offender
94Each of the sexual offences is a serious offence as defined by the Sentencing Act 1991. As such, once I sentence you to imprisonment on Charges 1 and 2 you will become a serious sexual offender. Protection of the community becomes the primary purpose of sentencing and the presumption of concurrency is reversed. However, the Prosecution here did not submit that a disproportionate sentence is necessary or appropriate. I agree.
Totality and Cumulation
95I take into account also the principle of totality. That principle means I must determine the appropriate sentence for each charge, and the appropriate amount of cumulation required before standing back and determining whether the overall sentence is appropriate and not disproportionate. That principle still applies even when a person is sentenced as a serious offender.
96As I indicated earlier the base sentence will be the sentence imposed on Charge 7 of attempted sexual penetration of Nicole. I accept that a number of charges reflect events in a single incident, such as Charges 1 and 2 and that it is appropriate to reduce the amount of cumulation given they are part of a single episode.
97I also accept that some of those incidents are also part of the course of conduct. Specifically, the event covered by incident 1 is part of the course of conduct reflected in Charges 3 and 4. In relation to a course of conduct offence I must sentence within the maximum penalty but also reflecting the totality of your conduct.[13]
[13] DPP (Vic) v Tullipan (a pseudonym) [2021] VSCA 191
98I take into account the maximum penalty for each offence – for the charge of attempted sexual penetration a maximum of 20 years' imprisonment. For all other sexual offences, a maximum of 10 years' imprisonment and for common law assault a maximum of five years' imprisonment.
Sex Offender Registration
99I also take into account the provisions of the Sex Offenders RegistrationAct 2004. Given you have been found guilty of eight class 2 offences, registration is mandated and the reporting period will be for life.
Sentence
100The sentence I impose is as follows –
101On Charge 1 of sexual activity in the presence of a child under 16, you are convicted and sentenced to two years and three months' imprisonment.
102On Charge 2 of sexual activity in the presence of a child under 16, you are convicted and sentenced to two years and three months' imprisonment.
103On Charge 3 of sexual assault of a child under 16 as a course of conduct, you are convicted and sentenced to four years and three months' imprisonment.
104On Charge 4 of sexual assault of a child under 16 as a course of conduct, you are convicted and sentenced to four years' imprisonment.
105On Charge 7 of attempted sexual penetration of Nicole, you are convicted and sentenced to five years and two months' imprisonment.
106On Charge 8 of encouraging a child under 16 to engage in sexual activity, you are convicted and sentenced to three years and six months' imprisonment.
107On Charge 10 of encouraging a child under 16 to engage in sexual activity, you are convicted and sentenced to three years and six months' imprisonment.
108On Charge 11 of common law assault, you are convicted and sentenced to two years' imprisonment.
109On Charge 12 of common law assault, you are convicted and sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment.
110On Charge 13 of sexual assault of a child under 16, you are convicted and sentenced to 15 months' imprisonment.
111The sentence on Charge 7 is the base sentence. I make the following orders for cumulation. Three months of Charge 1, three months of Charge 2, nine months of Charge 3, nine months of Charge 4, six months of Charge 8, six months of Charge 10, two months of Charge 11, and three months of Charge 13 are to be served cumulatively upon each other and upon the base sentence.
Total Effective Sentence
112The total effective sentence therefore is one of eight years and seven months' imprisonment.
113I direct that you are to serve a minimum of five years' imprisonment before becoming eligible for parole.
114I declare that you have served 134 days of pre-sentence detention and that that period should be reckoned as having been served under this sentence.
Serious Sexual Offender
115I direct that you are sentenced as a serious sexual offender on Charges 3, 4, 7, 8, 10 and 13 and that that fact be recorded in the orders of the court.
Sexual Offender Registration
116Further, as I have indicated, I order that you are registered as a sexual offender under the Sexual Offenders Registration Act 2004 and that the reporting period will be for life.
117Paperwork will be provided to Mr Ramsey, Mr Hands, for his signature.
118MR HANDS: I will talk to him about it, Your Honour.
119HER HONOUR: Thank you. I will give counsel a moment just to check those figures. I will ask my associate to print that table for you now, so that you can check that.
120MR GRANT: No issue from the prosecution, Your Honour.
121HER HONOUR: Thanks. Mr Hands?
122MR HANDS: No.
123HER HONOUR: All right. Thanks very much counsel for your assistance in this matter. The orders will be provided later in the day along with that ruling.
124MR HANDS: Thank you, Your Honour.
125HER HONOUR: Thank you.
- - -
0
7
0