Director of Public Prosecutions v Richards (a pseudonym)

[2025] ACTSC 283

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

DPP v Richards (a pseudonym)

Citation: 

[2025] ACTSC 283

Hearing Date: 

4 July 2025

Decision Date: 

4 July 2025

Before:

Elkaim AJ

Decision: 

See [52]

Catchwords: 

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – where offender pleaded guilty to very serious child sexual abuse charges – where offender to be sentenced for both Territory and Commonwealth offences – where offender has no relevant criminal history – where offences involved significant breaches of trust – unfortunately necessary to credit offender for early plea of guilty – offender sentenced to 15 years, nine months and 26 days’ imprisonment

Cases Cited: 

R v Ralston [2019] ACTSC 236

DPP v Meyers (a pseudonym) [2023] ACTSC 142

Parties: 

Director of Public Prosecutions

Travis Richards (a pseudonym) ( Offender)

Representation: 

Counsel

S McLaughlin ( DPP)

S Baker‑Goldsmith ( Offender)

Solicitors

Director of Public Prosecutions

ACT Legal Aid ( Offender)

File Numbers:

SCC 286 of 2023

SCC 430 of 2024

ELKAIM AJ   

Introduction

1․The offender has pleaded guilty, and is to be sentenced, for six offences. They are:

(a)Possess child abuse material obtained/accessed using carriage service on 5 November 2023. The maximum penalty is 15 years’ imprisonment.

(b)Grooming between 9 February 2023 and 22 May 2023. The maximum penalty is 15 years’ imprisonment.

(c)Using carriage service for child abuse material between 28 August 2021 and 22 October 2023. The maximum penalty is 15 years’ imprisonment.

(d)Possessing child exploitation material (aggravated) on 5 November 2023. The maximum penalty is nine years’ imprisonment.

(e)Using carriage service to groom between 16 July 2023 and 21 July 2023. The maximum penalty is 15 years’ imprisonment.

(f)Persistent sexual abuse of a young person under special care between 10 November 2022 and 24 July 2023. The maximum penalty is 25 years’ imprisonment.

2․Offences (a), (b), (c) and (e) are Commonwealth offences. Offences (d) and (f) are Territory offences.

The offending

3․When the police first spoke to the offender, they also gained access to his computer pursuant to a search warrant. The relevant content of the computer is truly abhorrent. It includes a video showing an adult male having penile–vaginal intercourse with a child aged about 11 to 13 years. An adult female is performing oral sex on a similarly aged female child.

4․In a chat platform shown on the computer, the offender confirms that he is an “active child loving paedophile”. He says that he has been touching and kissing his four year old granddaughter as well as rubbing and licking her, and “she touches my cock”.

5․There was also a gallery with a series of images showing very young children (aged three to five years) in pyjamas. Another part of the gallery is a video showing an infant child (6 to 18 months) being outrageously molested by an adult male. Suffice to say he is using the child’s mouth for gratification of his sick paedophilic needs.

6․Also included in a computer belonging to the offender were 1,220 files of child abuse material, although duplication reduced the number to 895 individual files. These files included all manner of sexual deviancy in which children were forced to commit sexual acts which can only have been for the benefit of those subjecting them to the acts. The files included examples of bondage and bestiality.

7․The police gained access to the offender’s telephones where there were yet more files.

8․The offender was arrested early on 5 November 2023 and he has remained in custody since that date. It will unfortunately be necessary to give the offender credit for the time he has spent in custody.

9․I agree with the prosecution submission that the child abuse material in this case is of the most serious type. It is not only depraved and pernicious of itself, but also involves the subjection of absolute horror upon children. It is an indication of the offender’s total immersion in paedophilia that he had a document called “The Paedophile’s Handbook”.

10․The grooming charge involves the offender communicating with three different children; he even arranged payment of money in a foreign country to facilitate his actions.

11․The offender had conversations with six other people over about two months in which child abuse material was exchanged.

12․The aggravated possession charge involves a video taken on the offender’s telephone of an adult male undressing the offender’s own three year old granddaughter with her twin brother in the background. I note that this is a possession charge and not a production charge.

13․The use of a carriage service for grooming involves online communications with a person thought to be 13 years of age. The communications were sexual and included the display of the offender’s erect penis.

14․The most serious charge, if it can be imagined that anything could be more serious than the other charges, involves the persistent abuse of the offender’s granddaughter when she was two and three years of age. She was improperly touched, she was kissed on the mouth and she was made to touch the offender’s penis. Even more disgracefully, he performed oral sex upon her, and he placed his penis on her vagina and ejaculated. I have already mentioned that he had a video showing his granddaughter being undressed.

15․The abuse of his granddaughter continued over about eight months and involves the breach of trust associated with his relationship, as grandfather, to the victim. The offending occurred on many occasions and each act is vulgar and capable of injury to the victim. The acts were entirely for the benefit of the offender.

16․The victim’s mother (AA) has given a victim impact statement where she refers to the “pain and devastation” caused by her father, the offender. The statement includes this:

One of the most heartbreaking consequences is how this trauma has affected her relationship with her doctors. [AB] has had significant medical needs since she was born. She has had the same medical teams since she was 4 months old. She now struggles and becomes extremely anxious, fearful and resistant during medical appointments and hospital stays. Something that was never an issue before any of this happened. These challenges only add to the complexity of managing her medical care. She requires regular check ups and procedures but her emotional torment now make the necessary treatments stressful for both of us. Watching her fear through these appointments is a painful reminder of how deeply this has affected her sense of safety.

Beyond her medical struggles, [AB] now has horrible nightmares which can sometimes take hours to settle and calm her, separation anxiety so the simple routine of daycare drop off has become a daily battle, frequent bathroom accidents even though she has been toilet trained since she was 2 years old, frequent aggressive behaviour toward herself, and an overall mistrust of all adults. I see the pain she feels every day.

17․The statement also describes the effects on AA, as well as the victim’s twin brother. The statement concludes:

Your Honor, no punishment will ever undo the damage [the offender] has caused, but I ask you to ensure he cannot harm another child or family. My children and I are left picking up the pieces and I will spend the rest of my life trying my best to rebuild the trust and safety they deserve. I only hope that by sharing our story will bring some measure or justice for [AB], and accountability for [the offender’s] actions and that [AB]’s voice matters.

The offender

18․The offender has a criminal record, but it relates to driving charges and one charge of common assault in respect of which no conviction was recorded. Accordingly, his criminal history is not relevant.

19․The offender is 57 years of age. He grew up in Australia living at different locations because his father was a member of the Australian Air Force. There was no violence or substance abuse when he was growing up.

20․The offender completed Year 10 and then went into employment. He completed an apprenticeship as a butcher but did not follow butchery as a career. He worked in various jobs, often involving being a driver.

21․The offender seems to have used drugs fairly regularly, sometimes spending about $400 a week on “speed”. This was associated with his truck driving. He also used cocaine from time to time.

22․The offender has been diagnosed with depression, anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder, according to the pre-sentence report. He has made a number of suicide attempts, apparently commencing in 2017, and he stopped his antidepressant medication, although resumed this medication after he was taken into custody. He apparently still has acute suicidality. His divorce in 2017 was also in the midst of worsening depression.

23․There is a confidential psychological assessment, dated 2 July 2025, prepared by Ms Kocak, a forensic psychologist. She said the offender suffered from:

(a)an “Other Specified Personality Disorder”; and

(b)a major depressive disorder.

24․According to Ms Kocak, the offender’s “psychiatric and psychological vulnerabilities have demonstrably impacted his behavioural regulation, consequential thinking and decision-making capacity in several areas of functioning over the years”. She does not, however, suggest his offending was a product of his psychological conditions, although she says “there is evidence to support a causal contribution in terms of vulnerability factors that shaped his psychosocial development, emotional regulation, and interpersonal functioning, thereby creating a psychological environment in which such offending behaviour could emerge and persist”.

25․Ms Kocak stated:

Rather than causing the offences in a direct sense, the combination of affective dysregulation, cognitive distortions, long-term isolation and intimacy deprivation, and possible frontal lobe compromise, may have contributed to a diminished capacity to inhibit harmful behaviours, particularly those that offered temporary relief from internal distress.

26․I immediately note the length of time over which the offences occurred is inconsistent with the suggestion of “temporary relief”. I also note that Ms Kocak does not diagnose PTSD, as mentioned in the pre-sentence report.

27․I accept the offender has had major psychiatric problems for some years. I do not accept that these problems in any way excuse his criminal conduct.

28․Finally in respect of Ms Kocak, she says that:

Although [the offender] reports that his psychosocial functioning and self management of mental health issues is stabilised whilst in custody, he appears to be at heightened risk of psychological decompensation and suicide upon release from this structured environment, particularly once needing to reintegrate back into the community with the stigma of his offences, further estrangement from family and conditional employment opportunities. Therefore, although incarceration is not currently having an immediate deteriorating effect on [the offender], the lack of opportunity and engagement with intensive psychological interventions required for such disorders is a destabilising factor for any longer term improvement.

29․Physically, the offender has cardiovascular and thromboembolic (blood clotting) conditions.

30․The offender told the pre-sentence report author that his offending was wrong and stupid. He is correct. He also told the author that he is expecting a custodial sentence. Again, he is correct.

31․According to the pre-sentence report, the offender has an above average risk of sexual reoffending as well as a medium risk of general reoffending. The report states that it is a concern that the offender is no longer interested in mental health treatment.

Sentencing

32․The offences in this matter involved both Commonwealth and Territory offences. In respect of both, there is a need to recognise the objective seriousness of the offending, the need for deterrence, both public and personal, and the condemnation on behalf of society for this type of conduct.

33․On the offender’s side, I must recognise that he does not have a relevant criminal history, that he has pleaded guilty and that he has apparently expressed some remorse. His time in custody needs to be taken into account. It is also important that I avoid duplication, taking into account the principles of totality and accumulation.

34․The offender has suggested the Verdins principles should be applied. I disagree, although I will take into account the mental health problems he has endured. I do not accept the presence of frontal lobe damage.

35․I think the objective seriousness of the offences is high. The material is extensive, graphic, depraved and extends to children being hurt and no doubt psychologically damaged. The breach of trust relating to the offences against the offender’s granddaughter is significant and the activities performed upon her are vile and pernicious.

36․In order to avoid technical difficulties arising from there being both Commonwealth and Territory offences, I will sentence the offender for the Commonwealth offences first and then, chronologically, for the Territory offences. Because of the number of offences and at least one instance of duplication between the offences, I think it inevitable that there must be a degree of concurrency in order to avoid an overly crushing total sentence.

37․I will not impose a non-parole period for the Commonwealth offences, but will impose a non-parole period in respect of the Territory offences.

38․The offender’s suggestion of a 25 percent discount for the early pleas of guilty was accepted by the prosecution. I will adopt that discount.

39․I have made some comments about the offences above, but will elaborate or repeat those comments in respect of each offence, dealing first with the Commonwealth offences.

40․CAN 10890/2023: In this offence, there were 895 files depicting a range of children and a range of appalling conduct. There were videos which showed choking of an 11 to 13 year old victim, as well as her being raped. It includes the penetration of a child’s mouth by an adult’s penis. There was penetration of a 3 to 5 year old child with a toy, as well as digital penetration. There was a 9 to 12 year old girl that had her vagina licked by a dog and an adult male inserts his penis into her mouth. There is anal penetration of a child on more than one occasion.

41․The prosecution referred me to Mertell v The King [2022] ACTCA 69 where the offender received a total sentence of six years and three months’ imprisonment with a non‑parole period of 24 months, which was reduced on appeal to 30 months. Although there were a number of offences, the offending is roughly equivalent to the current offending because of the rolled up nature of this particular charge. I think six years is the appropriate sentence, which I will reduce by 25 percent to 4 years and six months. This sentence will commence on arrest, namely 5 November 2023.

42․CAN 41131/2024: In this offence, the offender was endeavouring to have sexualised interactions with a five year old child. There were at least eight interactions over five days during a two and a half month period. I think the appropriate sentence is three years’ imprisonment, reduced by 25 percent to 27 months. This will commence three years after the commencement of the first sentence.

43․CAN 41139/2024: In this offence, the offender had, over about two months, conversations with six persons. One of the conversations extended over about two weeks. During the conversations, the offender sent and received child abuse videos to and from other people, he described his sexual abuse of his granddaughter, and he paid for child abuse material, in particular, requesting “super young ones”. This offence involved 309 files, although it must be acknowledged that there is an overlap in respect of these files with the first charge. Nevertheless, the offending extended over almost 26 months. I think the same penalty is appropriate, namely three years’ imprisonment, reduced to 27 months, which will commence 24 months after the commencement of the previous offence.

44․CAN 41141/2024: In this offence, there were communications with a 13 year old person over about five days. The intention was to engage in sexual activity with this person. Images were sent, including pictures of the offender’s erect penis. I was referred to my decision in R v Ralston [2019] ACTSC 236 and the subsequent unsuccessful appeal. I think Ralston is distinguishable as involving a much less serious set of facts.

45․I think the appropriate sentence here is 30 months’ imprisonment, reduced to 22 months and two weeks. The sentence will commence 12 months after the commencement of the previous sentence.

46․CAN 41140/2024: This offence involved the use of a mobile phone to depict the undressing of the offender’s granddaughter when she was three years of age. Although not readily identifiable, it would seem almost certain that the person taking the video is the offender. The aggravated element of the offence is its family violence elements. There is, of course, the breach of trust by the offender. I note that, in her victim impact statement, the victim’s mother spoke about the love that the victim had had for the offender, a connection which has now been utterly destroyed.

47․I think the appropriate sentence is two years’ imprisonment, which is reduced to 18 months, to commence 12 months after the commencement of the previous sentence.

48․CAN 11168/2024: Obviously, the offence relating to the offender’s granddaughter is the most serious. This is reflected in the offence carrying the highest maximum penalty of the six offences. If the offender had had any relevant criminal history, I would have sentenced him to close to the maximum. However, there are some factors that I have outlined above which mitigate such an approach. Nevertheless, the sentence must be harsh.

49․I was referred to DPP v Meyers (a pseudonym) [2023] ACTSC 142, where Mossop J sentenced an offender, for the same offence, to 13 years and 6 months’ imprisonment (but reduced to 12 years and 10 months after applying a 5 percent discount). The prosecution accepted that the offending in Myers was more serious because it involved penile–vaginal penetration by the victim’s father.

50․I agree the facts in Myers are “worse”, but I nevertheless take guidance from the decision. In my view, the appropriate sentence is 11 years’ imprisonment, reduced to 7 years and 10 months. This sentence will commence 12 months after the commencement of the previous sentence.

51․The total period of imprisonment is 15 years, nine months and 26 days, commencing on 5 November 2023 and ending on 30 August 2039. I will set a non-parole period which will commence on 1 November 2030 and end on 2 December 2034. The usual range of non-parole periods does not apply because I have dispensed with non-parole periods for the Commonwealth offences.

52․The sentences are therefore:

(1)On the charge of possessing child abuse material obtained or accessed using a carriage service (CAN 10890/2023), the offender is convicted and sentenced to 4 years and 6 months’ imprisonment, commencing on 5 November 2023 and ending on 4 May 2028.

(2)On the charge of grooming (CAN 41131/2024), the offender is convicted and sentenced to 27 months’ imprisonment, commencing on 4 November 2026 and ending on 3 February 2029.

(3)On the charge of using carriage service to transmit child abuse material (CAN 41139/2024), the offender is convicted and sentenced to 27 months’ imprisonment, commencing on 3 November 2028 and ending on 2 February 2031.

(4)On the charge of using carriage service to groom (CAN 41141/2024), the offender is convicted and sentenced to 22 months and two weeks’ imprisonment, commencing on 2 November 2029 and ending on 15 September 2031.

(5)On the charge of possess child exploitation material (CAN 41140/2024), the offender is convicted and sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment, commencing on 1 November 2030 and ending on 30 April 2032.

(6)On the charge of persistent sexual abuse of a young person under special care (CAN 11168/2024), the offender is convicted and sentenced to 7 years and 10 months’ imprisonment, commencing on 31 October 2031 and ending on 30 August 2039.

(7)The non‑parole period commences on 1 November 2030 and expires on 2 December 2034.

I certify that the preceding fifty‑two [52] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Sentence his Honour Acting Justice Elkaim.

Associate:

Date: