Director of Public Prosecutions v Ridgeway
[2020] VCC 264
•16 March 2020
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA | Revised Restricted Suitable for Publication |
AT BENDIGO
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| SAMUEL RIDGEWAY (a pseudonym) |
---
| JUDGE: | HIS HONOUR JUDGE LACAVA |
| WHERE HELD: | Plea at Bendigo – Sentence at Melbourne |
| DATE OF HEARING: | 11 December 2019 |
| DATE OF SENTENCE: | 16 March 2020 |
| CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Ridgeway |
| MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2020] VCC 264 |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---Subject: Incest, sexual penetration of a step child
Sentence: 14 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 11 years.
Sentenced as a Serious Sexual Offender---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Director of Public Prosecutions | Mr D. Cordy | |
| For the Accused | Mr R. Timms |
HIS HONOUR:
1Samuel Ridgeway, you have pleaded guilty to one charge of incest and one charge of sexual penetration of a step child. The maximum penalty for each of these offences is imprisonment for 25 years. Each of these charges is a course of conduct charge. You also pleaded guilty to one charge of encouraging a child under 16 to engage in sexual activity and one charge of knowingly possess child abuse material. The maximum penalty for each of these two latter offences is imprisonment for 10 years.
2The circumstances that bring you before the court are summarised in a Prosecution Opening dated 5 November 2019 which was tendered in evidence and marked as exhibit A and it was read to the court by the prosecutor Mr Cordy. Your counsel Mr Timms agreed that the opening forms a proper factual basis upon which I can proceed to pass sentence upon you. In those circumstances it is not necessary that I here repeat in full all of the detail of your offending and do so only in an abbreviated way. These sentencing remarks should however be read in conjunction with what is set out in more detail in the prosecution opening.
3The victim in this matter is the natural daughter of a woman with whom you were in a relationship from about October 2012. At the time of your offending in charges 1 and 2, a period of nearly five (5) years, the victim was aged between 8 and 13 years. She is now aged 14. During the period of offending you were aged between 28 and 33 years. The relationship between you and the victim’s mother produced two other children.
4You were the step father of the victim. Her mother, your partner at all relevant times had an intellectual disability and arrangements were in place for the victim to live with her maternal great grandparents whilst you lived together with her mother. The victim would visit her mother, and you, at your house on weekends and holidays.
5You first met the victim when she was aged 7. You clearly ingratiated yourself to her winning her trust. When the victim was interviewed she told the police that you were there for her, whereas her mother, was not. She also said that you cared for her, whereas her mother did not. She thought you knew everything about her and could read her like a book. You told the victim that when she was aged 18 you, and she, would move away together. You regularly communicated with the victim via Facebook.
6You first had sexual intercourse with the victim when she was aged only 8 years. You got into her bed and lay next to her and told her to be quiet as you had penile vaginal sex with her without wearing a condom. You told her not to worry about anything. This kind of offending would thereafter occur every weekend that the victim would come to your house to visit her mother. The victim later told police that when the offending was occurring she felt she couldn’t do anything because her mother was in the next room and the walls of the house were thin.
7After you and the victim’s mother moved to Maryborough in November 2016 you continued to have sex with the victim in the car whilst driving her back to her great grandparents.
8The victim never told anyone about what you were doing to her. She told police she said “No” to you a thousand times but you just went ahead anyway. You told her not to tell anyone, and you told her that everything would be ok. She believed you.
9After about March 2017 the victim came back to live with her mother and you at Red Lion. After that you continued to have sex with the victim weekly. The victim said she lost count of the number of times she had sex with you.
10The last occasion that you had sex with the victim was on the night of your arrest on the 13 November 2018. The act of intercourse on that occasion ended with you ejaculating onto the stomach of the victim. You continued to lay in the victim’s bed. But there was a knock on the door which you answered. It was the police and you were immediately arrested and you have remained in custody since that time. The complainant told police that you had also had intercourse with her on the night prior to your arrest.
11The victim told police you never used a condom. She in fact had a contraceptive rod placed in her arm aged 12. You at least suggested this be done because the victim told you she had become sexually active with her boyfriend as well as you.
12In the lead up to your arrest you engaged in communications with the victim via Facebook of a salacious kind in which you encouraged her to engage in sexual acts with both you and her boyfriend.
13You were caught in the act in the victim’s bed because the victim had told others about you and those persons had themselves observed your despicable conduct towards the victim on occasions. They informed the victim’s great grandparents who notified police.
14A later search of two mobile phones and computers belonging to you revealed you possessed child abuse material. There were 4 images of the victim considered as child abuse material and 110 other images and two videos also considered as child abuse material. The opening does not detail the nature of the material.
15When interviewed you denied the offending but made a number of relevant admissions. When first interviewed by way of a VARE the victim made few disclosures. In her second VARE she made more disclosures. It was clear that at first she was relying on what you had constantly said to her, namely that everything was going to be ok.
16Charges 1 and 2 are each charged as a course of conduct charge. The two charges are necessitated only because of legislative amendment introduced to commence from 1 July 2017 which straddled your offending. On those charges 1 and 2 it is appropriate that I impose an aggregate sentence for what amounts to the same offending conduct. As I see it your offending in charge 3 was really part of, and bound up with your offending in charge 2. There will be no accumulation of any part of the sentence imposed on charge 3.
17Your offending in charges 1 and 2 was prolonged over a period of nearly five years. You commenced having sex with an 8 year old child and continued to do so until she was aged only 13. Your offending is best described as abhorrent and a gross breach of trust placed in you, not only by the victim herself, but importantly by her mother. Your offending in my judgment falls in the upper level of offending of this kind for which you bare full moral responsibility. Fortunately, your offending lacks the features of both violence or threats.
18I admitted into evidence as exhibit C a victim impact statement from your step daughter. I also admitted into evidence victim impact statements from the victim’s great grandparents. They are telling documents and I think it is fair to say your repugnant conduct towards the victim has ruined her life and those great grandparents who love her. Almost every aspect of her life is touched upon because of the way you treated her. He relationship with her mother is damaged. Her relationship with friends are damaged. He schooling has been curtailed. Her sleep is affected. I have taken the victim impact statements into account as I must.
19In sentencing for offending of this kind the sentence must properly reflect general deterrence and denunciation and, most importantly, the need to protect young children from people of your kind who think only of their own personal sexual gratification. Offending of this kind must be deterred by the sentences imposed by the courts. In sentencing you I must also have full regard to your background circumstances and your prospects for rehabilitation. In passing sentence upon you I have endeavoured to have proper regard to these sentencing principles.
20You have pleaded guilty to the charges and that is to your credit. By your pleas of guilty you have saved the time and costs of a trial and you have facilitated the course of justice and you have accepted responsibility for your offending. I treat you as having indicated that you would plead guilty to the charges at the earliest opportunity. For that you are entitled to a reduction in the sentence that will be imposed and this will be reflected in the sentence that I will shortly pass.
21After the victim had made a second VARE and made further disclosures you indicated that you would plead guilty to the charges. There was no contested committal and, importantly, the victim has never had to go to court to give evidence against you and be cross-examined. Mr Timms submitted that this was an important factor in mitigation in this case. I accept that submission and I have taken this into account. I also treat your guilty pleas as evidence of remorse on your part for this offending.
22I turn to some matters personal to you. Mr Timms filed a short outline of submissions which I marked as Exhibit 1 on the plea. You are 34 years of age and the youngest in a sib-ship of four. I was first told on the initial plea hearing that you attended school to year 12 and then you took out a Bachelor of Computer Engineering and an advanced Diploma in Cyber Security from Monash University. You have been fully employed in the computer industry. In an outline of further submissions filed by Mr Timms today I was told that you did not in fact complete any tertiary education at Monash University but rather you commenced a diploma of computer science at Chisholm TAFE, Frankston and you have no other formal training. The submissions made by Mr Timms on the first occasion, I was informed today, were made on your instructions. Although your IQ of 89 suggests you fall within a range of low average for intelligence you seem to have been able to cope in life holding down employment in the computer industry.
23Your parents separated when you were aged 5. Otherwise you had an unremarkable childhood. You remain close to your two sisters and you are estranged from your brother.
24You are the father of three children, The eldest aged 7 is from a previous relationship and you have two children aged 6 and 1 from your relationship with the victim’s mother. You have no prior convictions.
25Mr Timms filed with the Court a psychological report of Gina Cidoni who carried out psychological testing of you at Hopkins Prison on the 30 October 2019. Ms Cidoni opined that you have a low average intellect with an IQ of 89. I indicated I did not accept that assessment given that you have successfully completed seven years of tertiary study and been employed in the IT industry. I ordered a pre-sentence report from Forensicare. A report was prepared dated 23 January 2020. It confirms the findings of Ms Cidoni that your IQ falls within the low average range. I find this at odds with your academic achievement and professional employment history.
26In a pre-sentence report prepared by Dr Kiara Bird she opined, amongst other things, as follows on your current psychological state. She said this:
[44] 'At the time of the assessment Mr Ridgeway had been on remand for over a year most of which had been spent at Hopkins Correction Centre. He described feeling well settled at Hopkins and reported no significant mental health problems though reflected on experiencing low moods on occasion particularly in the evening. Mr Ridgeway endorsed answers on psychometric assessment indicating that he had experienced severe depressive symptomatology over the past week. However when considered in conjunction with his self-report these symptoms would likely not meet the criteria for persistent depressive disorder. The symptoms of low mood experienced by Mr Ridgeway appeared to be largely situational. Though Mr Ridgeway’s IQ was not formally examined within the current assessment his presentation was consistent with a previous assessment which had found his IQ to fall within the "low average" range. He displayed a number of deficits pertaining to thinking, style, memory, recall and understanding the minds of others which may indicate the presence of neuro developmental disorder though this would need to be formally assessed and, if present, the severity of any such disorder would likely be mild given his level of functioning.'
27At paragraph 46 Dr Bird opined on the causative factors in your offending. She said this.
'[46] At the time that the offending first started Mr Ridgeway reported that he was experiencing difficulties in his intimate relationship with the victim's mother. Rather than seek appropriate support for these difficulties he relied on the victim to meet his emotional needs and in doing so inappropriately adultified the victim. Given the victim's own vulnerabilities and fractious relationship with her mother she may have been eager to gain and maintain Mr Ridgeway's approval by behaving as he directed. Through a process of grooming and psychological coercion the victim is likely to have developed an emotional dependency on Mr Ridgeway which may have made her less likely to report the abuse or recognise it as such given its chronic nature. As this behaviour continued it is likely to have become normalised both for Mr Ridgeway and the victim. Such sustained and frequent inappropriate sexual contact is likely to have impacted significantly on the victim's ability to understand and navigate relationships and boundaries and process her own emotions. It is within this context of being groomed that Mr Ridgeway indicated the victim sought to maintain sexual contact with him. He does not appear to have an understanding of the processes which underpin the victim's compliance and instead used this as evidence of the victim's complicity in his actions.'
28At paragraph 47 of her report Dr Bird opined on your risk of re-offending in the following way:
'[47] Overall, without suitable intervention, Mr Ridgeway was deemed to present a moderate risk of engaging in further general sexual violence and a low risk of causing serious physical harm during the commission of further offending. Psychological harm is more likely and the impact of this could be severe and enduring. Future victims are likely to be known to him and offending may occur following a period of grooming. This measure does not assess the likelihood of Mr Ridgeway attempting to contact the victim again in the future. Given the nature of the offending this should be a clear consideration in future risk management plans. Deficits within relationships and psychological functioning particularly in terms of developing insight into his behaviour and appropriately coping with stress are considered the most pertinent risk factors in Mr Ridgeway's case.'
29At paragraph 48 of her report Dr Bird opined on factors likely to reduce the risk of your re-offending. She said this:
'[48] The risks posed by Mr Ridgeway are likely to be reduced if he is able to access the appropriate support, intervention and treatment he requires to address relevant risk factors. The following recommendations are made in consideration of this:
(a) Mr Ridgeway would benefit from completing offence-focused intervention particularly focusing on developing his understanding of appropriate sexual boundaries and behaviours and development insight into his offending behaviour. Mr Ridgeway 's low IQ and potential other cognitive factors should be a consideration in treatment planning and should be suitably assessed prior to placing him in a general group program. He may be more suited to an adapted intervention or one on one work.
(b) Specialised further cognitive assessment would not otherwise be recommended in Mr Ridgeway's case. He appears to be coping well within a custodial setting and does not appear to experience functional difficulties on a day to day basis or issues with employment and education.
(c) Mr Ridgeway may benefit from additional psychological intervention to help him build adaptive coping strategies for dealing with and acknowledging stress and distress. Such intervention should be time limited and skills focused. It may be more helpful for Mr Ridgeway to complete such work towards the end of his sentence in order to prepare him for the transition back into the community.
(d) Dependent on the length of sentence Mr Ridgeway receives robust monitoring may be necessary in Mr Ridgeway's case to assist him in maintaining adherence to any non-contact restrictions in relation to the victim particularly in the circumstance that the victim may seek to make contact with Mr Ridgeway.'
30I accept that in a custodial setting you are likely suffering from some depression and exhibiting symptoms of low mood. I accept the opinion this is situational. I accept that you are a moderate risk of re-offending in this way. I assess your prospects for rehabilitation as being reasonable.
31Your counsel Mr Timms recognised that a lengthy term of imprisonment was inevitable as an appropriate sentence with the fixing of a non-parole period. He submitted that your prospects for rehabilitation were reasonable in the circumstances and given you have no prior convictions.
32Would you please stand, Mr Ridgeway .
33On charges 1 and 2 you are convicted and I make an aggregate sentence of 14 years imprisonment.
34On charge 3 you are convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of three (3) years.
35On charge 4 you are convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of six (6) months.
36I direct that you serve a minimum term of 11 years imprisonment before being eligible for release on parole.
37For the purposes of section 6AAA of the Sentencing Act 1991 I state I have imposed sentences being terms of imprisonment and I have reduced the overall sentence I would have imposed but for your pleas of guilty. Had it not been for your pleas of guilty to the charges I would have imposed a total effective term of imprisonment of 18 years and I would have fixed a non-parole period of fifteen (15) years.
38I recommend that whilst in prison, you be referred for assessment and treatment under any relevant sexual offender treatment programs and that this matter be brought to the attention of the Parole Board at the relevant time.
39I note that you have served 488 days in custody. Accordingly, pursuant to section 18(4) Sentencing Act 1991 I declare that the period of 488 days be reckoned as time already served under the sentences passed today and be noted in the records of the Court and deducted administratively.
40The crimes in charges 1 and 2 are Class 1 offences pursuant to Schedule 1 of the Sex Offenders Registration Act 2004. You have been convicted of two such offences. The crime in charges 3 and 4 are each Class 2 offences pursuant to the same schedule. You have thus been convicted of two class 1 offences and two Class two offences and pursuant to the application of sections 6 and 34 of the Sex Offenders Registration Act 2004 you are a registrable offender within the meaning of that Act with reporting obligations for life. I strongly advise you to take advice in prison as to your obligations under the Sex Offenders Registration Act 2004. You will have to comply with the reporting obligations upon your release and for the remainder of your life.
41The Office of Public Prosecutions has made application for an order directing you to undergo a forensic procedure for the taking of an intimate sample from your body. The offences of which you have been convicted are each a forensic sample offence under the relevant schedule to the Crimes Act1958.
42Having regard to the seriousness of your offending, the fact that the making of the order was not opposed by your counsel and it being in the public interest I am satisfied on a consideration of all the circumstances that the making of an order under s.464ZF(2) is justified. I direct that a copy of the order and my reasons for making the order be served on you.
43Mr Ridgeway I am required to inform you that having made this Order, once it is served upon you, then a member of the police force may use reasonable force to enable the procedure to be conducted, which in this case is the taking of a scraping from your mouth and I have signed an Order to the above effect.
44Have I got the pre-sentence calculation wrong?
45MR CORDY: Yes, Your Honour. It's been calculated as 489 days not including today.
46HIS HONOUR: One day out, am I?
47MR CORDY: One day out, yes. I think the confusion comes from the date of his arrest and there might have been an error in the original opening.
48HIS HONOUR: The pre-sentence detention declaration will be 489 days not 488.
49MR CORDY: The other matter, Your Honour, is this, charges 3 and 4, Your Honour's been silent on as far as concurrency or cumulation. My understanding is because of the serious offender provisions of the Act, if it's Your Honour's intention that they be concurrent then Your Honour needs to order that they be served - - -
50HIS HONOUR: Are they caught by the - are those offences caught by the - - -
51MR CORDY: I believe charge 3 would be, Your Honour, and I'd need to check on charge 4, I don't have a hard copy of the Act.
52HIS HONOUR: Well it's my intention that there be no accumulation.
53MR CORDY: Yes. So Your Honour has otherwise ordered, yes.
54HIS HONOUR: And I will otherwise order.
55MR CORDY: Yes.
56HIS HONOUR: We didn't discuss that on the plea.
57MR CORDY: Sorry, we didn't - - -
58HIS HONOUR: We didn't discuss - - -
59MR CORDY: The copy of the opening I have, Your Honour, which is a hand amended one indicates that the serious offender provisions apply but I think I might have made the submission, Your Honour, that because of the technical break-up of charges 1 and 2 straddling the legislative change that Your Honour would be entitled to have some degree of concurrency but Your Honour's dealt with it in another, more appropriate, way, if I might say Your Honour, but clearly if charges 3 and 4 are caught by the serious offending provisions they should be ordered to be served concurrently to comply with the legislation.
60HIS HONOUR: Well I will order that the sentences that I've imposed on charges 3 and 4 are to be served concurrently with the aggregate sentence imposed on charges 1 and 2 and that is my intention.
61MR CORDY: As Your Honour pleases.
62HIS HONOUR: Do you have any questions arising out of that, Mr Timms?
63MR TIMMS: No, Your Honour.
64HIS HONOUR: Very well, take Mr Ridgeway back into custody please. Thank you for coming all the way from Bendigo today, Mr Timms, always a pleasure to see you.
65MR TIMMS: My apologies for no wig.
66HIS HONOUR: That's all right. Adjourn the court please.
- - -
0
0
0