Director of Public Prosecutions v Rossiter (No 6)

[2025] ACTSC 397

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

DPP v Rossiter (No 6)

Citation: 

[2025] ACTSC 397

Hearing Dates: 

1 August 2025

Decision Date: 

4 September 2025

Before:

Kelly AJ

Decision: 

(1) As required by the terms of s 301 of the Crimes Act, I impose the following nominated terms:

(a)    Count 1 (CC2023/9668) – Indecent Assault – two years to commence on 7^th of February 2025.

(b)    Count 2 (CC2023/9669) – Indecent Assault – two years to commence on 7^th of February 2025.

(c)    Count 3 (CC2023/9671) – Indecent Assault – three years to commence on 7^th of February 2025.

(d)    Count 4 (CC2023/7328) – Carnal Knowledge – four years to commence on 7^th of February 2025.

(e)    Count 5 (CC2023/12039) – Persistent Sexual Abuse – seven years to commence on 7^th of February 2025.

Catchwords: 

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Indicative sentence – historical child sexual offences – special hearing conducted by judge alone due to unfitness to plead – offences of indecent assault, carnal knowledge and persistent sexual abuse of biological daughter –  where accused was found to have engaged in the conduct required for each of the five offences – consideration of appropriate nominated term of imprisonment – objective seriousness of the offences – impact of offending on the victim – accused’s personal circumstances

Legislation Cited: 

Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), ss 56, 71, 76, 300(1), 301, 316, 319(2)

Mental Health Act 2015 (ACT), s 180

Cases Cited: 

DPP v Adams [2025] ACTSC 167

DPP v Kakar [2023] ACTSC 236

DPP v Mapiou [2024] ACTSC 323

DPP v Rossiter (No 4) [2025] ACTSC 212

DPP v Rossiter (No 5) [2025] ACTSC 328

R v Ashton (a pseudonym) [2022] ACTSC 27

R v EN [2019] ACTSC 354

R v Michaelopoulos [2020] ACTSC 27

The Queen v Aston (a pseudonym) [2022] ACTCA 45

The Queen v Ware (a pseudonym) [2022] ACTCA 14

Parties: 

Director of Public Prosecutions ( Crown)

John Henery Rossiter ( Accused)

Representation: 

Counsel

S McFarland ( DPP)

S Baker-Goldsmith ( Accused)

Solicitors

ACT Director of Public Prosecutions

Legal Aid ACT ( Accused)

File Numbers:

SCC 124 of 2024

Kelly AJ:

Introduction

1․John Henery Rossiter, you were found unfit to plead in a judgment published in this Court on 25 February 2025, see DPP v Rossiter (No 4) [2025] ACTSC 212.

2․Accordingly, you have been subjected to a special hearing under s 316 of Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) (Crimes Act) by judge alone pursuant to an election filed on your behalf by the Guardian appointed when you were determined to be unfit.

3․You faced five charges as follows:

1.Count 1: that on or between 1 December 1970 and 1 December 1982 at Canberra in the Australian Capital Territory John Henery Rossiter indecently assaulted a female, namely [the complainant], and the said [complainant] did not give effective consent, her being under the age of 16 years.

2.Count 2: and further that on or between 1 December 1971 and 1 December 1982 at Canberra aforesaid John Henery Rossiter indecently assaulted a female, namely [the complainant], and the said [complainant] did not give effective consent, her being under the age of 16 years.

3.Count 3: and further that on or between 1 December 1971 and 1 December 1982 at Canberra aforesaid John Henery Rossiter indecently assaulted a female, namely [the complainant], and the said [complainant] did not give effective consent, her being under the age of 16 years.

4.Count 4: and further that on or between 1 December 1979 and 1 December 1982 at Canberra aforesaid John Henery Rossiter carnally knew [the complainant] being a girl of or above the age of 10 and under the age of 16 years.

5.Count 5: and further that on or between 1 December 1970 and 1 December 1982 at Canberra aforesaid John Henery Rossiter being an adult, engaged in a relationship with a child, namely [the complainant] and that involved more than one sexual act.

4․On 29 July 2025, I made the following orders (see DPP v Rossiter (No 5) [2025] ACTSC 328): I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that you, the accused, engaged in the conduct required for each of the five offences charged on the indictment presented by the Director of Public Prosecutions. I found that the five offences for which you were charged are serious offences within the meaning of s 300(1) of the Crimes Act.

5․On 1 August 2025, after hearing from the parties what orders should be made pursuant to s 319(2) of the Crimes Act, I ordered that you be detained in custody for immediate review by the ACAT under s 180 of the Mental Health Act 2015 (ACT), and pursuant to s 319(2)(a) of the Crimes Act.

6․The only outstanding matter for me now is to consider and decide the nominated term. Section 301 of the Crimes Act requires me to indicate the sentence I would have considered appropriate had you been found guilty of each of the five charges on the indictment.   It is necessary to outline the maximum penalty of each offence as relevant at the time the acts occurred.

(a)The maximum penalty for a charge of indecent assault pursuant to s 76 of the Crimes Act is 5 years.

(b)The maximum penalty for a charge of carnal knowledge pursuant to s 71 of the Crimes Act is 10 years.

(c)The maximum penalty for a charge of persistent sexual abuse pursuant to s 56 of the Crimes Act is 25 years.

7․In determining an appropriate nominated term for each of these offences, I have been assisted by a number of authorities to which both counsel referred me, particularly DPP v Kakar [2023] ACTSC 236 and DPP v Mapiou [2024] ACTSC 323, as well as the authorities which counsel for the prosecution submitted were comparable in similar matters, in particular: R v EN [2019] ACTSC 354, R v Michaelopoulos [2020] ACTSC 27, R v Ashton (a pseudonym) [2022] ACTSC 27, The Queen v Aston (a pseudonym) [2022] ACTCA 45 and The Queen v Ware (a pseudonym) [2022] ACTCA 14.

8․I have also been assisted, and taken into account, a helpful summary at [45] of the judgment of Christensen AJ in DPP v Adams [2025] ACTSC 167 as to some of the relevant considerations which are to be taken into account when assessing the objective seriousness of the offence of persistent sexual abuse.

9․Plainly, Count 5 on the indictment, the charge of persistent sexual abuse is the most serious of the offences charged against you, Mr Rossiter. 

10․Having accepted the complainant’s evidence beyond reasonable doubt as to both the nature, extent and duration of the sexual offending against her, it follows that I will decide a nominated term on the basis that you committed sexual acts against the complainant, your biological daughter, for a period of approximately eight to nine years, when she was aged between about five or six, and the age of fourteen.

Objective seriousness

11․It is an objectively very serious factor that your daughter was still a very young child at the time when your offending commenced.  The sexual acts included touching and hugging her in the genital regions, oral sex to the point of ejaculation on occasions, digital penetration of the vagina and one act of penile penetration.

12․Although it can be accepted that there was no gratuitous violence beyond those acts necessarily to perform the sexual acts upon her, the offending nevertheless is to be categorised as in the upper range of objective seriousness having regard to the frequency of the sexual acts committed and the fact that they occurred during almost the whole of the complainant’s childhood.

13․I accept that in light of my factual findings, it is appropriate that the nominated terms I decide for each of the five offences should be wholly concurrent with each other.   I have already explained earlier in my reasons for judgment, the devastating impact your conduct has had on the life of your daughter.  In her own words, she was deprived of a childhood.  The consequences of which have been catastrophic for her.  The effects of your conduct have extended well into the adulthood of your daughter and ultimately caused a breakdown in relationships between her and all of your family members.  This is a factor I can and do take into account.

Accused’s personal circumstances

14․I turn now to your personal circumstances.  You are now 97 years old.  You have dementia and a number of related comorbidities which I read in the medical report submitted on your behalf.  Your life expectancy is self-evidently limited.  I take into account the fact that for all practical purposes, you come before the Court with no relevant prior criminal history.

15․It is obvious that you had a very difficult early life, after being adopted as a two-year-old into a dysfunctional family with three much older children.  You and the complainant’s mother divorced in around 1995 for reasons which seem to have included, in addition to your offending against your daughter, the complainant’s mother finding out about your homosexual activities (which I mention in passing seems to have been related to the only matter which appears on your prior criminal history.  I do not take that into account).

16․I also take into account that you made partial admissions to family members and when questioned by police you also admitted to some indecent touching of your daughter, however, you denied that it extended beyond a period of one year, and you denied that it ever involved digital or penile penetration.

17․I must say in the experience of the courts and, in particular in my experience, it is not uncommon for offenders in your position to confess and avoid when confronted with the consequences of their actions.  And I have concluded that is the effect of what you did when the police spoke to you in Brisbane on that day.  I acknowledge that when spoken to by police, you did make comments to the effect that you had been waiting for this day to come.  Although I regard that comment as equivocal, I am prepared to accept, given the partial admissions, that you do have some remorse, albeit partial remorse, for what you have done.

18․Given the current state of your health and age, I can accept that it is highly unlikely that you are a danger to the community at this point in your life.  I also accept that at your age any sentence of imprisonment would be likely to result in you dying in custody.   These are factors which I must, and do, take into account when determining the best estimate of the sentence that would have been appropriate if you had been found guilty of the five offences.

19․Therefore, taking into account all of the circumstances surrounding this matter, including the fact that although the allegations were first reported to the police in 1999, through no fault of yours, the matter was not ultimately brought to a hearing until this year.

Conclusion

20․I conclude that as to each of the following five offences, if you had been found guilty, the following sentences would have been appropriate bearing in mind the maximum penalties applicable for each of those offences during the relevant period:

(a)Count 1 (indecent assault): A sentence of two years of imprisonment.

(b)Count 2 (indecent assault): A sentence of two years of imprisonment.

(c)Count 3 (indecent assault): A sentence of three years of imprisonment.

(d)Count 4 (carnal knowledge): A sentence of four years of imprisonment.

(e)Count 5 (persistent sexual abuse): A sentence of seven years of imprisonment.

21․Each of the sentences would be served concurrently.  I acknowledge that is rather an artificial exercise, but I acknowledge that each sentence would be served concurrently with each other and backdated to 7 February 2025 when you were first detained.

22․Accordingly, as required by the terms of s 301 of the Crimes Act, I impose the following nominated terms:

(a)Count 1 (CC2023/9668) – Indecent Assault – two years to commence on 7^th of February 2025.

(b)Count 2 (CC2023/9669) – Indecent Assault – two years to commence on 7^th of February 2025.

(c)Count 3 (CC2023/9671) – Indecent Assault – three years to commence on 7^th of February 2025.

(d)Count 4 (CC2023/7328) – Carnal Knowledge – four years to commence on 7^th of February 2025.

(e)Count 5 (CC2023/12039) – Persistent Sexual Abuse – seven years to commence on 7^th of February 2025.

I certify that the preceding twenty-two [22] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of her Honour Acting Justice Kelly.

Associate:

Date:  4 September 2025