Director of Public Prosecutions v Townsend (a pseudonym)

[2022] VCC 688

IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA

AT GEELONG

CRIMINAL DIVISION

Revised
Not Restricted
Suitable for Publication

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

v

MICHAEL TOWNSEND (A PSEUDONYM)

---

JUDGE:	HIS HONOUR JUDGE BAYLES
WHERE HELD:	Geelong
DATE OF HEARING:	10 May 2022
DATE OF SENTENCE:	19 May 2022
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Townsend (a pseudonym)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2022] VCC 688

REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---

Subject:CRIMINAL LAW

Catchwords:              Incest - Indecent Assault Upon a Girl Under 16 – Daughters - Plea of Guilty – COVID-19

Legislation Cited:      Crimes Act 1958 (Vic); Crimes (Sexual Offences) Act 1980 (Vic); Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic); Sex Offenders Registration Act2004 (Vic).

Cases Cited:DPP v Dalgliesh (a pseudonym) [2016] VSCA 148 - Worboyes v The Queen [2021] VSCA 169 - R v RLP [2009] VSCA 271; 213 A Crim R 461.

Sentence:                  Total effective sentence of 3 years; Direct that 12 months of that sentence be served immediately, and 2 years of the sentence be suspended with an operational period of 3 years.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the DPP	D. Gray	Solicitor for the Director of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	S. Flynn	Geelong Lawyers Barristers & Solicitors

HIS HONOUR:

1Michael Townsend[1], you have pleaded guilty to an indictment containing seven charges. It includes four charges of indecent assault upon a girl under the age of 16, one of which is a course of conduct charge, and three charges of incest.  The maximum penalty for indecent assault upon a girl under 16 is 5 years' imprisonment. The maximum penalty for incest is 20 years' imprisonment.

[1]A pseudonym.

2An amended summary of prosecution opening dated 9 May 2022 was read to the court at the plea hearing by Mr Gray, who appeared on behalf of the prosecution in the matter. I adopt that summary as part of my reasons for sentence and will only repeat the salient features here.

3You are currently 87 years old. You have been married to your wife, Lydia Townsend, for 65 years. The two of you have four children together – Carla[2], Benjamin[3], Jacob[4] and Pamela[5]. The oldest and youngest of these four children, being Carla and Pamela, are the two victims in the offending before the court. The offending in total occurred between 1970 and 1977. Carla was between 11 and 16 years when you offended against her, and Pamela was between 7 or 8, and 13 years old. You were aged between 36 and 43 years old during these years.

[2]A pseudonym.

[3]A pseudonym.

[4]A pseudonym.

[5]A pseudonym.

4I will briefly summarise the offending against Carla as follows –

(a)   Charge 1, a charge of indecent assault upon a girl under 16, occurred in 1970. Carla was about 10 or 11 years old. She had taken the medication Vallergan for eczema, which is said to have made her drowsy, and she was lying on her back in bed. You entered her room and got into bed with her and she felt your erect penis against her back. She does not recall how this incident ended.

(b)   Charge 2 is a course of conduct charge of indecent assault upon a girl under 16. Between 1970 and 1974 you would enter Carla’s bedroom and get into bed with her. You would touch her on the vagina with your fingers or penis until she orgasmed. At times Carla would turn her back to you and say “no”, but you would continue anyway. This conduct occurred frequently, often several times a week. It was not alleged that this conduct involved penetration.

(c)   Charge 4 is an incest charge committed against your daughter, Carla. Carla had taken Vallergan again, which made her drowsy. She woke up to you in bed with her, your erect penis against her back. You fondled her breasts with your hands and then touched her vulva “to arouse her”. She turned over in bed to face you. You stimulated her vagina until she orgasmed. On this occasion the touching amounted to penetration of her vagina.

(d)   Charge 5 is an incest charge committed against Carla. During school holidays between December 1975 and February 1976, you were staying in a caravan whilst on holiday on land owned by Lydia Townsend’s family. Carla was 16 years old at the time. You and your wife slept in the caravan and Carla slept in a tent nearby. On one occasion, Carla came into the caravan and got into bed with you and her mother. You took Carla’s hand and placed it on her mother's vagina. Carla was lying on her back and you got on top of her, you were naked and with your hand you moved your erect penis into her vagina. You moved your penis from her clitoris to her vagina opening until she orgasmed. You paused at her vagina opening and said: “I’d love to go in”. She said “no”. You said to her: “do you want to see me cum?” She said no and left the caravan. That was the last time you offended against your daughter Carla.

5The offending against Pamela can be summarised as follows –

(a)   Charge 3 is a charge of indecent assault upon a girl under 16. Pamela recalls that if she climbed into your bed, it was usual for her mother to be there too. On one occasion in 1972, Pamela was in her own bed. Her mother came in and carried her to your bed and placed Pamela into the bed with you. Both you and your wife were naked in bed. Pamela had been lying in the bed for about 5-10 minutes when you took her hand and placed it on your erect penis. She held her hand there for about one minute before taking it away.

(b)   Charge 6 is a charge of indecent assault upon a girl under 16. One afternoon in 1976, Pamela came home from school and you took her to a family farm to check on animals. After doing that, Pamela was standing outside a wool shed, you came up and kissed her on the mouth. You unbuttoned her pants and put your hand down the front of her pants and penetrated her vagina with your fingers. Pamela recalls the incident causing her pain. She could not say anything to make you stop. She recalls the incident as: “the longest 5 minutes of her life”.

(c)   Charge 7 is an incest charge against your daughter, Pamela. On an occasion in 1977, Pamela was between 12 and 13 years old, she was home from school, possibly unwell. It was usual for her, if unwell, to stay in your bed during the day. On this particular afternoon you came home to check on Pamela. You removed her clothes and then your own. You got into bed with her, both completely naked. You kissed her on the mouth and introduced your penis into her vagina, causing her pain. The penetration lasted for what seemed to Pamela to be about 10 minutes. You told her how much you loved her. While penetrating her you said: “I can’t wait until I can go in up to the hilt”.

6Over the years, both of your daughters disclosed the offending to different people. Carla disclosed the offending to her doctor, her husband, and a family friend. Pamela disclosed the offending to her then husband, Todd[6], and later to her then partner, Robert[7]. Both Pamela and Carla confronted you at different times about the risk you posed to their daughters. In 2002, Carla initiated family counselling sessions at a family counselling centre in Melbourne, where as I understand it, you, your wife, and Carla and Pamela participated in family counselling sessions. There was some uncertainty about the period of time over which these sessions occurred, but it seems that they were over a period of between two or four years, but at least two years.

[6]A pseudonym.

[7]A pseudonym.

Admissions made

7I turn to the question of admissions made by you.  I was told that you wrote a series of letters to Carla in the 1980s, referring to your shame and being sorry, but not specifically referring to sexual abuse. You made admissions to your son, Jacob, in an email in 2019. You also made verbal admissions at different times to Jacob. You participated in the family counselling sessions at the family counselling centre at the request of Carla, where, with your main therapist, you participated in a videotaped therapy session where you apologised to Carla for sexually abusing her.

8The therapist noted that it was clear that you wanted Carla to put the offending behind her. The therapist recalled that you had commented that you were thankful that the abuse had not had a lasting effect on Carla, which the therapist thought illustrated your lack of understanding about the impact of the abuse on Carla. I note that those comments, and the apology, relate only to Carla and not Pamela, a matter to which I will return later. I also note that those observations of the therapist would have been made many years ago now.

Arrest and interview

9You were interviewed by police on 9 January 2020. A summary of that interview is outlined at paragraph 36 of the summary of prosecution opening. I will not repeat it here. Suffice to say that you made substantial admissions to the offending, although you denied some of the offending the subject of these charges, and claimed no recollection of some matters.

Victim impact

10I turn to the matter of victim impact. Both of your victims describe feelings of shame, guilt and self-disgust at the time of the incidents. Carla has said that she felt responsible for the offending, which caused her profound distress. Pamela described feeling disgusted and scared after one incident.

11Victim impact statements were filed with the court on behalf of both victims. Carla chose to read her statement to the court. Pamela elected to have the prosecutor, Mr Gray, read her statement to the court. Both of those victim impact statements were dignified and restrained documents that describe the profound and lasting effect that these incidents have had on the lives of both of your daughters.

12Your daughter Pamela describes being sad and lonely as a child. The offending created a dynamic of exclusion, and a division between her and her sister Carla. As a result of the circumstances of the offending, Pamela has been triggered by associations, such as the word “hilt”. Pamela states that although she has spoken with various counsellors over the years, she has never spoken about the specifics of the abuse until she spoke with the detectives in relation to her police complaint.

13She said that it was almost physically impossible to form the words and speak her truth. Pamela grapples with the fact that you, as a prodigious letter writer, have written letters to several people over the years about these events, including letters of apology to her sister, Carla, you have never written a letter of apology, or apologised to Pamela. This has caused terrible damage to her feelings of self-worth.

14Carla describes your offending as depriving her of an adolescent childhood, and permeating virtually every aspect of her adult life. She describes how, as a child, it was unthinkable to say “no” to you. In her child’s eyes, she felt complicit in the incidents; she felt a sense of self hate, shame, self-disgust and loathing. She made the unilateral decision to require you to go into family therapy at the family counselling centre.

15She said this caused a profoundly deep and major family rift. She was ostracised and maligned and it was a severely traumatic event in her life. These events have affected Carla’s personal relationships, including those with her children and partner. They have impacted on her career and professional life. Carla also raised the matter of the apology and the fact that she received an apology from you, and that despite its limitations, that has been psychologically useful for her.

16She raised the matter that no such apology has been made to Pamela which has been another source of angst. I raise this last matter not to say that it will be used against you from a sentencing perspective, but rather to illustrate the complexity of the impact that offending in this way against young children, particularly within a family context, has had.

17In recent years, both society and the criminal justice system have made considerable advances in understanding the profound and long lasting impact that offending of this kind has against young children, particularly within a family context. Suffice to say that this case provides a profound example of the pervasive, enduring and devastating impact of this kind of offending against young children.

Defence submissions

18Ms Flynn QC, who appeared on your behalf at the plea hearing, filed a comprehensive defence outline of plea submissions. I also received a confidential risk assessment report from Roger Smith[8] dated 19 December 2021, a number of medical reports, and six personal character references.

[8] A pseudonym.

19Ms Flynn submitted that there are a number of matters that affect the assessment of the objective gravity of the offending. They are: the number of occasions or incidents (being 6 occasions in addition to the course of conduct charge which occurred frequently over a period of 4 years); the penile penetration being confined to three separate acts when the victims were aged 15, 16 and 13; the duration of the offending, being between 1970 and 1977, being a period of seven years; the breach of trust; the absence of violence, threats, inducements, degrading conduct or other actions by you to cause the victims to engage in the sexual acts. Ms Flynn referred me to the Court of Appeal decision in DPP v Dalgliesh (a pseudonym),[9] where at paragraphs 72 and 73 the court considered matters relevant to the assessment of the gravity of the offending.

[9] DPP v Dalgliesh (a pseudonym) [2016] VSCA 148.

20Ms Flynn accepted that your offending has had a profound and long lasting impact on your victims, as expressed in their victim impact statements, however, submitted that due to the relatively limited number of occasions and lack of other aggravating features apparent in more serious examples of incest, this offending should be characterised as being in the low range of seriousness. I will return to this matter later in these reasons for sentence.

Personal circumstances

21You were born in 1934 which makes you currently 87 years old, turning 88 in July this year. You married your wife, Lydia, in 1957. You have been married for 65 years and have four children of the marriage, being Carla, Benjamin, Jacob and Pamela. You had a long career as a science teacher. You taught in Geelong and then Canberra in the 1960s, you moved with your family to Papua New Guinea in 1968 where you taught at a high school and became vice-principal. You then returned to Geelong in 1970 where you taught chemistry until your retirement in 1989. You have undoubtedly made a significant contribution through the teaching profession to the lives of many students over the decades of your teaching career.

22After your retirement from school teaching, you volunteered significantly with a coastal regeneration group which you were involved with until very recently.

Mitigating factors

23I turn to factors in mitigation.  You pleaded guilty to these charges and did so at the committal mention stage of these proceedings. Ms Flynn submitted that you were always going to plead guilty to the allegations made against you. I treat your plea as an early plea of guilty. You spared the victims and other witnesses the ordeal of a trial and having their accounts challenged in court. You spared the court and the community the time and cost of a criminal trial.

24Your plea, entered during the period of the COVID-19 pandemic, attracts a very significant additional reduction in sentence due to its utilitarian value. I have close regard to the principles stated by the Court of Appeal in Worboyes v The Queen,[10] in particular to paragraphs 35 to 39 of that judgement.  Those principles have now become well known.  I will not repeat those paragraphs of the judgment here, but suffice to say that I intend to give a very significant reduction in your sentence as compared to the sentence that I would have imposed had you not pleaded guilty and because of the increased utilitarian benefit of the plea of guilty during the COVID-19 pandemic and its impact on the court system.

[10] Worboyes v The Queen [2021] VSCA 169.

25When interviewed by police you made substantial admissions to the allegations made against you. As I have noted, you made some denials, and stated lack of memory in relation to some matters. But overall you admitted the offending and did not offer any substantial resistance to the allegations made against you. I also note that you made admissions to the offending at various times over the years, and to different people. Whilst these admissions add to the strength of the prosecution case against you, I see them as part and parcel of your acceptance of, and lack of challenge to, the allegations against you, and your plea of guilty before this court. You were otherwise co-operative with police and accepting of the criminal justice process.

26Ms Flynn submitted that you have experienced profound shame, and expressed genuine and significant remorse. She submitted that this can be inferred from your early plea of guilty, your admissions to police, and your admissions to  others over the years. You wrote a letter expressing shame and offering an apology to your daughter Carla in 1981; you expressed and offered to organise and pay for counselling in a letter to Carla in 1986; you acknowledged the offending in a letter to Carla in 2003. You participated in therapy at the family therapy centre where, I was told that you participated in a session that was videotaped where you offered an apology to Carla. You wrote a letter to “Mitchell[11]” and “Sienna[12]” in 2003 and an email to your son Jacob in 2019 where you acknowledged the abuse and expressed shame.

[11] A pseudonym.

[12] A pseudonym.

27What stands out from listing these letters and emails is the absence of an apology to your daughter Pamela. This absence over these years remains largely unexplained. This matter was raised in both of the victim impact statements of both Pamela and Carla. It is obviously a matter of profound significance to both of your daughters, in particular to Pamela.

28This matter was raised at the plea hearing, and in response to that, between the plea hearing and today's date of sentence, you wrote a letter of apology to your daughter Pamela. That letter was filed with the court. In it you wrote: “How could I possibly not have apologised for my abusive behaviour? Your comments shocked me to think that I had not done so.” Despite the offering of that apology at this stage of proceedings, I make the observation that that question still remains largely unanswered.

29The question of genuine remorse in any matter is a complex and difficult one.  I think that is particularly so in this case, as is the assessment that I must make of that matter. I make the observation that, on the basis of all the material before me in this hearing, I am unsure whether your daughters, or your wider family, would be of the view that you have felt or expressed genuine remorse, or whether you have developed genuine insight into this offending behaviour.

30Nevertheless, it is for me to make an assessment of the material before me, and I accept that in combination, your conduct expresses remorse for what you have done. You have expressed concern for your daughters at different times, and indeed for your whole family. You have made offerings of atonement. It is unclear whether those offerings can or will ever be accepted. It may be, given the nature and the gravity of your offending, and the profound and lasting impact it has had, that that is simply not possible.

31Ms Flynn raised the matter of delay, both the delay from the offending period to the present time, and also the delay between the initial complaints to police and the time of sentence. The period of time between the offending and the present might better be described simply as the passing of time or the passage of time.

32It is a very significant period of time regardless of how it is characterised, being a period of approximately 45 years since the end of the offending conduct. During that time you have not re-offended in any way. You have led a law abiding life and made a substantial contribution to society in a variety of other ways. I take that into account in a very significant way, in combination with your lack of prior convictions or indeed the absence of any other offending conduct.

33The delay between the complaint to police and sentencing is a comparatively modest one, being about two years and nine months, however, I take into account that the matter has been hanging over your head for that time and there is likely to have been an anxiety weighing upon you about the outcome of these matters.

34A matter of very considerable significance in this sentencing exercise is the matter of your age, your current age. You will shortly turn 88 years old. You have a number of chronic medical conditions which have a significant impact on your general health. I was told that you have chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia, Ischaemic heart disease, and cervical foraminal stenosis – which require regular review and treatment. Your blood counts have been stable and treatment is currently not required for your leukemia. You also have a diagnosis of glaucoma which is being monitored and managed.

35Ms Flynn referred me to the principles for sentencing offenders of advanced age stated by the Court of Appeal decision in R v RLP.[13]  In that case the court stated the following principles:

(i) the age and health of an offender are relevant to the exercise of the sentencing discretion;

(ii) old age or ill health are not determinative of the quantum of sentence;

(iii) depending upon the circumstances it may be appropriate to impose a minimum term which will have the effect that the offender may well spend the whole of his remaining life in custody;

(iv) it is a weighty consideration that the offender is likely to spend the whole or a very substantial portion of the remainder of their life in custody;

(v) other sentencing considerations may be required to surrender some ground to the need to exercise compassion to take account of the real prospect that the offender may not live to be released and that the offender's ill health will make his or her period of incarceration particularly onerous;

(vi) just punishment, proportionality and general and specific deterrence remain primary sentencing considerations in the sentencing disposition, notwithstanding the age and ill health of the offender, and;

(vii) old age and ill health do not justify the imposition of an unacceptably inappropriate sentence.

[13] R v RLP [2009] VSCA 271; 213 A Crim R 461.

36Ms Flynn submitted that those principles are apposite to this case given your current age.  I accept those submissions and I take those principles into account in a significant way in your sentencing.

37Ms Flynn submitted that your wife, Lydia, is dependent on you in a number of ways. She herself is of advanced years also in her late 80s.  Although you are not her carer, you support her in a number of ways. She has difficulties with technology and money, although I was told that she shops herself and walks every day. Since the plea hearing, a supplementary written submission was filed with the court, relating to the letter of apology you wrote to Pamela, and also outlining financial and other support that you offered to your children over the years, including additional financial support provided to Pamela during times of hardship she experienced.

38That written submission also further addressed the matter of Mrs Townsend’s health, that is your wife's health. She experienced a fall after the plea hearing and required assistance. Ms Flynn submitted that any period of imprisonment would be a hardship to Mrs Townsend and would weigh heavily upon you, given the concern you have for your wife’s physical and mental health. I take these matters into account.

39I also take into account the various personal references which were written on your behalf and tendered at the plea hearing. They are from people who have known you for a very long time and describe an otherwise law abiding person who has contributed to society in a variety of ways.

40A psychological report was tendered at the plea hearing authored by Roger Smith. In it he assessed your risk of re-offending as being low. In all the circumstances of this case, I have no difficulty in accepting that there is no risk of your re-offending in this or any other way. I also accept the submissions made by Ms Flynn about your rehabilitation. The fact that you have not re-offended in any way for 45 years demonstrates rehabilitation in that regard.

Prosecution submissions

41Mr Gray, who appeared on behalf of the prosecution in this matter, submitted that whilst a suspended sentence is available for this offending, it would not be an appropriate sentence to impose in all the circumstances of this case. He submitted that each offence represents serious examples of the offence charged. Charge 2 – being a course of conduct charge – was persistent conduct over a 4 year period.

42Both of your daughters were traumatised from a young age. The offending in totality was over a significant period of time. It involved extremely serious offending, involving touching of the vagina, with either fingers or penis, until the victims orgasmed. On some occasions they said no, but you continued anyway. He submitted that with particular with regard to the course of conduct charge, that charge is a high end example of the offence. He submitted that all of the offending was significantly above what could be regarded as low end examples of the offences.

43Mr Gray submitted that denunciation and general deterrence are paramount as sentencing objectives. He submitted that a sentence of imprisonment, to be served, and involving a head sentence and non-parole period, is necessary to appropriately express the level of general deterrence and denunciation required in this case.

Analysis

44This is a complex sentencing exercise. I must impose a sentence upon you that takes into account a number of competing and incommensurable sentencing principles. The gravity of your offending is extremely serious. Your moral culpability is high. The impact on your victims has been profound and long lasting. I must sentence you today for crimes that occurred in the 1970s, some 45-50 years ago. You are now aged in your late 80s, whilst you were in your mid-30s to early 40s during most of the offending. Some of your conduct would amount to different criminal offences were it to occur today, with different maximum penalties, and different sentencing practices.

45Whilst it can be said that society has come a long way since the 1970s in its understanding of the impact that this kind of offending has on young victims, your moral culpability for this offending remains high. Even in the 1970s any right thinking person would know that this offending was abhorrent and unacceptable. You crossed a line that should never have been crossed, and your victims, your own daughters, have been living with the consequences of that conduct for the rest of their lives.

46I accept that you have made efforts towards atonement. There have been positives in your family life and I was told shared happy times since that period of time. You have contributed to your daughters lives in other positive ways, including financial assistance, which is acknowledged by your daughters.

47I must impose a sentence that provides just punishment upon you for the gravity of your offending and for your moral culpability. It must be a sentence that appropriately denounces this conduct as a statement by the court that reflects the seriousness of the conduct. It must be a sentence that sends a message to the community that deters others who would be minded to offend in this or any similar way.

48I do not take the view that you individually need to be deterred from re-offending or that the community needs any protection from you at this stage and accordingly, those factors will not influence the sentence to be imposed.

49The sentence that I impose will be moderated very significantly because of a number of factors that are present in this case. They include: your early plea of guilty; the principles in Worboyes and the very significant additional reduction in sentence to be imposed upon a plea of guilty entered during the period of the COVID-19 pandemic; your co-operation with police and admissions made both to police and to others over the years; your expressions of remorse and your attempts at atonement; the very significant period of time since the commission of these offences and your lack of any prior or subsequent offending; the fact of your advanced age and your state of health, and I take into account the principles stated in R v RLP.

50Any imprisonment will be a significant burden on you and also on your wife, Lydia Townsend.  You are of advanced years and any period of imprisonment will represent at the very least a significant portion of your remaining years, and the possibility of you spending the remainder of your life in prison is one that looms, and must be taken into account.

51The serious sexual offender provisions apply to this sentence. Upon conviction on Charge 2 – indecent assault of a girl under 16 – because it is a course of conduct charge – if you are sentenced to a term of imprisonment – you will become a serious sexual offender. You would also become a serious sexual offender upon conviction and terms of imprisonment for any two charges on the indictment.

52Upon qualification as a serious sexual offender, you then fall to be sentenced as such for the remining sentences to be imposed. That requires me to regard protection of the community as the principal sentencing purpose. I may impose a disproportionate sentence in order to achieve that purpose, but I note that the prosecution does not seek a disproportionate sentence, and I will not be imposing a disproportionate sentence. What is required for protection of the community of course requires an assessment of all the circumstances of this particular case. The serious sexual offender provisions also require every term of imprisonment imposed for a relevant offence, to be served cumulatively unless otherwise ordered by the court.

53Ms Flynn, on your behalf, urged me, in the extraordinary circumstances of this case, to impose a wholly suspended sentence. She submitted that such a sentence would take account of all of the substantial mitigating factors, the passage of time and subsequent events. She submitted that such a sentence, in these circumstances, would satisfy the relevant sentencing objectives.

54As previously stated, Mr Gray, on behalf of the prosecution, submitted that a term of imprisonment with a head sentence and a non-parole period, was required and would be within range.

55After careful regard and consideration of all of the matters present in this case, I am of the view that it is not appropriate to accede to Ms Flynn’s submission. In my view, to do so would simply fail to reflect the gravity of the offending. Notwithstanding the very unusual, and perhaps extraordinary circumstances of this case, I am of the view that a term of imprisonment, to be served, is required. I will indicate that the sentence that I am about to impose will be moderated very significantly, due to the factors already stated in these reasons for sentence, and with the application of the principle of totality, I have come to the view that a term of imprisonment capable of being partially suspended is appropriate in this case.

56Mr Townsend, would you please stand now?

57On Charge 1 you will be sentenced to a term of six months' imprisonment.

58On Charge 2 you will be sentenced to a term of two years' imprisonment.

59On Charge 3 you will be sentenced to a term of 12 months' imprisonment.

60On Charge 4 you will be sentenced to a term of two years' imprisonment.

61On Charge 5 you will be sentenced to a term of 18 months' imprisonment.

62On Charge 6 you will be sentenced to a term of 18 months' imprisonment.

63On Charge 7 you will be sentenced to a term of two and a half years' imprisonment.

64The sentence on Charge 7 will be the base sentence.

65I declare that the sentences imposed on Charges 3 through to 7 are sentences imposed upon you as a serious sexual offender. Accordingly there is a presumption of cumulation on the sentences for Charges 3-7.  

66In relation to each of those charges, for clarity, I will state both cumulation and concurrency.

(a)   Charge 1 (6 months), will be served wholly concurrently with the base sentence. 

(b)   Charge 2 (24 months) 2 months will be served cumulatively, and 22 months concurrent. 

(c)   Charge 3 (12 months), will be served wholly concurrently. 

(d)   Charge 4 (24 months), 2 months will be served cumulatively, and 22 months concurrent.

(e)   Charge 5 (18 months), 2 months will be served cumulatively, and 16 months concurrent. 

(f)    Charge 6 (18 months), will be served wholly concurrently.

67The effect of these sentences is that the sentence on Charge 7, being a sentence of two and a half years, is to be the base sentence.  As stated, it is my intention that 2 months of the sentences on each of Charges 2, 4 and 5 be served cumulatively upon each other and upon the base sentence, being a total of 6 months' cumulation. I state again that I have moderated the orders for cumulation significantly due to the mitigating factors here and the principle of totality.

68The total effective sentence imposed today is therefore one of 3 years.

69I direct that 12 months of that sentence be served immediately and I order that 2 years of that sentence be suspended for a period of 3 years.

70As previously stated I also order pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act that an order for life reporting will be made.

71Am I correct in saying there is no pre-sentence detention?

72MS FLYNN:  That's so, Your Honour.

73HIS HONOUR:  Mr Townsend, I am required to inform you that the period of two years that is being suspended for a period of three years will remain in effect for that period, being three years.  If you commit any further offence that is punishable by imprisonment you will be charged with breaching that suspended sentence and you will be brought back before me to be re-sentenced where you may be required to serve the remainder of those two years in prison.

74Pursuant to s6AAA I declare that had you not pleaded guilty I would have imposed a period of five years and six months' imprisonment and ordered that you serve a period of two years and six months as a non-parole period.

75Are there any other matters?

76MS FLYNN:  No, thank you, Your Honour.

77Thank you, Mr Townsend, you may be seated now. There are two questions that remain here. The first one is as I understand it the Sex Offender Registration Act order is to be served upon Mr Townsend and he has to sign that order acknowledging receipt.

78MR GRAY:  Yes, Your Honour.

79HIS HONOUR:  Does that have to be done in open court or can that be done after he is taken into custody?

80MR GRAY:  In my personal experience it has been done in court.

81HIS HONOUR:  What I need to know is my understanding is that incest is a class one offence.

82MR GRAY:  Yes.

83HIS HONOUR: But for the purposes of the order it needs to be entered whether the non-incest charges, whether they are class two offences, for the purpose of the Sex Offender Registration Act order. Is it your understanding that they are?

84MR GRAY:  It is my understanding.

85HIS HONOUR:  Is that a matter that needs to be confirmed or can we proceed on that basis?  As I understand it it does not affect the ultimate outcome, but it needs to be noted.

86MR GRAY:  They are, Your Honour, they are class two offences.

87HIS HONOUR:  That order is completed.  It will be printed now and it will be taken to Mr Townsend to sign in court now.  Thanks, Ms Flynn, thanks, Mr Gray.  We will adjourn the court.

- - -