Director of Public Prosecutions v Walton (a pseudonym)
[2025] VCC 1007
•16 July 2025
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| CHESTER WALTON (A PSEUDONYM) |
---
JUDGE: | HER HONOUR JUDGE RIDDELL | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 1 April 2025 | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 16 July 2025 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Walton (a pseudonym) | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2025] VCC 1007 | |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Subject:Sentence
Catchwords: Child Sexual Abuse --- Victim is offender’s daughter --- Plea of Not Guilty --- Impoverished background --- Bugmy principles enlivened --- past history of brain tumour --- Alcohol abuse --- Employment record --- Serious Sexual offender --- Sex Offender Registration
Legislation Cited: Sentencing Act1991 --- Sex Offender Registration Act2004
Cases Cited:DPP v Dalgliesh(a pseudonym) [2017] VSCA 360 --- DPP v Toomey [2006] VSCA 90 --- Bromley v The Queen [2018] VSCA 329 --- DPP v Talbot (a pseudonym) [2024] VSCA 321 --- Bugmy v R (2013) 302 ALR 192 --- DPP v Drake [2019] VSCA 293 --- Jawarhiri v The Queen [2021] VSCA 287 --- McPherson v The Queen [2021] VSCA 53 --- Hoare v R (1989) 167 CLR 348 --- R v Connell [1996] 1 VR 436 --- Matheas v The Queen [2017] VSCA 330 --- R v Brown [2018] VSC 742 --- Lugo v The Queen [2020] VSCA 75
Sentence: 8 years and 5 months of imprisonment --- 5 years and 5 months non-parole period --- Life Sex Offender Registration
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Director of Public Prosecutions | Mr N. Batten | Office of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused | Mr A. Pyne | Barwon South West Lawyers |
HER HONOUR:
1Chester Walton[1], on 25 March 2025 after a seven-day trial a jury found you guilty of sexual offending against your daughter, Hailey.[2] The offending covered a time span of five years with one occasion occurring when Hailey was six or seven years old and four incidents in 2022 when she was an 11-year-old. You were between 27 and 31 years of age and you are now 34.
[1] A pseudonym.
[2] A pseudonym.
2The offending in 2017 occurred at your mother's house where you were living after separating from Hailey's mother, Jacqueline Manning[3], and in 2022 at a house where you lived with your friend. Your offences occurred at night when you would wake Hailey from sleep. They involved indecent acts by way of touching Hailey on the vagina or bottom - sorry, on the vagina or sexual assault by way of grabbing her bottom and sexual penetration of her vagina with your finger.
[3] A pseudonym.
3It is now my task to sentence you in line with the jury verdict.
Background
4You and Ms Manning had previously dated in high school but commenced a relationship in 2006. Hailey was your first child, born in 2010. Your son Troy followed in 2012.
5The relationship between you and Ms Manning ended finally in May of 2017 and you moved in with your mother.
6You and Ms Manning negotiated an informal custody arrangement with your children. This allowed you to have Hailey and Troy every second weekend and week-about on school holidays.
Summary of offending
2017 Incident – Charge 1 Indecent Act with a Child Under the Age of 16
7The first offence occurred in the aftermath of your initial separation, sometime in 2017. Hailey stated that it occurred when she and Troy were staying at your mother's house with you.
8She said she was sleeping on a mattress with you and was wearing flannelette pyjamas and underwear. She woke up because her vagina was hurting. She stated :
'I remember waking up to, like, it hurting and then dad, like, was rubbing me and then said, "Don't tell anyone. This is our secret".'
9You were touching her under her clothing. Hailey told you that you were hurting her and in reference to her vagina said, 'The whole area was, like, burning … and stinging'.
10She said in her VARE that she did not understand what was happening at the time. She said, 'I thought it was normal because I was young and I didn't quite understand'.
2022 Incident 1 – Charge 2 Sexual Assault of a Child Under 16 and Charge 3 Sexual Penetration of a Child or Lineal Descendant
11In 2022 you were living with your friend. The children had their access visits to you at his house. On four separate occasions you sexually abused your daughter in the lounge room when she slept on the couch. You slept on a mattress next to her.
12On the first occasion she stated that she had fallen asleep and was wearing a pair of shorts and underwear. She woke up to you grabbing her bottom under her clothes. You continued to do this for a couple of seconds until Hailey said, 'Stop it, you're making me feel uncomfortable'. You then stopped, pulled your hand away and Hailey went back to sleep. That is Charge 2, sexual assault of a child under 16.
13Hailey next woke up to you penetrating her vagina with your finger. That is Charge 3, sexual penetration of a child or lineal descendent. She told you to stop, which you did, and she rolled over to go to sleep. Before Hailey could fall back to sleep you said to her, 'Hailey, listen to me. I know you're awake.'
14However, she fell asleep.
2022 Incident 2 – Charge 4 of Sexual Assault of a Child Under 16 and Charge 5 Sexual Penetration of a Child or Lineal Descendent
15On a second occasion in 2022 Hailey had fallen asleep on the couch in the living room while watching a movie. She said she and Troy had played video games that day.
16After falling asleep she described being woken by you grabbing her bottom. She told you to stop, which you did, and she went back to sleep. That is Charge 4, sexual assault of a child under 16.
17Later that same night she woke up to you penetrating her vagina with her finger. You did not say anything to Hailey and she fell back asleep. That is Charge 5, sexual penetration of a child or lineal descendent.
2022 Incident 3 – Charge 6 Sexual Assault of a Child Under 16 and Charge 7 Sexual Penetration of a Child or Lineal Descendent
18Sometime in July 2022 on an access visit you had taken Hailey and Troy to Warrnambool. You had given her $50 to spend that day.
19After you returned home Hailey had fallen asleep on the couch. She awoke to you grabbing her bottom. She asked you to stop, which you did, and she went back to sleep. That is Charge 6, sexual assault of a child under 16.
20She woke up again to you penetrating her vagina with your fingers. She again told you to stop, which you did, and she went back to sleep. That is Charge 7, sexual penetration of a child or lineal descendant.
2022 Incident 4 – Charge 8 Sexual Assault of a Child under 16 and Charge 9 Sexual Penetration of a Child or Lineal Descendent
21The final occasion occurred in August 2022. Hailey was watching a movie and fell asleep on the couch. She was wearing a T-shirt, a pair of shorts and underwear.
22She woke to you touching her on the leg and then sliding your hand up towards her bottom. You slid your hand up her shorts and up her underwear on the left side. She recognised it was you and said, 'Because I could see his, like, tattoo on his arm'.
23You touched her bottom cheeks and started to grab her bottom. Hailey says: 'At first he just touched it and then he started, like, grabbing it'. That is Charge 8, sexual assault of a child under 16.
24She told you to stop and you stopped. She rolled towards the back of the couch and fell back asleep.
25Shortly thereafter, while she was still on the couch, she woke up and was feeling irritated and uncomfortable. You were penetrating her vagina with your finger and she says that she woke up 'To feeling something, like, at my private parts'.
26Hailey said that you had been doing this before she was awake, as she did not 'Remember, like, waking up to him, like - like - like, getting, like, up my shorts or anything. Like, I just, like, remember feeling sore and, like, irritated down there. Then, like, him, like - then, like, feeling, like, him touching me down there'. That is Charge 9, sexual penetration of a child or lineal descendant.
27Hailey told you stop as it was making her feel uncomfortable. You did not reply but removed your hand from her pants. She then rolled over and went back to sleep.
Complaint
28That incident occurred on the last occasion Hailey visited you for access. The week following, she was on a school camp when she asked to speak to the school wellbeing coordinator who was on the camp.
29The wellbeing coordinator asked Hailey what was going on and Hailey said that it was about 'home stuff.' She then said that you 'Had been touching [her] inappropriately' and the wellbeing co-ordinator said, 'I believe she said about three or four years'.
30The wellbeing coordinator also stated that Hailey had made gestures of her hand 'Over her vagina in circle motions'.
31The wellbeing coordinator notified the school principal and in turn Ms Manning and Child Protection were advised of her disclosure.
Interview and legal process
32You were interviewed and charged on 25 August 2022. You denied the allegations. The matter did not come to court for a filing hearing until February 2023. The matter reached one circuit in October 2024 where the trial did not proceed. Ultimately it proceeded to conclusion in March 2025. I heard a plea in mitigation on 1 April 2025 and the matter was adjourned in order for a neuropsychological report to be obtained. I have received a report from Mr Martin Jackson, neuropsychologist, dated 20 June 2025 which I will come to.
Sentencing principles
33Sexual crimes against children are inherently serious. They violate the basic norms of civilised behaviours. They strike at the value the community places on the need for care of young children, in particular by those in positions of responsibility and power over them. That is especially so where the offending involves a breach by someone in a position of care or trust. Where that person is a parent the breach of trust is particularly grave.[4]
[4] DPP v Dalgliesh(a pseudonym) [2017] VSCA 360.
34Sentencing courts must send a message of denunciation. Sentences must deter others from offending in this way and must seek to protect the community and in particular any other child or young person from being abused by a person in a position of trust over them. The sentence I impose must demonstrate to others the serious consequences of violating such norms. [5]
[5] DPP v Toomey [2006] VSCA 90; Bromley v The Queen [2018] VSCA 329.
Impact on the victims
35Courts and the community far better understand the immediate but also the potentially far-reaching consequences of this type of offending. It tends to have an immediate impact on a child's sense of security and can have a long-term impact on various aspects of a victim's life. It affects self-confidence and the fabric of relationships based on trust. Self-doubt and anxiety are common themes for victims.
36The impact on Hailey, Ms Manning and Troy reflects those similar themes. I take into account the impact on Hailey and the difficulties that your offending has caused in her relationship with her brother. Hailey has provided a thoughtful, thorough, detailed and remarkably eloquent and powerful victim impact statement describing the impact of your actions on her. She describes the impact at the time of the offending in 2017 and then in 2022, including her confusion, her ongoing feelings of shame and isolation and her current fears and fears and sadness for the future. She has asked for her victim impact statement not to be read out and as such I will not recite its contents, but I have taken it into account.
37Your actions have turned the lives or your family 'upside down', according to Ms Manning. She says she was 'completely shocked and overwhelmed' upon hearing about Hailey's disclosure.
38She describes the impact of your offending on the relationships at home, saying:
'This then caused a strain on our relationships at home … Troy found it hard to understand the situation and blamed Hailey and said it was her fault which caused a wedge in their relationship. This made Hailey extremely upset'.
39Ms Manning describes feeling overwhelmed and 'pushed [herself] to get counselling in place for both children' in addition to completing 'an online parenting course to try and help with the high emotions at home'. This was done in recognition of the serious impact that your offending would have on both children.
40Ms Manning describes her own feelings of anxiety and hypervigilance, along with fears of your children running into you on the street. She says:
'I wrapped my children in bubble wrap as I was concerned … I did not know how [you] would react to seeing [your] children, this would always make me feel on edge when they left the house'.
41She says, 'The last two and a half years have been an up-and-down roller coaster of emotions'.
42I take those matters into account specifically and those general experiences, which are likely for all three victims here.
Objective Gravity
43Over time and since the High Court decision of DPP v Dalgliesh[6] in 2016 there has been a dramatic change in the sentencing parameters for incest offending. In assessing the gravity of your offending I must consider the nature and extent of the specific offending, its frequency and duration and the circumstances in which it occurred.[7]
[6] DPP v Dalgliesh(a pseudonym) [2017] VSCA 360.
[7] DPP v Talbot (a pseudonym) [2024] VSCA 321.
44In assessing the objective gravity of your offending, I take into account the following aggravating features.
45First, you are Hailey's father. The gross breach of trust reflected in your offending is the most aggravating feature here. Hailey was entitled to your love, care and protection. She should have been able to look to you for safety and security.
46Second, you also breached the trust of your ex-wife, Hailey's mother, with whom, despite separating, you were able to organise parenting arrangements that allowed you both to see your children. Non-offending parents, usually mothers, are so often blindsided by what is happening in their homes. Mothers often blame themselves and feel enormous guilt. Offending often compromises their relationship with the child and other children.
47Equally, your son Troy has no doubt been affected. His family unit has been broken and sibling relationships are often affected where one child cannot fathom the abuse of another.
48Third, the offending occurred either in your mother's home or Mr Ferguson's house, both places you were living and where Hailey would stay with you. These are both places where she was entitled to feel safe and secure.
49Fourth, Charge 1 relates to a time when she was about six or seven years old, which is a very tender age. The remaining charges related to a time when she was 11 years old and on the brink of puberty. Inappropriate sexual activity at that time in a young person's age can be very confronting and confusing. Issues with body image, trust and intimacy are commonly the result. In both instances you were significantly older than her.
50Fifth, the fact that the offending involved penetration of her vagina is very serious. The invasion of her bodily integrity in that way is significant.
51Sixth, the offending was repetitive, although I accept that the 2022 offending was contained to a period of about three months. That is of course thanks to Hailey's ability to speak out and to her teachers and then her mother, all of whom responded in a way which accepted and acted on the information she had given them.
52Seventh, the offending occurred at times when she was entirely reliant on you for her care. That is she was away from her mother and other adults present, your mother who is infirmed and your friend were not people she could turn to for help. In addition, at times the offending occurred when her younger brother was in the room.
53Eight, you encouraged her to keep your offending secret, ensuring her isolation and your capacity to continue offending.
54Ninth, on each occasion it took your young daughter telling you to stop for you to desist. Although initially you did so, on each of the 2022 occasions you offended against her for a second time.
55I accept that each occasion was reasonably brief and that the pairs of offences on each occasion in 2022 were reasonably close in time.
56Overall your moral culpability for this course of offending against your young daughter is very high.
57Sensibly it was conceded that no sentence other than a term of imprisonment with a head sentence and non‑parole period is appropriate.
Personal circumstances
58You were born in 1990 in Portland, where you have lived all of your life. You are the youngest of a number of brothers ranging from two years to 15 years older than you.
59You had a brother who died in a car accident when you were an infant. Your mother was also in the car accident. She suffered catastrophic injuries from which she has never fully recovered. She has 'plastic kneecaps', metal inserts in her shins and suffers 'cysts on the brain'. She has been on a disability support pension and seriously compromised in her functioning for your entire life. You understand that she has a serious acquired brain injury. She has never been able to properly look after you.
60You describe your father as a criminal. He was incarcerated at least four times during your childhood and you have memories of visiting him in Langi Kal Kal Prison. You understand that his offending was primarily related to drug and property offences.
61You remember that he was often absent and that, when he was not in prison, he was a violent person with a volatile personality. He was often in fights, although he was never physically violent to you or your brothers.
62Your eldest brother took over a quasi-father figure during the periods of time when your father was incarcerated and in fact left school early to provide for the family.
63It is clear that your childhood was very difficult on account of your mother's disability and your father's absence or volatile presence. Your family was poor and you often went without meals. Fortunately you had a home, but day-to-day living was a struggle. You describe a feeling that your dad and one of your older brothers were ‘no good’ and there was an expectation that you would be similar.
64You attended a local Primary School and high school, but you say you were a poor student. No doubt you did not get the required support at home to achieve your academic potential. You had issues with anger at school which you attribute to your father. You left school part-way through Year 8.
65When you were in your early teens you started drinking alcohol and using cannabis. Those habits dogged you until the time of your recent remand. Your alcohol consumption has been extremely heavy over the years, in particular after your father died in 2010 you were drinking 15 cans of premixed spirit per day. You drank like that for the better part of 11 or 12 years. Your cannabis use was similarly almost daily and heavy until you were remanded.
66You started a relationship with Ms Manning at about age 16. You describe her as an overwhelmingly positive influence on your life. You got a job working in furniture delivery and building for a company in Portland. You held that position for over 10 years.
67Ms Manning left school in Year 10 and worked at local food outlets. Together you moved to various addresses in Portland and had your children in 2010 and 2012. You built a life together; however, it was not without difficulty. Ms Manning developed a serious health condition. She stopped working for a period and your drinking increased.
68By the time you and she broke up the first time, you were drinking excessively. It was also at that time that you were fired from your job. You were able to find other work at a vineyard and at a company involved in plant fertiliser. At the time of your initial breakup Ms Manning took out a family violence intervention order against you. You breached that order and served one month's imprisonment in 2016. The final breakdown of your relationship occurred in 2017, when you started living with your mother in your childhood family home.
69Your father died in 2010 that had a profound effect on you. No doubt any grief was complicated by your experience of your father in life. As a result your substance abuse increased dramatically.
70I take into account the circumstances of your childhood and your formative years. It seems to me they were characterised by that instability and a lack of parental support and guidance as a result of your parents' particular circumstances. Those circumstances set you on a path of limited education and consequent opportunity as well as a path of heavy alcohol and cannabis use. In my view they speak of disadvantage, deprivation and neglect such as to engage the principles enunciated by the High Court in Bugmy v The Queen[8]. The consequences of a finding that Bugmy is applicable is that your subjective culpability cannot be equated with a person who committed the same offences but had the advantage of a normal, stable and regular home environment.[9]
[8] Bugmy v R (2013) 302 ALR 192.
[9] DPP v Drake [2019] VSCA 293 quoted in Jawarhiri v The Queen [2021] VSCA 287.
71In 2017 you were in a car accident. You fractured a wrist and your collar bone. In the course of having scans for any brain injury a large tumour was found on your brain. You underwent surgery to remove the tumour in February 2018. The surgery was successful and uncomplicated; however, following the removal of the tumour, you required treatment which you received through the South West Cancer Centre in Warrnambool. You underwent chemotherapy for six months and also radiotherapy every weekday for three to four months.
72Although successful in addressing the tumour, on neuropsychological testing you demonstrated slowed processing speed and a propensity to be overwhelmed initially on memory tasks, likely as a result of your tumour and the resulting chemotherapy and radiotherapy.
73Somewhat remarkably, despite your heavy alcohol use for over 20 years, there is no significant evidence of alcohol-related brain injury.
74Physically you have recovered from that treatment, although you have pain a reasonably constant headache on the left side of your head where the tumour was removed. This continues to bother you in custody now.
75You have been on a disability support pension since the discovery of your tumour and your surgery and consequent treatment.
76I understand you continue to have support and connection to your brother and mother.
77You have a very limited prior criminal history, as I have described, and no prior history of sexual offending.
Plea of not guilty
78You ran a trial, which is your right to put the prosecution to its proof. Of course that necessitated Hailey and Ms Manning giving evidence.
79You also participated in a record of interview, denying your offending.
80The fact you ran a trial does not in any way aggravate the offending. However, it means you do not receive any of the discounts which attach to a sentence after a plea of guilty. Perhaps more importantly, you do not receive any discount on account of any remorse. You continue to deny any wrongdoing and you have shown no remorse for your offending against your daughter.
Prospects of rehabilitation
81In those circumstances your prospects of rehabilitation are difficult to assess. As I said, you have no past history of sexual offending although this offending of course ran across several years. I expect that time without alcohol or cannabis in custody may have a positive effect on you, as noted by Mr Jackson. You retain some family support and a stable place to live on your release. You have capacity to work, as demonstrated by your past and as referred to by Mr Jackson. You will also have a disability support pension available to you. You will receive sex offender treatment in custody and a range of other courses will be open to you, in particular around abstinence from substances. On release your access to your daughter or any child is likely to be very limited.
82In all of those circumstances I estimate you have some positive prospects of rehabilitation despite the seriousness of this offending.
Maximum penalties
83I take into account the maximum penalties of 25 years' imprisonment and 10 years' imprisonment. I take into account that each of the penetration or incest offences is a category 1 offence, which must be met by imprisonment.
Standard sentence offence
84The standard sentence scheme applies to those charges and the applicable standard sentence for the incest charges is 10 years' imprisonment. The standard sentence scheme also applies to the sexual assault of a child under 16 charges and the standard sentence is one of four years' imprisonment.
85Those figures are figures fixed by Parliament to reflect what is said to be an objectively mid-range example of an offence of this kind. It is not a starting point, nor an end point. Like the maximum penalty, it is a guidepost and I take it into account.[10]
[10] McPherson v The Queen [2021] VSCA 53.
86The standard sentence scheme also dictates that I should fix a non-parole period of at least 60 per cent unless it is in the interests of justice not to do so.
Serious sexual offender
87In addition to those considerations, once I impose a sentence of imprisonment on Charges 1 and 2, you will become a serious sexual offender on each of the remaining charges.
88The serious offender scheme was introduced to better reflect the sentiment in the community that certain types of offences and certain types of offenders should be the subject of increased periods of imprisonment.[11]
[11] Second Reading Speech of the Sentencing Amendment Bill 29 April 1993 - Attorney General Wade MP.
89However, it is a well-established principle of sentencing that a sentence of imprisonment should not exceed that which can be justified as proportionate to the gravity of the crime, considered in light of its objective circumstances.[12]
[12] Hoare v R (1989) 167 CLR 348.
Totality
90It is equally well established that, when sentencing an offender in relation to a series of or multiple offences, I must review the overall sentence and consider whether the aggregate is just and appropriate. That principle of totality means I must determine the appropriate sentence for each charge and the appropriate amount of cumulation required before standing back and determining whether the overall sentence is appropriate and not disproportionate.[13] Section 6D of the Sentencing Act does not eradicate the need for me to give consideration to either proportionality or totality.[14] It was not submitted here that a disproportionate sentence was warranted.
[13] R v Connell [1996] 1 VR 436.
[14] Ibid and see e.g. Matheas v The Queen [2017] VSCA 330.
91Argument was made regarding the level of cumulation within one incident given the closeness in time of the 2022 pairs of offences. In my view some modest cumulation is warranted given it appears that there was a gap in time between the sexual assault offence and the penetration offence in each incident. You had the opportunity to desist in that pause but did not do so. However, as I have said, reflecting the closeness in time, the cumulation will be modest.
92The base sentence here will be the first act of incest or sexual penetration, which in my view is the most serious charge.
Sex offender registration
93Provisions of the Sex Offenders RegistrationAct 2004 are applicable to you since you have been found guilty of four class 1 offences and five class 2 offences, registration is mandated and the reporting period will be for life. I will make that order.
Current sentencing practices
94I have taken into account current sentencing practice for these offences.
95In considering current sentencing practices for a standard sentence offence, I must only have regard to sentences previously imposed for those offences as standard sentence offences. That does not limit the matters I am otherwise required or permitted to consider in determining the appropriate sentence for standard sentence offences,[15] nor is it intended to affect the approach to sentencing, known as instinctive synthesis.[16]
[15] R v Brown [2018] VSC 742; Sentencing Act 1991 s5B(3)(a).
[16] Lugo v The Queen [2020] VSCA 75; Sentencing Act 1991 s5B(3)(b).
96I take into account and agree with the comments made by the Court of Appeal in McPherson v The Queen[17] with regard to the difficulty of identifying a mid-range example of the offence of sexual penetration of a child under 12 in that case, or incest in this. There are many variables of offending which come under that charge and I must assess those here and determine the appropriate sentence, with the standard sentencing acting as a factor in the instinctive synthesis and no more.
[17] McPherson v The Queen [2021] VSCA 53.
97As always in looking at any other sentence there are similarities and differences between the offender and the offending. Ultimately, I am required to impose a just sentence in all the circumstances and that is what I have endeavoured to do.
98Can I just confirm the pre‑sentence detention time, please.
99MR BATTEN: Yes, it's 113 days, Your Honour.
100HER HONOUR: Thank you.
101MR BATTEN: Not including today.
102HER HONOUR: Thanks.
103MR PYNE: That's agreed, Your Honour.
104HER HONOUR: Thank you.
Sentence
105Mr Walton, the sentences I impose on each charge are as follows.
106On Charge 1 of indecent act with a child under the age of 16 you are convicted and sentenced to 15 months' imprisonment.
107On Charge 2 of sexual assault of a child under the age of 16 you are convicted and sentenced to two years' imprisonment.
108On Charge 3 of sexual penetration of a child or lineal descendant you are convicted and sentenced to six years and three months' imprisonment.
109On Charge 4 of sexual assault of a child under the age of 16 you are convicted and sentenced to three years' imprisonment.
110On Charge 5 of sexual penetration of a child or lineal descendant you are convicted and sentenced to six years' imprisonment.
111On Charge 6 of sexual assault of a child under the age of 16 you are convicted and sentenced to three years' imprisonment.
112On Charge 7 of sexual penetration of a child or lineal descendant you are convicted and sentenced to six years' imprisonment.
113On Charge 8 of sexual assault of a child under the age of 16 you are convicted and sentenced to three years' imprisonment.
114On Charge 9 of sexual penetration of a child or lineal descendant you are convicted and sentenced to six years' imprisonment.
115The base sentence will be the sentence imposed on Charge 3. I make the following orders for cumulation: two months of Charge 1, two months of Charge 4, six months of Charge 5, two months of Charge 6, six months of Charge 7, two months of Charge 8 and six months of Charge 9 are to be served cumulatively upon each other and upon the base sentence. The total effective sentence therefore is one of eight years and five months' imprisonment.
116I direct that you are to serve a non‑parole period of five years and five months' imprisonment before becoming eligible for parole.
117I declare that you have served 113 days of pre‑sentence detention and that that period should be reckoned as having been served under this sentence.
118In relation to Charges 3 to 9 I declare that you are sentenced as a serious sexual offender and that that fact must be noted in the records of the court.
119Are there any matters to raise, counsel?
120MR BATTEN: Your Honour, I perhaps had noted the cumulation orders wrongly, but I thought there was a total of 26 months in cumulation. Your Honour I think indicated a total sentence of eight years, five months.
121HER HONOUR: I might read those out again, Mr Batten.
122So there's two months, and I apologise if I said years at one point, two months on Charge 1, two months on Charge 4, six months on Charge 5, two months on Charge 6, six months on Charge 7, two months on Charge 8, six months on Charge 9.
123MR BATTEN: It may be my maths, Your Honour, but I add that up to 26 months.
124HER HONOUR: Yes.
125MR BATTEN: Which would be a total sentence of eight years and four months.
126HER HONOUR: And I have five.
127MR BATTEN: Your Honour mentioned five.
128HER HONOUR: The base sentence is six years, three months. So up to Charge 6 that means seven years, three months. Charge 7 and Charge 9 are six months each, so that's eight years, three months. And then two months on Charge 8 takes us to eight years, five months.
129MR BATTEN: Yes, my error I think, Your Honour, was I thought when Your Honour announced the sentence for Charge 3 Your Honour simply said six years.
130HER HONOUR: I apologise.
131MR BATTEN: I may have missed it, Your Honour, but - - -
132HER HONOUR: Six years, three months.
133MR BATTEN: Well, that's my error then, Your Honour.
134HER HONOUR: All right. You're content with that, Mr Pyne, that the maths is right, I mean?
135MR PYNE: Doing the best I can without a calculator, I'm not very good at this type of thing in a short amount of time, but from what I can see now it looks right and if there's any issue I'll certainly contact Your Honour's associate. I'll do it again outside.
136HER HONOUR: I have of course double‑checked it and I've asked my associates to check, but, please, if there is an error you'll raise it.
137MR PYNE: Yes.
138HER HONOUR: So, Mr Walton, to be clear, the total effective sentence is eight years and five months' imprisonment and you are to serve a minimum period of five years and five months' imprisonment before becoming eligible for parole. Of that term you have already served 113 days' imprisonment.
139MR PYNE: If the court pleases.
140MR BATTEN: Your Honour pleases.
141HER HONOUR: Thanks very much. Thank you again, counsel, for your assistance in this matter both during the trial and on the plea. All right, we'll adjourn, thanks.
- - -
0
12
0