Director of Public Prosecutions v Wrench (a pseudonym)

[2025] VCC 111

(1)

IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

 Revised
Not Restricted
Suitable for Publication

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

v

JACKSON WRENCH (a pseudonym)

---

JUDGE:	HER HONOUR JUDGE CHAMBERS
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	14 February 2025
DATE OF SENTENCE:	14 February 2025
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Wrench (a pseudonym)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VCC 111

REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---

Subject:Criminal law - sentence

Catchwords:              Plea of guilty – plea following sentence indication – indecent act with a child under 16 - incest – offending against daughter on two separate occasions when she was between 6-7 and 12-13 – mid-range example of incest – delay and age/ill heath relevant in mitigation – current sentencing practices – general deterrence

Legislation Cited:      Crimes Act1958 (Vic); Crimes (Sexual Offences) Act 1991 (Vic); Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic); Sex Offenders Registration Act 2004 (Vic).

Cases Cited:R v Verdins [2007] VSCA 102; The Queen v NRC (No. 2) [2001] VSCA 210; DPP v G [2002] VSCA 6; Grantley v The Queen [2018] VSCA 112; DPP v Dalgliesh [2017] HCA 41

Sentence:                  Total effective sentence of six years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of three years, seven months fixed.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the DPP	Mr F. Cameron	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Ms P. Smith	Giorgianni & Liang Lawyers

HER HONOUR:

1Jackson Wrench[1], following a sentence indication given by me, you have pleaded guilty on Indictment to the following offences:

(a) Indecent act with a child under 16 contrary to s 47 of the Crimes Act 1958 ('the Act'), the maximum penalty for which is 10 years' imprisonment (Charge 1); and

(b)   

Incest contrary to s 44(1) of the Act, the maximum penalty for which is

25 years' imprisonment.

[1] To ensure there is no prospect of identification of a victim of the sexual offending, these reasons have been anonymised by the adoption of a pseudonym in place of the name of the accused.

2The victim of your offending is your eldest daughter who was born in July 1988. These charges relate to sexual offending against her in 1995, when she was between six and seven years old, and in 2001, when she was between 12 and 13 years of age.

3You were born in January 1954 and were aged 40 and 47 at the time of the offending against your daughter. You are now 71 years old and have no prior or subsequent criminal record.

Circumstances of offending

4At the time of the offending you were living in Werribee with your wife and four children, including the victim. In 1995, you suffered a work-related back injury as a result of which you became a stay-at-home father while your wife continued to work in childcare.

Charge 1 – indecent act with a child under 16

5The first charge relates to the events that arose in 1995, when the victim was six or seven years old, and was asleep in her bedroom at night. At that point in time, she did not share a bedroom with any of her younger siblings.

6The victim woke to the sound of you moaning and grunting while you stood over her bed. She then saw that you were naked from the waist down, masturbating your erect penis.

7The victim remained still and said nothing before you ejaculated onto her hair and nightie. The victim began to cry which woke her mother. When your wife entered the room she saw you standing over the victim's bed, appearing dazed and incoherent.

8Your wife noticed that you had your penis in your hand and could smell semen, and asked, 'What have you done to [daughter’s name]?', to which you made no reply.

9She noticed that there was semen on her daughter's pink blanket and on her hair. She took her daughter into the shower and helped her wash the semen out of her hair before changing her bed clothes and soothing her to fall back to sleep.

10The following morning, your wife told you that you had ejaculated on your daughter, which you denied doing, saying 'that's dirty' and stating you 'were not like that'.

Charge 2 - Incest

11The second charge, being the charge of incest, relates to the events of 2001, when the victim was between 12 and 13 years old, and in Year 7 at school.

12On one evening in that year, you were at home with victim when you called her to come out of her bedroom, offering her a drink of Coca-Cola. She came into the kitchen wearing only her nightie. While she was having the drink at the kitchen bench, the victim noticed that you had locked the sliding door that separated one half of the house from the other.

13You walked with her into the loungeroom and sat on the couch while you talked. The movie 'The Matrix' was playing on the television. The victim stood up and walked over to sit on the edge of the billiard table in the loungeroom. You walked over to the billiard table and spread her legs apart, exposing her vagina. You then began rubbing her vagina before pulling your pants down to expose your erect penis.[2] You then penetrated her vagina with your penis, before ejaculating inside her. You then returned to the couch with the victim, where you continued watching the movie on the television together. You did not speak about the incident at all.

[2]This is an uncharged act.

Report to police

14The victim reported the offending to police in Ballarat on 17 April 2019. At the time she made the report, she also provided the police with diary notes she had made in August 2018 about the sexual abuse.

15You separated from your wife in 2007. On 21 April 2019, your former wife made a statement to the police and provided them with relevant diary notes and letters. The letters were dated 14 September 2017 and outlined her recollection of the incident involving you ejaculating on her daughter's hair.

Record of Interview

16You were interviewed by police by appointment on 17 June 2022, during which you told police that the victim had previously complained to you about being raped by 'a young kid' that lived nearby and who had 'left to join the circus' but returned to apologise. In relation to the allegations, you told the police:

·        That the victim and you were not on good terms and that you 'assume she thought I raped her' and that 'her mother told her that I did I it'; and

·        That one night you and your wife were having sex, when your daughter came in crying and she got semen on her leg because you picked her up, and that later that night you returned to her room and 'still had an erection' and ejaculated on your daughter when she was in her bed.

17You otherwise denied the offending, stating you were 'not a monster', that it must have been 'some other person' or that 'maybe I am a split personality or something'.

Procedural history

18You were charged with this offending on 6 October 2022. Following committal mention hearings, a contested committal was conducted on 1 and 2 May 2023. Following directions hearings in this Court and numerous funding mentions, the matter was listed for trial before a jury on 2 December 2024. That trial date was vacated in anticipation of the sentence indication hearing before me on 10 December 2024. The sentence indication was accepted by you on 28 January 2025.

Nature and gravity of the offending

19This was undoubtedly serious offending against your daughter. The offence of incest is an inherently serious criminal offence, as is reflected in the maximum penalty of 25 years' imprisonment fixed by Parliament. In doing so, Parliament has sought to reflect the community's abhorrence of the crime of incest.

20The victim was your biological daughter. She was only six or seven years old at the time of your first instance of offending, and between 12 and 13 when you sexually penetrated her in 2001. Young children repose enormous trust in their parents whose obligation it is to care, nurture and protect them from harm. Your offending breached the fundamental relationship of trust your daughter was entitled to expect of you. She was entitled to be safe, and to feel safe, with you in her family home. You betrayed that trust, and exploited her inherent vulnerability as a child, for your own sexual gratification.

21Moreover, this was not one-off offending. These were two distinct acts of sexual offending against your daughter. The act of masturbating and then ejaculating on the victim, while she in bed asleep, was disgraceful conduct. Neither the distress caused to the victim when she began crying nor the fact you were questioned by your then wife about your conduct, deterred you from further offending against the victim in 2001.

22The charge of incest is clearly the most serious offence. The law recognises that the crime of incest is an act of violence and must be so regarded.  In this case, you had called the victim down to the kitchen, enticed by a drink of Coca-Cola, and then used the opportunity that presented when you were alone with her in the lounge, to sexually offend against her. It was an appalling breach of trust. Your offending is also aggravated by the fact that you sexually penetrated her without any protection, thereby exposing her, at the age of 12 or 13, to the risk of pregnancy or disease.  

23On your behalf, it was submitted that your offending was not accompanied by threats or other acts of physical violence or verbal degradation directed at the victim, as may be seen in other serious cases of this kind. Nor are these charges representative of other offending. In assessing the objective gravity of your offending, I accept that these are two isolated events, separated in time. However, that is not to diminish the serious nature of your offending, particularly in relation to the offence of incest, which I assess as a mid-range example of that offence.

24That your offending inflicted long-term, serious trauma for the victim is borne out by her victim impact statement. In that statement, the victim describes your offending leaving her with feelings of shame, isolation and fear; and undermined her sense of safety. The victim says she was left feeling she was 'inherently bad' and that 'self-loathing' has become ingrained[3]. Because of your offending, she now struggles to trust others, particularly men. She has become overprotective of her own child. The victim states that she has now been diagnosed with a complex post-traumatic stress disorder. When her daughter turned six, the victim says it triggered immense grief 'for the child [she] once was'[4]. In that way, she described your abuse as 'kind of a life sentence'[5].

[3] Exhibit B – Victim Impact Statement dated 13 February 2025

[4] Ibid

[5] Ibid

25Mr Wrench, you can be in no doubt that your offending has had a profound impact on the life of your daughter. You bear a high level of moral culpability for your offending against her.

Personal circumstances

26You were born in Victoria in January 1954. Your childhood was a difficult one, marred by harsh physical discipline, primarily at the hands of your mother, but also your father at times. You were one of four children, and grew up in a strained household, impacted by your father's irritable and unpredictable moods. You report an incident where you recall your father kicking you. Your father had been a veteran who served on the Kokoda Trail, and you attribute his behaviour to the trauma he experienced during WW2.

27You attended Altona North Technical School until Year 10, but experienced difficulties with reading and comprehension. You report being bullied, and as a result, being isolated from your peers. You have since been diagnosed with dyslexia, which explains some of you learning difficulties.

28After leaving school you worked in the family's ice-cream shop as a carpenter, before commencing work as a motor mechanic in the Air Force. After postings across Victoria, including Laverton, you were dismissed from the Air Force arising from allegations of cannabis use.  You then returned to Victoria for two years, marrying your first wife in 1980. By the age of 30 you had qualified as an electrician and have worked in this trade for much of your life.

29When you were 40, you obtained employment as an engineer, where you sustained your back injury lifting heavy objects. You later returned to electrical work with a company for five years, before starting your own electrical company with one of your sons, specialising in commercial and industrial electrical work. You later worked for 27 years in an electrical business owned by your uncle, before retiring.

30You have sustained a number of physical injuries in your life, as a result of multiple motor bike accidents, workplace injuries and, when you were around 19 or 20, a serious assault. After you suffered the workplace back injury in 1995, you were unable to work and began to abuse alcohol and prescribed oxycontin. You were also knocked unconscious outside a pub in Pottsville when you were 65. You now suffer chronic pain in your back and legs, for which you are prescribed analgesics, but no longer abuse alcohol or prescription drugs, although you still increase your alcohol consumption when in pain or distressed.

31Following the breakdown of your first marriage you met your second wife, the mother of the victim, in 1987. You remained in that relationship for 20 years, having four children together, two sons and two daughters born between 1988 and 1994.

32Your relationship ended in 2007. After the separation, one of your sons continued to live with you and you continued to spend time with the other children. However, you no longer have any contact with either of your daughters. In recent years, you have provided support to one son who battles issues with drug addiction. Since these proceedings you no longer have contact with your other son, who now resides in Canada.

33You spent many years caring for an older brother who battled alcoholism and in 2015 you relocated to NSW where you lived for seven years, to care for your elderly parents. You sold your property to fund their care. You returned to Victoria in 2022, and have retired to live in regional Victoria where you live in your own house, in receipt of an aged pension.

Matters in mitigation

34A number of matters operate in mitigation of your sentence.

Guilty plea

35First and foremost, you have pleaded guilty to these offences. Although yours is not an early guilty plea, in pleading guilty you have facilitated the course of justice and the community has been spared the time and resources associated with a trial. Most significantly, you have saved the victim and other witnesses the distress often associated with having to give evidence at trial.

36In cases such as this, involving not only the victim but other family members, the practical or utilitarian value of your guilty plea is a matter of appreciable weight in mitigation of sentence. 

37However, beyond the remorse inherent in your guilty plea, there is no other evidence or material before me that indicates you have demonstrated genuine remorse or insight into your offending against the victim or its impact on her.

Previous good character

38On your behalf it was highlighted that you are otherwise a person with no prior criminal history, with a long work history. I accept that this is relevant to your sentence, however, given the nature and gravity of your sexual offending, it carries less weight in sentencing you for these crimes.

Mental health

39You were assessed on 21 and 29 November 2024 by Ms Gina Cidoni, psychologist, for the purposes of the sentence indication hearing.

40

Having conducted psychological testing, in her report dated 1 December 2024[6],

Ms Cidoni concludes that you meet the criteria for a diagnosis of a Major Depressive Disorder with anxious distress. Ms Cidoni states you present with 'significant anxiety and chronic depressive symptoms'[7] characterised by 'persistent low mood, feelings of hopelessness, diminished interest in activities, excessive worry and restlessness'[8].

[6] Exhibit 1 – psychological report of Ms Gina Cidoni dated 1 December 2024 ()

[7] Ibid, at 51

[8] Ibid, at 72

41Ms Cidoni, having taken your personal history, also considers you meet the criteria for an Alcohol Abuse Disorder, but considers that this condition can be managed with treatment.

42I accept that your Major Depressive Disorder, coupled with your chronic pain, means that a custodial sentence will weigh more heavily upon you than a person in good mental and physical health, enlivening limb 5 of the authority in Verdins[9] in moderating your sentence.

[9] R v Verdins [2007] VSCA 102.

Delay, age and state of health

43Your advanced age and state of health are also relevant to your sentence.

44You last offended in 2001, and now fall to be sentenced over two decades later. A lapse of time since the commission of offences of this kind is not necessarily unusual. In cases involving charges of incest, it is not uncommon for victims to come forward many years after the offending.

45Nonetheless, the delay of over twenty years does have a number of consequences for you.

46You are now in your early 70s and, like anyone of that age, your heath will decline over time. I am conscious that the term of imprisonment I am about to impose reflects a not insignificant proportion of your remaining years.

47In her report, Ms Cidoni writes that as a result of your past injuries, you experience persistent discomfort and worsening pain with physical exertion. In addition, you told Ms Cidoni that you experience poor sleep, persistent fatigue, and recent heart palpitations that are being investigated. Although I have no medical material regarding the outcome of any cardiac investigations, Ms Cidoni states that past periods of depression and anxiety have been related to your inability to cope with chronic pain.

48These matters will undoubtedly make your experience of custody more difficult, particularly having regard to Ms Cidoni's opinion that your pain could be aggravated 'without appropriate ergonomic supports'[10], that are unlikely to be available in custody. I make allowance for these matters.

[10] Ibid, at 75

49The delay also means that you have been able to demonstrate the capacity to lead a law-abiding life, without any form of offending, for the past 24 years. You last offended at the age of 47, and are now 71. This, in turn, has bearing on my assessment of your prospects of rehabilitation, and the role to be played by specific deterrence and community protection when sentencing you.

Prospects of rehabilitation

50In assessing your prospects of rehabilitation, I also have regard to Ms Cidoni's assessment that you pose a low risk of offending. Ms Cidoni conducted two sex offender risk assessments; the Sex Offender Risk Appraisal Guide (SORAG) and the Sexual Violence Risk-20 (SVR-20) to evaluate your risk of violent or sexually violent re-offending. Although you denied the offending conduct at the time of this assessment, in Ms Cidoni's opinion this did not alter her assessment that you pose a low risk of future offending, in particular having regard to the mitigating effect of age, your lack of priors, and 'the broader absence of a pattern of instability or offending behaviour'[11].

[11] Ibid at 74

51Notwithstanding the absence of real remorse or insight into your offending, given your advancing age, and the absence of any offending over the last two decades, I assess your rehabilitation prospects as strong, and that the risk you pose to the community as low. This finding correspondingly moderates, if not eliminates, the need for the sentence I impose to act as a specific deterrent to you.

Other sentencing considerations

52In this case, the primary sentencing considerations are those of general deterrence, just punishment and denunciation. The offence of incest is, by its nature, corrosive of the foundational relationship of trust that should persist between a parent and a child. Others must be deterred from committing acts of incest in the knowledge that if they do, a significant sentence of imprisonment will invariably follow.

53In sentencing you I am also required to have regard to current sentencing practices. The relevant sentencing practices are those currently applied, rather than those applied by the courts at the time of your offending. However, the principle of equal justice requires that I also have regard to the sentencing practices at the time of your offending in 1995 and 2001, to the extent they can be ascertained. This is because those sentencing practices are relevant in arriving at a sentence that is just in all the circumstances, particularly where sentencing practices were discernibly lower at the time of the offending.

54On your behalf, I was referred to the case of The Queen v NRC (No. 2)[12] a conviction appeal that was refused in 2001 by the Court of Appeal. In that case, the offender was sentenced to four years and seven months' imprisonment, with a non-parole period of three years, for one count of committing an indecent act in the presence of a child (masturbating) and one count of incest (digital penetration), in addition to other offences. The victim was the offender's daughter, and was five years old at the time of offending.

[12] [2001] VSCA 210

55The prosecution referred me to three other cases to which I have had regard, particularly that of DPP v G[13], which involved an appeal against sentence heard by the Court of Appeal in 2002. In that case, the offender was resentenced to three years' imprisonment for the offence of incest where, on a single occasion in 2001, he sexually penetrated his 14-year-old stepdaughter, and ejaculated on her stomach.

[13] [2002] VSCA 6

56In the more recent case of Grantley v The Queen[14], the offender was sentenced to six years, six months' imprisonment on a representative charge of incest, and five years, six months for a single charge of incest. He was also sentenced for the offence of committing an indecent act with a child under 16. He received a total effective sentence of nine years' imprisonment, with a non-parole period of seven years. He was sentenced as a serious sexual offender on the third charge, where different sentencing considerations apply to those applicable here. The acts giving rise to the charges in that case occurred in 2011 and 2014, where the offender digitally penetrated his two stepdaughters, aged 12 to 13 and 14 respectively.

[14] [2018] VSCA 112

57I have considered each of the cases to which I was referred, whilst noting that the sentences imposed in other cases do not act as precedents; and nor do they fix boundaries that bind the courts.

58I have also considered the Sentencing Snapshots to which I was referred, whilst noting that global statistics can operate as a most general kind of guide only. For instance, the sentencing statistics do not differentiate between specific features of the offending or the offender, including whether the sentence was imposed before or after a trial. With that caveat, I note that the Sentencing Snapshot for 2002-03 to 2006-07 reveal that the median term of imprisonment for the offence of incest was five years' imprisonment. In contrast, for the period 1 July 2018 to 30 June 2023, the median term of imprisonment for the offence of incest under the now repealed s 44(1)[15], was six years, six months.

[15] Crimes Act 1958 (Vic)

59Broadly speaking, the cases to which I was referred, and the sentencing statistics indicate that sentencing practices at the time of your offending were lower than now. I have taken that fact into account. That said, I also appreciate that over the decades there has developed a much greater understanding of the impact of sexual offending on children. As observed by the High Court in Dalgliesh:[16]

' the sexual abuse of children by those in authority over them has been revealed as a most serious blight on the community' with 'an increased awareness of the devastating consequences of this kind of crime for its victims'.

[16] DPP v Dalgliesh [2017] HCA 41 at 57

60I have also had regard to the observations of the Court of Appeal in Dalgliesh[17], that sentences imposed for incest offences of mid-range seriousness were disproportionately low when considered against the yardstick of the maximum penalty of 25 years' imprisonment.  In calling for sentences to be adjusted upwards in such cases, the Court of Appeal emphasised that general and (where applicable) specific deterrence and denunciation must be given their proper emphasis.

[17] Ibid at 63

61Ultimately, whilst having regard to the sentencing practices both now and at the time of your offending, each case must be determined having regard to its own facts and circumstances, including the nature and gravity of the offending, and matters personal to the accused. In this case, these matters include your guilty plea, delay, age and state of health.

62Finally, when sentencing you for these two distinct offences, when considering the amount of cumulation to order, I must have regard to the principle of totality. The overall sentence imposed must reflect the overall criminality of your offending, and no more. 

Sentence

63Balancing the matters to which I have referred, whilst having regard to the maximum penalty for each offence, I sentence you as follows.

64On Charge 1 – indecent act with or in the presence of a child, you are convicted and sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment.

65On Charge 2 – incest, you are convicted and sentenced to five years, six months' imprisonment. This is the base sentence.

66I order that six months of the sentence imposed on Charge 1 be served cumulatively upon Charge 2, reflecting the separate criminality of that offence, and noting the victim was only six or seven years of age at the time of that offence.

67This gives a total effective sentence of six years' imprisonment. I fix a non-parole period of three years, seven months imprisonment. This is the period of imprisonment you must serve before becoming eligible for parole.

68I note that you have served no pre-sentence detention.

69Pursuant to s 6AAA of the Sentencing Act 1991, I indicate that had you not pleaded guilty to these offences, the sentence I would otherwise have imposed is a sentence of seven years, six months' imprisonment with a non-parole period of five years, three months.

70Finally, your offending attracts the provisions of the Sex Offenders Registration Act 2004 and you are a registrable offender. Pursuant to s 34(1)(c) of that Act, your reporting obligations are for life.