R v JD - [2018] NSWDC 492

District Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v JD [2018] NSWDC 492
Hearing dates: 30 November 2018
Decision date: 30 November 2018
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Sutherland SC DCJ
Decision:
An aggregate sentence of full-time imprisonment of 5 years to commence 26 November 2018. A non-parole period of 3 years to commence 26 November 2018, and expire 25 November 2021. The additional term will expire 25 November 2023.

Catchwords: CRIME — Child sex offences — Sexual intercourse with a person under special care, teacher
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900
Cases Cited: JAD v R [2012] NSWCCA 73
Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina (Crown)
JD (Offender)
Representation: Counsel:
Mr Davies for the Crown
Mr Walsh for the Offender

File Number(s): 2018/00034346, 2018/00249084, 2018/00107106, 2018/00107161
Publication restriction: Non-Publication Order re. complainants and offender

sentence

HIS HONOUR: JD appears for sentence with respect to ten offences contrary to the provisions of s 73(2) of the Crimes Act 1900, namely of having sexual intercourse with a person under his special care of the age of 17 years, and an additional offence contrary to the provisions of s 61M(1) of the Crimes Act, namely aggravated indecent assault with a victim whilst under the authority of the offender. There are, in addition to those offences, a further 13 counts under s 73(2) of the Crimes Act, which I am variously asked to take into account on a number of Form 1 documents, as well as an additional offence under s 61O(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900, namely an act of indecency with a victim under his authority.
The background to these offences relates to sexual relations which developed between the offender and students at the school at which he was a teacher. The offences involve four young women, who were in year 12 at the school, at the time of the commission of the offences, and hence under the authority, for legal purposes, of the offender. Each of the girls respectively was 17 years of age at the time of the commission of the offences. Offences of this kind inherently carry with them a breach of trust, namely the trust which is implicit in a person being in a position of authority, recognised at law, for a younger person. It is, in my view, important to understand the background to such offences as a matter of law before turning to the individual factual circumstances which are before me.
It is convenient to make reference to the decision in JAD v R, and in particular the judgment of Simpson J; that judgment is to be found in [2012] NSWCCA 73. That was a case involving the de facto of the mother of the child. As it happens, it was a trial that took place in 2009 in front of a jury here in Orange, and the perpetrator had had a relationship with the daughter of his de facto partner. The particular trial concerned the interaction of the development of the sections of the Crimes Act which proscribed conduct in relation to an adult with a minor of somebody who was otherwise over the age of general consent in the community.
Historically, the age of consent for females in New South Wales in the 19th century and the early years of the 20th century, was 14 years of age; the age of consent was increased in due course to the age of 16 years. As far back as 1883, however, it had been recognised by the Parliament that persons who were in a position of authority, and in those days specifically identified as a “schoolmaster or school teacher”, was prohibited from having sexual intercourse with a young person above the age of consent, namely 14 years at that time, but up to the age of 16 years.
In other words, even in the 19th century, the New South Wales legislature recognised a distinction between the age at which a female was perceived to be of sufficient maturity to decide who she would have consensual intercoursewith, but that was not the position vis‑à‑vis a young female and a schoolmaster or a teacher, or, for that matter, at that time, her father.
I do not take the time to embark upon an analysis of the way in which the law in that regard developed. The judgment of Simpson J in JAD v R sets out in very considerable detail the development of the historical sequential improvements and advances in criminal law as legislated from time to time by Parliament; the introduction in 1924 of an offence of incest; the increase in due course to the age of 16 years as the appropriate age of consent for, initially at that stage females; and in relation to young males, of course, there was a criminal offence of anybody having intercourse with another male if they themselves were male. In due course, the history of the amendments to the law was intertwined with developments of the law in relation to homosexual acts.
For present purposes I do no more than advert to the detailed analysis of those developments by Simpson J. It is significant, however, that in 2003 the then Attorney‑General, Mr Robert Debus, or as he prefers to be referred to, Bob Debus, sought to remove what was perceived to be a differentiation and discrimination between heterosexual and homosexual victims in relation to different acts of intercourse. There was a clear distinction where, at that point in time, intercourse between a pupil and an adult teacher continued past the age of 16 and up to under the age of 17 years. Intercourse with a male as a criminal offence, for reasons only able to be understood by historical analysis, related to young boys under the age of 18 years.
The bill in 2003, as originally introduced by the Attorney‑General, did not seek to increase the criminality of intercourse between a teacher and a pupil to above 16 years of age. Under 16 was covered by the general law, but between 16 and 17 was covered by the predecessor of s 73. In due course, following a debate, which was in large part led by the Honourable Tony Burke in the Legislative Council, the amendments which found their way into the Crimes Act in 2003 increased the age under which it was prohibited, and hence a criminal act, for a school teacher to have intercourse with a pupil, from 17 to 18 years of age.
A separate offence was created so that intercourse between, for example, a school teacher and a school pupil at the age of 16 years, carried a maximum penalty of ten years' imprisonment. The newly-created distinction involving a 17 year old pupil carried a maximum penalty which was under half of that, namely 4 years. The amendment, which followed the paedophile chapter of the Royal Commission conducted by James Wood J, dealt with similar power-relationships and power imbalances, including the relationship between not only school teachers and pupils, but also between custodial officers and inmates, and people providing religious, sporting, musical or other instruction and their pupils, as well as the relationship between a health professional and a patient.
Those amendments were in due course passed into law, and the situation is clear that pre‑2003, the type of sexual relationship with which I am currently concerned would not have been a crime. However, it should be clearly understood, and it undoubtedly is by the educational authorities, and it ought be understood also by all pupils and teachers, that it is a criminal offence if there is an act of intercourse or sexual relations between a school teacher and a child after their 17th year, that is after they have turned 17 years of age, but whilst they are still short of full adulthood at 18 years of age. There is no doubt that this offender, like every other school teacher in New South Wales in the course of their training, is left in no uncertainty whatsoever about the fact that it is not simply unethical or immoral, but that it is a criminal act to have sexual relations with a 17 year old under their authority.
That being the general background to the type of offence with which the Court is concerned, I turn to the particular allegations. I make it clear that whilst I have received and admitted into evidence a statement of Agreed Facts, the level of detail regarding the sexual interaction between the offender and each of the four victims of his conduct which is disclosed, is not, in my view, necessary to be identified or articulated in open Court for any reason, and certainly not to provide any passing prurient interest for those who wish to take satisfaction or general interest in the details of such sexual interaction. It suffices, in my view, to observe that should it become necessary for another Court to examine the basis of the factual matters upon which I have proceeded, they are fully set out in the exhibit. I will refer, in a generic and general form, to the background of what unfolded. I remind those present that the names of each of the female complainants, who are properly described as victims of this criminal conduct, are not to be published.
In 2015, the offender was on the staff at [Redacted] High School. At that time, he was involved in providing not only assistance and guidance as a mathematics teacher, but he was involved also in a number of extracurricular activities in the course of his duties as a teacher. He developed a close friendship with a senior girl in her final year; she was Victim 1 (V1). She was seven years younger than the offender; he was 25 years of age at the time. In fact, she was 17 and he was probably 24, turning 25, at the commencement of their friendship. In due course, the nature of the relationship developed such that they were communicating with each other via text messages, sending photographs and messages which increasingly developed in their sexual content between each other via various social media means, including Snapchat, which, as I understand it, in some circumstances causes the image or the message to effectively evaporate unless saved by one or other of the users.
In July of 2015, after some interaction with a view to having some maths tutoring, the offender developed a situation with V1 whereby she attended at his house, purportedly for the purpose of maths tutoring. It would appear clear to me that the nature of the interactions between them in the lead up to that was that more was in mind than mathematics. As it happened, the scenario was that there was physical interaction between them which, at that time, did not culminate in full sexual intercourse.
The difficulty, and the betrayal of trust implicit in the relationship between a teacher and his student, is exemplified, in my view, by what took place on this particular identified occasion. V1 went to the offender's home shortly before 9pm; she did not go home until some time after midnight. That scenario led to concern and suspicion by her mother, which led to the child lying to her mother about the circumstances of what had been taking place. It is a simple but stark example of the scenario which follows with the betrayal of trust and the way in which the requirement to lie and to deceive others, and perchance oneself, arises because of the situation which unfolds as a consequence directly of the position of authority in which the teacher is placed.
That particular interaction has led to a charge of an aggravated act of indecency under authority contrary to the provisions of s 61O(1)(a), which carries a maximum penalty of three years. It has been placed on a Form 1, and I am asked to take it into account in passing sentence with respect to the first count on the specific Indictment relating to that particular victim.
In due course, the bridge having been crossed so far as physical interaction was concerned, text messages between the teacher and his pupil continued with what can brutally be described as encouragement, with the prospect of future contact. In due course, following a further meeting, activity between the two of them falling within the definition of sexual intercourse under the Crimes Act took place. I repeat, I do not see the necessity of articulating the precise detail which is set out in graphic detail in the material placed before me. That resulted in another charge under s 73(2) of sexual intercourse with a child under special care of the age of 17 years.
I should note these events were taking place in July 2015, at which time V1 was some two months shy of her 18th birthday. Later the same month, there were further text messages and encouragement between the two participants, and whilst there was from time to time actual maths tutoring, there were other occasions of simple sexual attraction and physical interaction. In due course, a specific count, which has made its way onto the Indictment and in respect of which the Form 1 offences will be considered, was preferred under, again, s 73(2), namely intercourse with a child of the age of 17 years being a person under authority.
There are circumstances, again which I do not see the necessity to articulate in detail, where sexual intercourse took place on multiple occasions, sometimes on the same date, and on most occasions it is said that the defendant did not wear a condom. That, of course, carries with it the potential risk in the event of ejaculation, which did not always occur, of circumstances that could lead to pregnancy. It is a situation where pregnancy is a real and potential risk. As it happened, in relation to the allegations touching upon the early hours of 1 August 2015, in due course the victim indicated to a friend that she needed to acquire the morning-after pill. That circumstance, of course, underscores the irresponsibility, in addition to the criminality, of the conduct of the offender.
In August 2015, the victim commenced the two-week trial Higher School Certificate examination process. Messages were exchanged between her and her teacher in which they effectively organised and orchestrated to meet up after the trial exams were finished. They did meet, they did have intercourse, and for present purposes, the precise circumstances of that are not particularly relevant other than to indicate that they were becoming increasingly brazen in their activities away from the school. On that particular occasion they met near premises on the Newell Highway at [Redacted], and activities took place not inside the house. That resulted in the second count on the Indictment before me. About a week later, there was a further meeting between the two of them, on this occasion at his own home, and again there was considerable sexual interaction which included sexual intercourse at his home on that occasion. That, in due course, resulted in the third count in the Indictment presented against the offender regarding his sexual relationship with V1.
Of course, in September 2015, V1 turned 18 years of age. What had been a criminal offence prior to that stage was no longer. There appeared then a development in the relationship in that the victim discovered, by means of communications and profiles which she examined on Facebook, that in fact her teacher, whom she undoubtedly perceived as her lover by this stage, having been induced and seduced to that stage, was indeed still in a relationship with a girlfriend who he had told her he had broken up with. He apologised for what he described as confusion, and said that he was sorry if he had upset her. he acknowledged his actions in that communication in these terms: "It is stupid enough that I am hooking up with a student, which I'm still freaking out about, let alone doing it while I still had a girlfriend. Sorry if it upset you".
In those circumstances, V1, as many young girls in any relationship might have done, determined to call off the relationship. In due course, she graduated from [Redacted] High School, and at that stage the ongoing nature of the relationship is described somewhat enigmatically in the Agreed Facts as starting to cool off. It actually came to a termination in January of 2016. The Facts do not disclose whether or not sexual intercourse continued after she had turned 18 years of age.
What then unfolded was that V1 confided, as many young women in her situation might do, with a friend. As it happened, that was a friend who was in the year behind at school, who was also about to be a senior year 12 student, and who was an active participant in athletics through the school. That friend, Victim 2 (V2), spoke with V1 about the circumstances of V1’s relationship with the offender. Of course, as it transpired, by that stage, when the two girls were speaking, the offender had already commenced to seduce or inveigle his way into the life of V2.
By the time her friend came to, in effect, warn her about the dangers of a relationship with the offender, it was in that sense too late; V2, as it would appear, had already had sexual intercourse with the teacher, he having inveigled his way into procuring a situation with her, in part because of the fact that he was involved in some of the extracurricular activities regarding sport which had led to travelling to other towns and cities away from [Redacted].
Text messages, which initially were undoubtedly nothing more than the type of complementary and appropriate communications between a teacher and a student, developed quickly, as they had done with V1, from discussion about tutoring and discussion about sporting pursuits, to what effectively might described as flirting, and then fairly quickly, as it seems to me, elevating in the circumstance of his involvement with a blinded student, and by blinded I mean blinded to the situation into which they were being drawn, to ultimately sexual intercourse.
The first sexual interaction between the offender and V2 which was subsequently charged has now been placed on a Form 1. It involved the offender collecting V2 to take her to his place. Whether that was under the guise of initially some form of tutoring, it had by that stage moved to an explicit understanding that they were going to his home for the purpose of having sexual intercourse, which they did. That physical interaction then occurred on a subsequent occasion several weeks later in which, again, the teacher, after discussing via text message what can be described as sexual fantasies as to what might be done physically, went and collected the pupil, took her back to his home, and they then had sex.
It suffices, for present purposes, to indicate that some of the factual description reveals a little more than what might be described as customary missionary-style intercourse. Some of the physical interaction reveals, in my view, which I will touch on in due course, the predilection that the offender had developed for watching and perchance interacting with pornography over the internet. Some of what might otherwise be described as adventurous physical sexual activity reflects, in my view, what he undoubtedly had been watching on the internet. That second incident is again included on a Form 1, to be taken into account on the counts on the Indictment.
The next described act of sexual intercourse was not until several months later. Some time in April or early May there was a further interaction when the offender arranged to collect V2 from her grandmother's home. He took her back to his house with the specific intention of having sexual intercourse. The interaction on this occasion developed a little further, so far as the physical interaction was concerned and included the offender taking a kitchen spatula and spanking, as it were, his victim in the course of having intercourse with her.
Again, I do not see the necessity of going further into the detail of the prurient facts. On that particular occasion, and following that incident, the Agreed Facts describe, in the course of giving examples of the ongoing course of conduct, physical interaction that took place not leading to intercourse, but leading to attempts to at least have some physical interaction by means of kissing and touching at a location at the school. It is clear that V2 at that stage was pretty reluctant; whether it was because of a sense of it being wrong, or whether it was her fear of being discovered, she said, "We're at school, it isn't right". No separate charge has been preferred, as I would understand it, in relation to the conduct set out on the bottom of p 11 and the top of p 12 of the Agreed Facts.

Count 2 in the Indictment in relation to the interaction with V2 deals with a situation where in late August the offender invited V2 to come to his house for him to assist her in studying for the PDHPE trial Higher School Certificate examination. Again, he collected her from her grandparents' home and took her to his residence. On this occasion, it would appear that he did spend some time tutoring and assisting her with her study in preparation for the exam. However, at the end of the period of studying, when V2 went to walk out of the front door, he followed her and pushed her up against the wall and started to kiss her. She resisted and said, "No, not tonight". The offender ignored her and continued to kiss her. He put his hand on top of her shirt and commenced touching her breasts from the outside of her clothing. The child said, "No, stop, seriously", and re‑emphasised she did not want to do anything physical that night. He continued to touch her breasts and she yelled at him to stop it and said she was serious, and consequently he did stop.
It is in one sense an ironic circumstance that the charge, which has been seen fit to be preferred in relation to that interaction where she effectively said, "I am not interested in doing anything tonight", with a person with whom there had been ongoing sexual intercourse over a period of months, ultimately results in a charge which carries with it a very substantially increased maximum penalty of seven years' imprisonment, with a five year standard non‑parole period. That is a quirk of the way in which the sexual prohibitions and legislative provisions have been ultimately drafted, and a reflection of thevarying types of conduct which are intended to be proscribed, including assault in circumstances where it is with somebody under authority, and it is non‑consensual.
However, of course, to view that conduct, which ultimately he desisted in, and which at its highest appears to be an attempt to kiss and the touching of breasts that he had clearly touched naked, but on this occasion on the outside of the clothing, as more serious than some of the other acts is not readily apparent. It is somewhat difficult to see how it might be elevated to an objective seriousness above the acts of intercourse.
I do not, by those remarks, intend in any way to be seen to be condoning the activities that the teacher was perpetrating, but simply to indicate the slightly awkward circumstance that this offence carries a very substantially greater maximum penalty than what, on most views, would be perceived to have been more serious conduct, namely the ongoing sexual intercourse, which was occurring on a regular basis. In due course, and shortly after, it would appear, the incident on 23 August 2016, whilst communication by Snapchat in what I described in general and friendly terms continued over the following 18 months or so, the sexual relationship, it would appear, had ceased, and sexual flirting or encouragement by means of text messages stopped from that time.
The next victim of the predatory conduct of this school teacher was Victim 3 (V3). She had gone, towards the end of 2014 and early 2015, to the maths staff at [Redacted] High School seeking additional assistance in tutoring as a consequence of difficulties that she was having with her studies, and in particular with mathematics. In those circumstances, she developed a friendship with the offender at that time which it is not suggested was inappropriate or unethical or criminal. It perhaps reflects a tragedy of what he has done in his life to the extent, with which I will deal in due course, thathe sought adulation, respect, even love on one level, and I mean in an emotional sense, from his students; he seems to have been a person who would have been well able to have achieved and maintained that level of adulation and adoration and respect, and being looked up to by the pupils, quite apart from breaching the criminal law and crossing the Rubicon, as it were, to embark upon sexual relations. Certainly, in the early portion of the relationship with V3 there is every indication that it was that type of appropriate relationship for some considerable time.
V3, as many developing young adolescents have from time to time, had a number of issues, including relationship issues, during her final years at school. Undoubtedly assisted by the close friendship that she had with the offender through the maths tutoring, she confided in him about those types of issues, and he provided what initially would appear to have been appropriate support. Examples of the development of email correspondence between the offender and, in this particular instance, V3, are included in the Agreed Facts. What they do as well, however, is to illustrate the steps in the flirtatious nature of the communications, which elevated in due course by inexorable steps from an emotional support to, in due course, a sexual interaction.
The surreptitious way, which might be viewed as overt in an adult mind, reading it, looking back and seeing the way the communications took place, but covert to the mind of an adoring student in a position of looking up to a person in authority, illustrates starkly the dangers and the reason that the legislature has seen fit to impose criminal sanctions for this type of conduct.
In due course, through the organisation of the maths tutoring sessions, the close connection, including counselling, if I can use that term generically, between the offender and V3, the closeness of the two of them elevated, as it did with the first two victims, until it started to have sexual connotations. The communications, as with the others, progressed to the sending of naked photographs and the discussion of purported sexual fantasies and fetishes.
Ultimately, in early 2017, the communications had progressed to such a level that there was an almost imminent likelihood of sexual interaction, which of course is what happened. Again, he collected the pupil from a location in [Redacted] and took her back to where he was living in Parkes.
Again, the description of the physical interaction between the two of them is certainly not necessary to be articulated. The ultimate circumstance is that there was sexual intercourse between the two of them. There is one additional aspect, which I will touch upon, and that is that in the course of the sexual interaction the offender picked up a wooden spoon that was adjacent to where they were having sex and smacked his victim on the buttocks with it for what is said to be some time. Ultimately, the Agreed Facts acknowledge that following the sexual intercourse the offender and his now third victim lay on the bed talking to each other about how weird it was that they had in fact had sex, and both, in the terms of the Agreed Facts, acknowledged that it wasn't allowed.
In due course, he drove her home, and later than evening she sent him pictures of welts and bruises on her buttocks, which had been the product of being spanked with the wooden spoon. The offender responded to the receipt of those pictures by commenting that it was just “playing sexy”.
That first interaction resulted in the charge of sexual intercourse with a child of 17 under special care, that is under his authority, and has been placed on a Form 1. The first count on the Indictment deals with a subsequent occasion in which there was specific sexual intercourse during term 1, the details of which are set out on p 16 and 17 of the Agreed Facts. The circumstance is that there were occasions where a condom was used, but other occasions on which a condom was not used. There were variations in the actual act of sexual intercourse, and it is clear that the charge which has been preferred is intended to be a representative count in respect of an ongoing course of conduct. Without taking the time to develop the reference to the principles of law, I note clearly that I am, on the present state of law, not entitled to elevate the offence on the individual case on the basis of it being a representative count until and unless the Court of Criminal Appeal revisit and deal specifically with that area. I am, however, conscious of the circumstance that the specific act of intercourse which is charged is part of an ongoing course of conduct which, of course, deprives the offender of any benefit that might be obtained from any submission to the effect that it was a one‑off or an isolated incident.
A second count is identified under s 73(2) and has been placed on the Indictment in relation to a specific incident which occurred at the school. That was a situation where the offender had sent a Snapchat message to V3 telling her not to wear underwear under her school uniform, then, in the course of the day, the placing of what might be described, for present purposes, as a sex toy inside the vagina of the girl during the time that they were at school. That is a specific separate count, charged pursuant to s 73(2) which has been placed, as I say, on the Indictment.
In due course, the relationship, such as it had developed, was discontinued in circumstances where V3 became aware, as a consequence of social media communications with one of her friends, Victim 4 (V4), that that friend was also in close communication with the teacher that V3 had been involved in the relationship with for some months.
V4 had similarly been in a teacher-pupil relationship with the offender in General Mathematics whilst she was in year 11 and into year 12. She was also a musician and involved in a student band that appears to have had some form of a gig at the [Redacted] RSL. The band was having the launch of an album that they had recorded. The offender was amongst a group of teachers who were invited to that event. Prior to that particular incident in 2017, the offender had an ongoing line of communication with V4, and had communicated with her in very similar terms to communications that he had with V3. It was, although flirtatious, not inappropriate, other than with the benefit of hindsight, in relation to the level of communication and the close connection that he obviously had as a good maths teacher and tutor with numbers of his pupils.
On the particular occasion of the gig at [Redacted] RSL, the follow-up was that the offender sent an email to V4 singing her praises in relation to the performance of the night before, and asking for her to bring a copy of the CD to school so that he could purchase it, because he didn't have money with him the night before. He complimented her on her outfit, described her as very hipster and cute, and in due course the conversation again inexorably progressed to flirtatious interaction, which in due course, as it had done so successfully with the three earlier girls, progressed to discussions of a sexual tenor. It would appear to have started with innuendo, and developed to outright and overt sexual discussions.
It would seem that his relationship with V3, at least on a sexual level, had certainly cooled off, if not stopped, and by mid‑2017 the steps to seduce or induce a response from V4 had progressed such that he then was in a sufficiently comfortable situation with this young girl to collect her from school and take her, again to where he lived at Parkes, which of course is some distance away. On this occasion, after going into his home, where of course he lived on his own, it quickly progressed to physical interaction, and there was ultimately sexual intercourse, which at that stage was limited to digital penetration and other sexual acts. It did progress to full sexual intercourse in the classic understanding of that terminology, in addition to the criminal definition. He returned her to [Redacted], and in due course they continued to speak on Snapchat and organise times to meet up.
About a month later, in fact about six weeks later, there was physical interaction at the school study centre at the [Redacted] High School library. The circumstances on that occasion were that the offender took V4 to the staff room and shut and locked the door. There was then sexual interaction between them, culminating in full sexual intercourse, in the staff room. That particular incident is count 3 in the Indictment presented with respect to V4. There were two other specific identified occasions that went into the counts in the Indictment; a further incident was identified in the lead up to the HSC trial, which involved the provision of mathematics assistance and tutoring between the offender and V4, following which there was sexual interaction between them, again at the school, that resulted in the count which is count 2 contrary to s 73(2) in the Indictment.
In late August 2017 there was again another incident which took place in the school in the offender's office. The circumstances are simply described that they had intercourse in his office in the school on the identified occasion. V4 had, after the regular school day had finished, gone to the school library and signed in to after-school homework for help, and had then been contacted by the offender via Snapchat and invited to go around to his work staff-room where the sexual intercourse occurred. That is count 4 in the relevant Indictment.
About two or three weeks later, there was a further act of intercourse at the offender’s home which has been placed on a Form 1. A little over three weeks after that event there was a yet further sexual interaction between them which has resulted in a further charge, which again has been placed on a Form 1. About two weeks after that incident, there was a further attendance at the offender's home in Parkes by V4 on which occasion there was again sexual intercourse between the two of them. That, similarly, has been placed on a Form 1. At the end of 2017, V4 graduated from [Redacted] High School, as did her friend V3.
At the end of the academic year in 2017, or some time leading up to that, the offender, who had been in a personal relationship for some time, intended to leave [Redacted] High School and his accommodation in Parkes and take up residence with his partner who was moving to Port Macquarie. He applied for, and was appointed to, a new teaching position at a regional college in the Port Macquarie region where it was intended that he would commence in the 2018academic year.
It would appear that apart from sharing secrets with contemporaries or with friends, by that time none of his four victims had taken any formal steps to report his criminal conduct. That is completely to be understood, and to be viewed against the background that by the time they left school each of these girls, with one exception, had in fact turned 18 years of age. The one exception was V4 who did not turn 18 until December of her final year. Each of the other girls had respectively turned 18 during year 12, in September, August and September of their respective final years. Having attained their majority; having moved on from the school; and with possibly one exception having ceased communications with the offender; each of them endeavoured, with whatever scars had been occasioned by the relationship, its inception, its continuation, and ultimately its breakup with their teacher, to put the experience undoubtedly into the back parts of their minds. Any hopes that it would remain there, or would evaporate from their memories, or distance itself from having an effect on their lives, of course was sadly mistaken.
In due course, in circumstances where one of the girls had discussed with a friend the circumstance or nature, at least in general terms, of having had sexual intercourse with the offender. One such student, who had heard, whether it was first-hand, second-hand or third-hand hearsay, rumours of the fact that V4 had also been having sexual intercourse with the offender, in the course of a counselling session she herself disclosed to this counsellor the situation that she was aware of, or that she at least had heard of. The school counsellor, of course, was a mandatory reporter, and required that student to make a student incident statement. In due course, the matter was progressedand elevated through the headmaster to the Department of Family and Community Services, the Department of Education, and in due course, to the police.
Police, in due course, interviewed V4, who provided, as she properly was invited to do, a statement setting out what had been taking place.
Following that circumstance, the offender was arrested. He was interviewed and he agreed that he had full knowledge that it was illegal for a teacher to have sexual intercourse with students because of the relationship of special care. He agreed that every year or second year since he had graduated there was child protection training provided by the Department of Education. He denied having sex with anybody other than V4, about whom the police had specifically asked him. In due course, however, the other girls came forward to the police and provided statements, which has, of course, culminated in the plethora of charges with which I am called upon to deal.
It is necessary for offences which carry a standard non‑parole period to express a judicial view as to where a matter falls in its objective seriousness, in contrast or comparison with a perceived range of seriousness of different offences that are covered by the same section. The particular facts of a case for the only offence in respect of which it is mandated that one must express such a view is the aggravated indecent assault, which carries the seven year penalty and the five year standard non‑parole period under s 61M(1) of the Crimes Act. That was the incident where the offender endeavoured to kiss and touch the breasts on the outside of the clothing on the way out, after frequent occasions prior to that of full sexual intercourse with V2.
I indicated in the course of my earlier remarks, which I repeat, that in my view the particular aggravated indecent assault, in the context of the ongoing relationship, as an individually viewed offence, falls below the midrange of offences covered by that section. That having been said, it is difficult to do otherwise than express a view regarding the overall conduct of this offender.
Each of the individual offences with which he is charged reflects the culmination of a series of steps that he took sequentially with each girl whereby he inveigled himself into their lives in a fashion which is prohibited at law. It is difficult to select, or to be certain about, the precise appropriate description applicable to his conduct. He variously induced, he variously seduced, he flirted, he encouraged, he cajoled. He ultimately betrayed the trust that was imposed in him, not only by virtue of his position as an educator, but he betrayed the trust placed in the school and the school system by not only the girls, but by the parents of these girls.
The special position of power that a person, namely an adult, holds vis‑à‑vis somebody under their authority was recognised by the 2003 amendments to go much further than our forefathers had proscribed in the statutory legislation of 1883. At that time Parliament increased the scope of the offence and made it a crime for school teachers to have intercourse with female pupils who were then above the age of consent, but were still below the age of adulthood. I should note in passing, of course, that at the time of those amendments, the attainment of the age of majority for a young woman still did not enable them to vote. However, they were able to marry and they were able to have consensual intercourse at 15 years of age, but not with a school teacher.
It has been long recognised that teachers are in a special position of authority. Children under their care are emotionally gullible, emotionally vulnerable and labile, and are potential targets for predatory conduct by an adult. The legislative amendments in 2003 recognised the necessity, in the civilised society in which we reside, to include not only teachers having sex with 16 year old pupils as being a criminal act, but to increase that age in light of what had happened in the preceding 20-odd years. The Leaving Certificate had been abolished; less children were leaving school at 15 years of age or graduating at 17. More children were remaining at school to complete at least the School Certificate at generally 15 or 16 years of age, and then graduating with the Higher School Certificate, not in every case, but in most cases, at the time they had reached 18 years of age, or were approaching it, or alternatively were by that stage 18 and a half. What Parliament did was to recognise that, even with increasing views about maturity and the ability to make decisions for oneself, at 17 years of age the special position of a person in authority, and for present purposes particularly a school teacher, Parliament recognised that a betrayal of that position, by utilising it for one's own self‑gratification, was such as to require the invoking of the criminal law until a pupil attained 18 years of age. Hence the amendments in 2003 led to the introduction of s.73(2) with a maximum penalty of four years' imprisonment.

As I noted earlier, a recognition of the special position of power extended, pursuant to those criminal provisions, to other types of tutors and teachers, and indeed even to custodial officers. Any suggestion that the extension to custodial officers might have been an unnecessary reaction would be well reflected upon by very recent charges preferred against a person in that very profession and vocation. The fact of the matter is that a school teacher, particularly someone who is young, invigorating, and no doubt attractive in some respects in the ordinary neutral sense of that word to adolescent young women, is required to be fully cognisant of the potential ramifications of suchconduct.
In my view, the task of assessing the individual acts of sexual intercourse, and working out where they fall in an assessment of objective criminality, is difficult because they do not arise in a vacuum. Each of the various offences charged in respect of the four girls who are the victims in these proceedings falls within a course of conduct which extended over a period of months. I do not, by that observation, mean to suggest that individually the offences are elevated by taking them into account in an inappropriate way, or impermissible way, as representative charges, but rather to explain that they fall within a context where they were not one-off interactions which arose, to use a term from the Crown's written submissions, “organically and opportunistically.” They reflected a course of conduct which had been created and was the ultimate emanation of the conduct of the offender. As such, they reflect a high degree of objective seriousness.
The effect on the young women who were the victims of the predatory conduct of the offender has been placed before the Court in written victim impact statements, two of which were read out loud. I do not, for present purposes, intend to re‑read those onto the record, for a variety of reasons, not least of which is that the Court would be sitting until after sunset. I have carefully re‑read each of those victim impact statements. They eloquently demonstrate what the Court recognises intrinsically; that is that all child victims, be they the victim of more violent and aggressive non‑consensual conduct by sexual offenders, or be they seduced into a relationship in the way that these girls have been, suffer, almost inevitably, psychological andemotional consequences into the future.
The effect on an individual will vary according to their life experiences, perchance according to their levels of support, and perchance depending upon their intrinsic level of resilience. That having been said, the young women involved with this offender have found different and varying degrees of impact upon themselves and upon their psyche which has, in most instances, been ongoing and continuing. Their courage in coming forward, particularly in circumstances where some of them have become adults, and were some years past the conduct, and then furnishing in writing, and in the case of V1, having the courage to stand up and read aloud what was a very long and detailed victim impact statement, is a matter in respect of which each of them is to be congratulated.
V1 described in detail the impact upon her. She did so in eloquent terms which bespeak well of whatever future career she seeks to pursue so far as her ability to use the English language is concerned. She described, through the analogy, or the metaphor as she termed it, of being a fly stuck in a spider web where she was the fly and she was stuck in the web that the offender had created, and that she has continued to struggle to get free from that situation. She described the impact emotionally upon her of what she perceived to be the mind games that were played by the offender. It is completely understandable that the way in which she was attracted into the web was, of course, the subject of the substantial demolition of her emotional wellbeing when, like any young woman in a situation even if it was not a criminal one, she found out that he was lying to her and that he in fact had a pre‑existing girlfriend. She described the effect it had on her, on her studies, and the way in which the relationship had progressed past student-appropriate boundaries.
V1 described in some detail, which I do not see the necessity to read aloud, the way in which the nature of the relationship was one in which she believed that it was genuine and likely to be ongoing. I note, importantly, that she was approaching, at the time that all of this was happening, her 18th birthday.
Of course, the offender was involved in the relationship, not with a view to it being ongoing, but because he had the opportunity to use his power and authority to enter into a self‑gratifying physical relationship with a senior year 12 girl.
V1 went on to describe the detail of the emotional and mental effect that it has had upon her subsequently; of the difficulties that she had through depression; difficulties in her interactions with other people; and baring emotions of what she described as sadness, anger, confusion, hurt, embarrassment, shame, disgust, resentment, disappointment, guilt, fear and indeed alienation. She spoke about the problems that she had in those particular contexts with suicidal thoughts, and the gratitude that she will eternally feel to her mother for having pulled her back from that potential abyss. She demonstrates, in the course of the way in which she developed the description of her voyage in life over the past three-odd years, the assistance that she has been required to have with a psychologist and a life coach, as well as health professionals and, obviously, family and close friends. She described, in terms which one hopes for her benefit are accurately described, that the close of this chapter of her life occurs with the conclusion of these proceedings.
V1 read aloud the statement of her friend, V2. The effect on V2 had caused her to lose her motivation. Her dreams of becoming a maths teacher had been poisoned as a consequence of the relationship with the offender. She described the necessity of receiving counselling, and in due course, in relationto what had occurred, the struggle that she finds in relation to achieving motivation. She described the deterioration of her confidence. She outlined the suffering from depression and anxiety which has occurred, and the change in the way that she is able to have a relationship with lecturers now that she is at university.
V2 described, also in articulate terms, the way in which she reacts if young men with whom she might be hoping to have a relationship, in her terms, make a move on her. She described the situation of stopping seeing a fellow that she actually really liked because he looked remotely like the accused. It has had a profound effect on her ability to have a proper relationship with men, and importantly, to try to get to a situation where she might trust them. One can only hope that in the future she is able to achieve a level of comfort in that regard.
V3 described the way that she now views men, and the confusion that she felt in discussing what had happened to her with her friend, V4, and of becoming aware of the situation with the other girls. In contrast to the way that one of the other victims spoke about feeling wanted and validated, V3 described the physical abuse that she had sustained from the offender. In my view his behaviour in this regard was likely founded in some of the pornographic material that the he had persistently viewed on the internet. V3 said that in contrast to what she was told about her co‑victim feeling wanted and validated, V3 had been abused in the sense of being hit, having sustained welts and bruises, and, as she added in her victim impact statement, the fact that he referred to her as his “slut” and his “whore”.
I caution myself that what is in the victim impact statement is intended to illustrate to the Court the effect of what has occurred on the victim, and to the extent that there is material in there which is not part of the Agreed Facts, it cannot be taken into account to aggravate the circumstances of the offences to which he has pleaded guilty. Indeed the offender has not had the opportunity, or at least it was not offered to him, to agree or disagree with the description that is there put.
However, it does, in conjunction with the material in the Agreed Facts, illustrate the type of feeling that V3 has had, which was where she was confused at being physically abused in terms which undoubtedly were intended to provoke, or at least in the mind of the offender, some form of sexual gratification, but which, in the eyes of a 17 year-old girl who has been seduced into a relationship with her teacher, it must inevitably have invoked a deal of confusion and bewilderment in relation to what is ordinary and proper conduct.
Of hope for the future, V3 indicated that she reminds herself that she now has come to a realisation that not all men are like the accused, and that her life does not have to continue down the path that he was directing her on, and on which he held her. She described a feeling of shame and a feeling of guilt, which is an inevitable consequence of the actions of the offender.
The last victim impact statement was provided by V4. She described the deterioration to a significant extent in her own mental health. She described difficulty in eating and sleeping, and coping with anxiety and depression, and the effect that that has had on her education and also on relationships. She described attending a sexual assault counsellor for the past seven months, following the revelation of all of the matters that are presently before the Court. She has lost confidence, and she is fearful of leaving the house when she is at her home in [Redacted] for fear of judgment. She described numeroustimes in which people have confronted her in public, and she finds this extremely difficult to manage. She has moved to a new city, but has had great difficulty with the problems that her mental health status finds itself. It has impacted upon her relationships with her family, and she is concerned that her parents are overprotective, and she has ongoing concerns about the awareness that may ultimately come to her siblings, who have, it would appear, been kept out of the loop so far as what happened to their sister. She described having resulted in the use of drugs and alcohol as a coping strategy.
The inevitable potential for judgment by others in the community who become aware of what these young girls were subjected to, and the potential for some members of the community, because the girls were 17 years of age, to place some level of blame upon them for what took place, is completely and utterly misplaced.
Such attitudes reflect a misunderstanding of the age of consent; of the level of maturity that school children, be they male or female, are placed in relation to persons who are in a position of trust, in a position as a confidante, in a position of supervision, and with whom many year 11 and year 12 students find themselves in close connection, looking up to the teachers, being close to them, looking to them for guidance, looking to them for support, looking to them for assistance in relation to matters in life which they may not want to tell their parents about; and it is that level of trust and authority, described by Parliament as “special care”, which places the responsibility for such conduct squarely at the feet and in the hands of the teacher, and not the student. Those who would judge these girls, or any of them, fail to understand the situation in which they were placed. They were placed in that position by the offender.
JD is still a very young man; he is now but 28 years of age. I have had the assistance of material placed before the Court in written form, as well as the advantage of hearing him give evidence, particularly in relation to what the law recognises as remorse and contrition. It is a necessary task of a sentencing judge, in circumstances where a person pleads guilty to the charges brought against them, and where they express contrition and remorse for the criminal conduct to which they are pleading guilty, to come to an assessment of whether the articulated expression of remorse is something that has been learnt parrot fashion, or whether it has an air of reality and a genuineness which might be accepted.
There is, of course, a difference between feeling sorry for oneself, as a result of being caught because of one's criminal conduct, and a genuine feeling of remorse in which consideration for the effect of one's conduct upon others is something in respect of which a realisation may properly be perceived in an offender, however belatedly it might come to the surface. I should say that JD’s expressions of remorse and contrition, both to the Court in open hearing and as articulated on other occasions, in particular to the psychologist to whom I will make reference shortly, does appear to me to be very genuine. He has not sought, in the misguided way that others in the community might think that they are justified in doing, to place any blame on any of these girls. He has consistently articulated and spoken about the consequences of his conduct falling upon himself, and he has not, in anything that I have read or listened to, endeavoured to point the finger of blame towards any of these young women. To that extent, his conduct, at least in that respect, is appropriate.
He was initially raised as a child on a working farm in Manildra. He is described as having had insecurities and low esteem whilst he was a child, although he described himself as a heavy child. He described an incident which may well have been traumatic for any eight or nine year old of other people not coming to his 8th or 9th birthday party. His parents sold the farm and moved to bushland property near Molong when he was about ten years of age before separating when he was about 12.
He described to the psychologist the effect that knowledge of the breakdown of his parents' marriage had had, and described in some detail the crying that he persisted with for some considerable time on being told of the separation of his parents. He has reported what are described as growing levels of insecurity, and feelings of isolation, loneliness and social difficulties during his years at school. He participated in extra-curricular sport at school, but believed, and expressed to the psychologist, that such relationships as he did develop with his peers were somewhat superficial.
It is not necessary for me to go further into any detail of them to understand that such levels of perceived insecurity and isolation might well contribute to an understanding of his need for the love and affection of his pupils, above and beyond what is appropriate. He explained in detail to the psychologist having reached puberty at about 13 years of age and developing an interest in sex at about 15 years of age. He reported having watched online pornography, sometimes twice daily, online from about the age of 15. His mother was particularly religious, and when an uncle discovered what he had been doing and told his mother, he was punished in line with her religious beliefs and made to feel shame for his conduct. He said that made him feel guilty and humiliated, but he continued with what he described as fortnightly forays into online pornography throughout his adolescent years, and into adulthood.
He discussed with the psychologist his substantially increased use of pornography during the period of the sexual offences which are before me. He described the nature of his relationships with, firstly, a similarly aged female partner when he was about 20, and the difficulties that he had in that relationship. He went on to describe a partner that he met through an online dating site, namely Tinder, when he was about 24, and that having occurred before he had separated from his previous partner.
He spoke about the nature of the ongoing relationship with the partner that was in his life, and with whom he maintained a very close friendship where he thought she was more dependent upon him for companionship, guidance and emotional support. He said that that level of dependency had a negative impact upon their sexual interactions, and that in due course that relationship came to an end. The impression that I have is that this is the relationship which was still ongoing, albeit it maybe that the sexual interactions were being attained with his pupils rather than with his girlfriend, at the time of the disclosures regarding V1.
He has moved residence from the time that he was charged, and is now living with his father. He has been abstinent from social media sites, in particular Facebook and Snapchat, as a condition of his bail. He indicated that had left him feeling somewhat socially isolated because that was the means whereby he communicated appropriately with friends online and how hemaintained connection with them via that electronic medium. He spoke about having become withdrawn, and in the light of his current situation that is hardly surprising. He has had fulltime employment recently at a sawmill. He described no formal history of mental illness, other than the fact that he had struggled emotionally for much of his life.
His explanation of the offences, as described to the psychologist, were reported as initially engaging with the girls under the guise of offering guidance and support regarding mathematics and sport. He described to the psychologist that the interactions continued with the students outside school via social media, and then in person at his home and also at theirs in relation to tutoring. He described his communication with the victims gradually transitioning from academic support to flattery and charm, and then to sexual dialogue and behaviour. He acknowledged that the victims appeared to have trusted and cared for him, and reciprocated his advances.
It is that type of description that leads me to accept the genuineness of his remorse. He appears, in his discussions with the psychologist, to acknowledge that which I independently have formed a view of, namely, however one describes it, the transition from flattery and charm to sexual dialogue, and ultimately sexual behaviour. He described that he was sexually aroused by what he understood was the power differential between him and the girls, and that the occasions on which he partook in what is described as sexually aggressive behaviour were, in his view, attempts to sexually please his victims, not to intentionally harm them. I would accept, in the overall context of his conduct, that there is an element of some truth in that evinced intention. He acknowledged that he was in a position of power, and that he abused it. He acknowledged that it was a disadvantage to each of the girls, and created another thing in their lives for them to have to think about when they were meant to be studying.
There were certain responses to what I have described as key personality assessment inventory tests in the psychometric testing which led to a concern about the possible contemplation of suicide and suicidal ideation reflecting from time to time in his thought processes. That may well be a concomitant effect of the situation into which he has placed himself, and is one in respect of which the authorities will no doubt be concerned to monitor. He was assessed on the static analysis as falling into a low risk category for future offending, and the rate of recidivism, taking into account his age, falls clearly into the low risk level.
The report that I have been referring to was from Emma Hubner of Duffy Robilliard psychologists. In addition to that report, commissioned by his legal team, he also consulted with Susan Knight, a psychologist here in Orange. She was a treating psychologist, and provided a clinical assessment in conjunction with treatment which extended over a three and a half to four month period. She described him as coherent and engaged throughout all of the appointments.

He was clear in indicating that he fully understood his responsibilities as a teacher, and that he had abused his position by engaging in the relationships with the students. He was apparently hesitant initially in permitting the psychologist to fully investigate the reasons why he acted in the way that he did, notwithstanding his clear understanding that such relationships were illegal and harmful. He was troubled, in the way that he explained it to the psychologist, that that sort of analysis might be seen to be making an excuse for his behaviour. He was adamant that there were no excuses for his actions. He was clear, indeed very clear, according to the psychologist, that he had acknowledged he had done the wrong thing and needed to face the consequences. The psychologist indicated that it was only when she explained that the goal of such an investigation was to try to decrease the possibility of his making a similarly poor decision in the future that he agreed to engage on that level. She said that he was very clear that what he was seeking to do was to make appropriate decisions in the future.
Of significance, the psychologist recorded that beyond acknowledging what he did was illegal, JD expressed remorse for his actions. Certainly he was aware of the negative impacts on himself, but he was also aware of the power differential and the impact on his victims. He stated that he understood why such relationships were illegal. He expressed and regretted any harm done to the victims. He indicated to the psychologist, as he did in evidence before me, that he was determined to accept the appropriate sentence, and to do his best to find an acceptable pathway forward.
He was unsure, when he discussed with the psychologist what work options he would have in the future, but he was keen to participate in, and contribute fully to, society when he is released to do so. He spoke about being fearful of incarceration, but keen to study whatever courses might be available to him, or to participate in such programmes as might be recommended, and to ultimately lead a law abiding and good life. The psychologist, and it falls to me to determine it, but the psychologist expressed the opinion that she had no reason to doubt his complete acceptance of his guilt, remorse for his actions and their impact, and commitment to not reoffend in the future.
His mother was called to give evidence on the sentence proceedings. She described him as generous, thoughtful, kind and affectionate. I have little difficulty in accepting those descriptions. I also have absolutely no doubt that they were the kind of attributes that he demonstrated as a teacher, but which he misused in order to inveigle these young girls into the course of conduct in which he participated with each of them. His mother described that she was horrified when she first heard what had been happening, and described how the girls, as she perceived it, looked up to him.
There was additional evidence called from Mr Colin Peffer, and there is little doubt that, whilst he was permitted conditional liberty, the offender, JD, has done what he could do to at least make some useful steps with his life. Whilst it will not be the vocation that he pursues, he did work at the sawmill, and then, after a period of time of working there, he also had some additional part-time work. Mr Peffer was aware, and fully aware, of the offences and the detail of the facts, and indicated that he felt considerably for the victims, that he was disgusted with the actions of JD, angry at him, but was, notwithstanding that, prepared to stand by him and give the character reference which he did. He said that in discussion with the offender about what had happened that he was honest and open in discussing what had taken place, and he said that in discussion with JD, "I believe that his being so open about what had happened was a big step forward in his potential rehabilitation". He described him as likeable, kind and dedicated.
Against that extensive background, dealing with the objective seriousness of the offences, the factual nuances that unfolded in these ongoing relationships, the effect and impact upon each of the young victims of his conduct, and against his own personal and subjective background, it ultimately falls to the Court to determine an appropriate sentence, balancing a number of competing considerations. It is important to understand that the aim of criminal sentencing is to achieve a result which pulls in different directions. There is the need for consideration of specific deterrence, that is so that the outcome influences or causes the individual offender to not offend in the future; there is the need for consideration of general deterrence, that is to deter others who may be of a like mind from following a similar criminal course.
Sometimes the need for general deterrence plays a more significant role than specific deterrence. That may be because an individual offender, one can be quite satisfied, will never again offend. Such situations often arise with white collar criminals who, once caught, having been of good character, are not going to be in a position to offend again, but the message that needs to be sent to others, be they bank managers, accountants, financial advisers, or similar, needs to be to the forefront of the Court's thinking.
There is also the need for appropriate punishment so that the community can see that a person is dealt with appropriately for the offence which they have committed. There is also a need for consideration of rehabilitation, that is the hope that the ultimate outcome of proceedings results in steps being taken by the individual, sometimes with the assistance of people within the correctional facilities, and sometimes following their release during a period on parole, to have steps taken so that they do not commit further or similar offences. Sometimes that involves a restructuring of somebody's life, and steps taken towards a different vocation.
JD obviously has the educational and academic faculties to enable him to pursue a new career, whatever he chooses that it might be. He indicated the possibility of going into something like air traffic controlling, or something in the financial sector, and he will need to give careful consideration to those options because one effect of his criminal conduct is that he will be precluded forever from being employed as a school teacher, a position for which he appears to have been properly trained and well qualified. One of the tragedies of this situation is that the education system is, on the one hand, rid of a sexual predator, but on the other hand has lost the skills and abilities of somebody who gives every indication of having been likely an excellent educator.
In relation to the matters on each of the Form 1s, there are in this particular matter four separate Indictments, one for each of the female victims. Each of the Form 1s, which are attached to those Indictments, will be taken into account with respect to the first count in relation to each of them.
I am of the view that it is appropriate, in all of the circumstances, to impose an aggregate sentence. I am required to identify and indicate the sentences which I would pass for the individual offences, were I to be dealing with them individually, and I will do so. With respect to the offence under s 61M(1), which carries with it a standard non‑parole period, I am also required to indicate the non‑parole period which I would have imposed if I were dealing with that offence separately.
The indicative sentences in respect of count 1 on the Indictment relating to V1, taking into account the matters on the Form 1, will be a period of 20 months' imprisonment; the indicative sentence on count 2 will be a sentence of 18 months' imprisonment; the indicative sentence on count 3 will similarly be a sentence of 18 months' imprisonment.
With respect to count 1 on the Indictment relating to V2 the indicative sentence, taking into account the matters on the Form 1, will be a sentence of 20 months; with respect to the aggravated indecent assault, the indicative sentence is a period of 16 months, and the indicative non‑parole period will be a period of 12 months.
With respect to the Indictment with reference to V3, taking into account the matters on the Form 1, the indicative sentence on count 1 will be a sentence of 20 months, and the indicative sentence on count 2 will be 18 months.
With respect to the Indictment regarding V4, the indicative sentence, taking into account the matters on the Form 1, will be a sentence of 20 months; with respect to count 2, it will be an indicative sentence of 18 months; with respect to count 3, it will be an indicative sentence of 18 months; and with respect to count 4, it will be an indicative sentence of 18 months.
In relation to the offences which I have articulated and described from each of the four Indictments, you are sentenced to an aggregate sentence of five years' imprisonment. There will be a non‑parole period, which will commence on 26 November, to take into account the time that you previously spent in custody, of three years. That minimum term will expire on 25 November 2021, and the additional term will expire on 25 November 2023.
The Crown acknowledged that it was appropriate to have some degree of special circumstances, and I agree, and I have so found. I have not taken the time, but I should do so, to indicate that I find special circumstances, based on the need for a level of supervision on different requirements, including rehabilitation, and the fact that it is his first time in incarceration.

**********

Amendments

22 March 2019 - paragraph [76] - anonymised name

Decision last updated: 22 March 2019

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v JD [2018] NSWDC 492
Hearing dates:	30 November 2018
Decision date:	30 November 2018
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Sutherland SC DCJ
Decision:	An aggregate sentence of full-time imprisonment of 5 years to commence 26 November 2018. A non-parole period of 3 years to commence 26 November 2018, and expire 25 November 2021. The additional term will expire 25 November 2023.
Catchwords:	CRIME — Child sex offences — Sexual intercourse with a person under special care, teacher
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900
Cases Cited:	JAD v R [2012] NSWCCA 73
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Regina (Crown) JD (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel: Mr Davies for the Crown Mr Walsh for the Offender
File Number(s):	2018/00034346, 2018/00249084, 2018/00107106, 2018/00107161
Publication restriction:	Non-Publication Order re. complainants and offender