Legal Research
Cases
R v Kafataris

R v Kafataris

Case [2025] NSWDC 404 9 October 2025

Criminal Liability

Sentencing

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Kafataris [2025] NSWDC 404
Hearing dates: 26 September 2025
Date of orders: 9 October 2025
Decision date: 09 October 2025
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Mahony SC DCJ
Decision:
Full-time custodial sentence. For orders see [81]

Catchwords:
SENTENCE – Grooming child under 16 for unlawful sexual activity – Sexual touching a young person between 16 and 18 under special care

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
CT v R [2017] NSWCCA 15
Gale v R [2021] NSWCCA 16
Kearsley v R [2017] NSWCCA 28
Khorami v R; R v Khorami [2021] NSWCCA 228
R v Cattell [2019] NSWCCA 297
R v Gavel (2014) 239 A Crim R 469; [2014] NSWCCA 56
R v Nelson [2016] NSWCCA 130
R v Talia [2009] VSCA 260
Ryan v The Queen (2001) 206 CLR 267; [2001] HCA 21
The Queen v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270
Wanstall v R [2024] NSWCCA 167

Category: Sentence
Parties: Vasilious Kafataris (the offender)
Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (the Crown)
Representation: Counsel: Mr L Nicholls (the offender)
Solicitors: Ms G Namat, Solicitor Advocate
(The Crown)
Ms U Zafiris (the offender)

File Number(s): 2021/00127078
Publication restriction: s15A of the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 prohibits the publication of the name of the complainants

REMARKS ON SENTENCE

On 1 September 2025 the offender pleaded not guilty upon arraignment on the following count on an Indictment:-

On a day between 1 January 2014 and 10 April 2014, at Narellan in the state of New South Wales, with the intention of making it easier to procure a child being SH for unlawful sexual activity, engaged in conduct exposing that child to indecent material.

On 17 September 2025, the jury returned a verdict of guilty. The offender is to be sentenced for an offence pursuant to s66EB of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) (“CA”), the maximum penalty for which is imprisonment for 10 years. There is no standard non-parole period prescribed.
The offender had earlier pleaded guilty to two counts of sexual touching a young person (“CB”) between 16 and 18 under special care, an offence pursuant to s73A(1)(a) CA (Counts 5 and 6). The maximum penalty prescribed for those offences is 2 years imprisonment. They were two of six counts on an Indictment on which the offender was arraigned on 13 May 2024. He was acquitted of two other counts, and the jury was unable to agree on Count 1 above, which required a re-trial. He had spent 6 months in custody on remand. The procedural history was complex, however the trial on Count 1 was the fifth occasion on which the matter was listed for trial.

The sentence hearing

The sentence hearing took place on 26 September 2025. The Crown sentence summary became Exhibit A and included the following:-

The statement of agreed facts with respect to Counts 5 and 6 (Exhibit A4)

Victim Impact Statement (“VIS”) of SH (Exhibit A6)

Letter…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v Kafataris

Details

AGLC: R v Kafataris [2025] NSWDC 404
Case: [2025] NSWDC 404
Decision Date: 09 October 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Kafataris involved the defendant, Kafataris, who was found guilty of grooming a child under 16 for unlawful sexual activity and of sexually touching a young person between 16 and 18 who was under special care. The matter was heard in the County Court of Victoria. The prosecution brought forth charges against Kafataris for his actions towards two young individuals, seeking a sentence reflective of the severity and nature of the offences.

The legal issues before the court included the appropriate sentencing principles to apply to the offences of grooming a child under 16 for unlawful sexual activity and sexual touching of a young person between 16 and 18 under special care. The court needed to weigh the gravity of the offences, the impact on the victims, and the need for general and specific deterrence. The defence argued for a non-custodial sentence, citing personal circumstances and potential rehabilitation prospects. The prosecution urged for a custodial sentence to adequately reflect the seriousness of the crimes and to protect the community.

In its judgment, the court acknowledged the heinous nature of the offences and the profound impact on the victims. It noted the vulnerability of the individuals involved, particularly considering the special care status of one of the victims. The court determined that a full-time custodial sentence was necessary to uphold the principles of denunciation and deterrence. The judge considered the totality of the circumstances and concluded that the only appropriate sentence was one of imprisonment. The court delivered its sentence in line with these considerations, ensuring that the punishment matched the gravity of the crimes committed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full-time custodial sentence. For orders see [81]

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

Citations

AGLC Citation

R v Kafataris [2025] NSWDC 404

Cases citing this decision · 0 of 0 shown

No citing cases yet.

Cases cited in this decision · 15 of 15 shown

Wanstall v The King
[2024] NSWCCA 167 Para 70

…The loss of the offender’s employment as a teacher does not amount to extra-curial punishment to be taken into account on sentence. In Wanstall v R [2024] NSWCCA 167, Sweeney J (with whom Stern JA and Cavanagh J agreed) dealt with a divergence of views in appellate courts about the significance of the loss of an off…
Khorami v R; R v Khorami
[2021] NSWCCA 228 Para 70

…considerations could not cause inadequate weight to be given to the objective circumstances of the offences". Further, in Khorami v R; R v Khorami [2021] NSWCCA 228 Bell P (as his Honour then was) said referring to Ryan v The Queen (2001) 206 CLR 267; [2001] HCA 21,…
Gale v The Queen
[2021] NSWCCA 16 Para 31

…own submitted that where the victim fell within the range, namely 17 years, where in the range was of very little significance, relying on Gale v R [2021] NSWCCA 16 at [50] where RA Hulme J said:-…
R v Cattell
[2019] NSWCCA 297 Para 77

…nder in respect of Count 1 (which occurred in 2014) having regard to the section in accordance with the Court of Criminal’s decision in R v Cattell [2019] NSWCCA 297 at [103]-[111], notwithstanding that s66EB is a more recent offence provision in the Crimes Act.…
Kearsley v R
[2017] NSWCCA 28 Para 70

…] that it was "legitimate to take into account a loss of employment or profession as part of an offender's personal circumstances". In Kearsley v R [2017] NSWCCA 28 Macfarlan JA had stated that the loss of the offender's profession was a relevant subjective consideration, "but subjective considerations could not ca…
CT v R
[2017] NSWCCA 15 Para 28

…by submitting that there was no defence of consent to the offences charged. The Crown relied on the Court of Criminal Appeal decision in CT v R [2017] NSWCCA 15, where the Court held at [71] that “it is quite inappropriate to equate a child’s appreciation of a sexual experience with that of a mature adult”. The Cro…
R v Nelson
[2016] NSWCCA 130 Para 28

…vant, and that lack of consent was not an element of the offences, as children are unable to give informed consent, relying on R v Nelson [2016] NSWCCA 130 at [23] where Basten JA held that mere lack of opposition is irrelevant in sentencing.…
R v Gavel
[2014] NSWCCA 56 Para 74

…still a poignant example of the emotional impact on a victim of child sexual offending in this case, grooming. In R v Gavel (2014) 239 A Crim R 469; [2014] NSWCCA 56, the Court of Criminal Appeal said at [110]:-…
R v CMB
[2014] NSWCCA 5 Para 92

…rt has observed that child sex offences have profound and deleterious effects upon victims for many years, if not the whole of their lives: R v CMB [2014] NSWCCA 5 at [92]. Sexual abuse of children will inevitably give rise to psychological damage: SW v R [2013] NSWCCA 255 at [52]. In R v G (2008) UKHL 37; [2009]…
SW v R
[2013] NSWCCA 255 Para 52

…f not the whole of their lives: R v CMB [2014] NSWCCA 5 at [92]. Sexual abuse of children will inevitably give rise to psychological damage: SW v R [2013] NSWCCA 255 at [52]. In R v G (2008) UKHL 37; [2009] 1 AC 92, Baroness Hale of Richmond (at [49]) referred to the ‘long term and serious harm, both physical and ps…
R v Talia
[2009] VSCA 260 Para 71

…Sweeney J also referred to R v Talia [2009] VSCA 260 where the Victorian Court of Appeal accepted that disqualification from an offender's chosen profession constitutes extra-curial punishment, "although the Court distinguished between a disqualification resulting from criminal conduct in the course of employment…
Ryan v The Queen
[2001] HCA 21 Para 70

…the loss of an offender's career in sentencing. Her Honour referred, inter alia, to the High Court's decision Ryan v The Queen (2001) 206 CLR 267; [2001] HCA 21 where McHugh J said at [54] that it was "legitimate to take into account a loss of employment or profession as part of an offender's personal circumsta…
R v Olbrich
[1999] HCA 54 Para 55

…ast, the offender bears the onus of proving on the balance of probabilities facts which are submitted to be in his favour – see The Queen v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270.…
The Queen v Olbrich
[1999] HCA 5418 Para 55

…e offender. By contrast, the offender bears the onus of proving on the balance of probabilities facts which are submitted to be in his favour – see The Queen v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270.…
[2009] 1 AC 92
[2009] 1 AC 92 Para 52

…A 5 at [92]. Sexual abuse of children will inevitably give rise to psychological damage: SW v R [2013] NSWCCA 255 at [52]. In R v G (2008) UKHL 37; [2009] 1 AC 92, Baroness Hale of Richmond (at [49]) referred to the ‘long term and serious harm, both physical and psychological, which premature sexual activity can…

Legislation cited in this decision · 4

Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Act 2000 (NSW)
1 mention (from Para 9)
Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW)
1 mention
Crimes Act 1900 (ACT)
1 mention
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW)
1 mention (from Para 27)

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Kafataris [2025] NSWDC 404
Hearing dates:	26 September 2025
Date of orders:	9 October 2025
Decision date:	09 October 2025
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Mahony SC DCJ
Decision:	Full-time custodial sentence. For orders see [81]
Catchwords:	SENTENCE – Grooming child under 16 for unlawful sexual activity – Sexual touching a young person between 16 and 18 under special care
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW)
Cases Cited:	CT v R [2017] NSWCCA 15 Gale v R [2021] NSWCCA 16 Kearsley v R [2017] NSWCCA 28 Khorami v R; R v Khorami [2021] NSWCCA 228 R v Cattell [2019] NSWCCA 297 R v Gavel (2014) 239 A Crim R 469; [2014] NSWCCA 56 R v Nelson [2016] NSWCCA 130 R v Talia [2009] VSCA 260 Ryan v The Queen (2001) 206 CLR 267; [2001] HCA 21 The Queen v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270 Wanstall v R [2024] NSWCCA 167
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Vasilious Kafataris (the offender) Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (the Crown)
Representation:	Counsel: Mr L Nicholls (the offender) Solicitors: Ms G Namat, Solicitor Advocate (The Crown) Ms U Zafiris (the offender)
File Number(s):	2021/00127078
Publication restriction:	s15A of the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 prohibits the publication of the name of the complainants