R v Ladmore (No 2)

[2025] NSWDC 324

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

R v Ladmore (No 2) [2025] NSWDC 324

Hearing dates:

30 May 2025

Date of orders:

30 May 2025

Decision date:

30 May 2025

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Before:

Haesler SC DCJ

Decision:

Aggregate sentence of imprisonment of 14 years with a non‑parole period of 10 years

Catchwords:

CRIME — Child sex offences — Child abuse material — Use child for production — Produce — Possession — Procuring or grooming child for unlawful sexual activity — Sexually touch child >10 <16 — Incite child >10 <16 to sexually touch — Assault with intent to have sexual intercourse with child >10 <16 — Sexual intercourse with child >10 <14 — Sexual act towards child <14

SENTENCING — Mitigating factors — No record of previous convictions

SENTENCING — Penalties — Imprisonment

SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Deterrence — General deterrence — Multiple offences — Accumulation, concurrency and totality — Objective seriousness — Sentence after judge alone trial

Legislation Cited:

Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW)

Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)

Cases Cited:

Clarkson v R [2011] VSCA 152

Cowling v R [2015] NSWCCA 213

Hoare v The Queen (1989) 167 CLR 348

MAK v R [2006] NSWCCA 381

Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25; (2005) 228 CLR 357

Mill v The Queen [1988] HCA 70; (1988) 166 CLR 59

Muldrock v The Queen [2011] HCA 39; (2011) 244 CLR 120

Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610

Postiglione v The Queen [1997] HCA 26; (1997) 189 CLR 295

R v Asplund [2010] NSWCCA 316

R v Clinch (1994) 72 A Crim R 301 at 306

R v Gavel [2014] NSWCCA 56

R v Herring (1956) 73 WN (NSW) 203

R v Holder; R v Johnston [1983] 3 NSWLR 245

R v Ladmore [2025] NSWDC 93

R v Lau [2022] NSWCCA 131

R v Simpson [2001] NSWCCA 534; 53 NSWLR 704

R v Van Ryn [2016] NSWCCA 1

R v Windle [2012] NSWCCA 222

Ryan v The Queen [2001] HCA 21; (2001) 206 CLR 267

SB v R [2022] NSWCC164

Tepania v R [2018] NSWCCA 247

Way v R [2004] NSWCCA 131

Texts Cited:

D T Kenny, “The social dynamics and impacts of institutional child sexual abuse” (September 2017) 29(8) Judicial Officers Bulletin

Category:

Sentence

Parties:

Mark Andrew Ladmore (the offender)
Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)

Representation:

Counsel:
D McCallum (for the offender)
R Kimbell (for the Crown)

Solicitors:
Shoalhaven Lawyers (for the offender)
Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)

File Number(s):

2023/128784

Publication restriction:

Pursuant to s 15A Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW) s 578A Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) there is to be no publication of any information that leads to the identifying of a child witness. Identifying information has been removed from this version of the judgment to comply with the statute

JUDGMENT – ex tempore revised

1. I will not be referring to the child by name I will just call her ‘the child’. In the original judgment we substituted a pseudonym for the complainant to preserve her anonymity. Please note there is to be no publication of any information or picture or other material that identifies her as likely to lead to the identification of the child complainant.

Introduction

2. On 21 March 2025, after a judge alone trial at Bega Court, I convicted Mark Ladmore of a eight serious offences: R v Ladmore [2025] NSWDC 93. I acquitted him of Count 3, s 66C(2) Crimes Act and Count 7, s 91H(2) Crimes Act. He must have the full benefit of his acquittals.

3. The counts for sentence today are:

1. Count 1 – Between 4 October 2022 and 20 April 2023 at [redacted] in the State of New South Wales, did intentionally sexually touch [the child complainant], a child then of or above the age of 10 years and under the age of 16 years, namely, 10 years: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 66DB(a).

2. Count 2 – Between 4 October 2022 and 20 April 2023 at [redacted], in the State of New South Wales, did intentionally incite [the child complainant], a child then of or above the age of 10 years and under the age of 16 years, namely 10 years, to sexually touch Mark Ladmore: Crimes Act, s 66DB(b).

3. Alternative Count 3 – Between 4 October 2022 and 20 April 2023, at [redacted] in the State of New South Wales, intentionally sexually touched [the child complainant], a child then of or above the age of 10 years and under the age of 16 years: Crimes Act, s 66DB(a).

4. Count 4 – Between 1 January 2023 and 20 April 2023 at [redacted] in the State of New South Wales, did intentionally sexually touch [the child complainant], a child then of or above the age of 10 years and under the age of 16 years, namely 10 years: Crimes Act, s 66DB(a).

5. Count 5 – Between 1 January 2023 and 20 April 2023, at [redacted] in the State of New South Wales, had sexual intercourse with [the child complainant], a child then of or above the age of 10 years and under the age of 14 years, namely 10 years, in circumstances of aggravation, namely that at the relevant time [the child complainant] was under the authority of Mark Andrew Ladmore: Crimes Act, s 66C(2).

6. Count 6 – Between 4 October 2020 and 20 April 2023, at [redacted] in the State of New South Wales, that, Mark Ladmore being an adult person engaged in conduct that exposed a child namely [the child complainant], to indecent material, and provided the said [the child complainant] with financial and other material benefits, with the intention of making it easier to procure the said [the child complainant] then aged 8 to 10 years for unlawful sexual activity with Mark Ladmore: Crimes Act, s 66EB(3).

7. Count 8 – On or about 21 November 2021, at [redacted] in the State of New South Wales, used [the child complainant], a child then under the age of 14 years, namely 9 years, for the production of child abuse material: Crimes Act, s 91G(1)(a).

8. Count 10 – On or about 21 November 2021, at [redacted] in the State of New South Wales, did intentionally carry out a sexual act towards [the child complainant], a child then under the age of 10 years, namely 9 years: Crimes Act, s 66DC(a).

9. Count 11 – On or about 19 February 2022, at [redacted] in the State of New South Wales, used [the child complainant], a child then under the age of 14 years, namely 9 years, for the production of child abuse material: Crimes Act, s 91G(1)(a).

Maximum penalties and non-parole periods

4. Counts 1 and 4 was charged pursuant to s 66DB(a) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). Count 2 was charged pursuant to s 66DB of the Crimes Act. Each of those matters carry a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment.

5. Count 5 was charged pursuant to s 66C(2) of the Crimes Act. The maximum penalty is 20 years imprisonment, and the standard non-parole period is 9 years.

6. Count 6, a charge pursuant to s 66EB(3) of the Crimes Act, carries a maximum penalty of 12 years with a standard non-parole period of 5 years.

7. Counts 8 and 11, charged pursuant to s 91G(1)(a) of the Crimes Act, have maximum penalties of 14 years imprisonment with a standard non-parole period of 6 years.

8. Count 10, a charge pursuant to s 66DC of the Crimes Act with a maximum penalty of 7 years imprisonment.

9. The maximum penalties, and where applicable, the standard non‑parole period are important guides to the exercise of my sentencing discretion. They convey Parliament’s view of the relative seriousness of the offences. I am required to give content to any standard non‑parole period applicable. Both the maximum, and where applicable, standard non‑parole period, provide sentencing measures to be balanced with all the other relevant factors. Particular care needs to be taken when dealing with heinous offences: Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25; (2005) 228 CLR 357.

10. In doing so I am required to assess objective seriousness without reference to matters personal to the offender wholly referable to the nature of the offending: Markarian; Muldrock v The Queen [2011] HCA 39; (2011) 244 CLR 120 at [27]. That assessment must be synthesised along with all relevant matters. A process of comparing and contrasting the actual offence with an abstract one is not necessary: Tepania v R [2018] NSWCCA 247 [103]-[120]. However, as the High Court in Muldrock at [28] noted, in doing so I cannot engage in a staged approach to sentencing. I do not start at the maximum or standard non‑parole period and oscillate around it: Way v R [2004] NSWCCA 131 at [131].

Facts for sentence

11. Mark Ladmore was born in 1980. He lived and worked in coastal New South Wales as an air conditioner installer. He lived with his family until he and his wife separated in June 2022. After that his children stayed with him week about. The complainant’s family were close friends and lived five doors down. The complainant was born in 2012. The families would spend time together.

12. The children would regularly move between both homes. The child complainant would regularly sleep over at Ladmore’s home. He would buy gifts for her and his own children. Neither parent of the complainant had any indication or inkling of anything inappropriate occurring between Ladmore and the child until her revelations on 18 April 2023. Until that time Ladmore had the complete trust of the complainant’s family.

13. On 18 April 2023, the complainant’s mother received information from another mother that caused her to ask her daughter a question about a brown suitcase at the accused’s home. The child then made complaint. Two days later she had her first police child interview. Her interviews were played at trial.

14. Ladmore was arrested and charged after he voluntarily attended his local police station on 21 April 2023. His iPhone was seized. It was not password protected. A forensic Cellebrite examination of that phone found evidence of deleted files indicating child abuse material. In particular seven files were recovered showing deleted images that I found at trial depicted the child while she was staying in his home. Those images founded Counts 7, 8, 10 and 11.

15. Police on searching of Ladmore’s home found a locked suitcase containing sex toys including a black dildo, a purple dildo and two partial rubber female torsos.

16. The child said that from when she was 8 years old Ladmore behaved in a sexually inappropriate way with her when she visited his home. She said she slept over regularly until about a month before her April 2023 revelations. She recalled three specific incidents all of which occurred after her tenth birthday. They were referred to in the trial as the “contact offence allegations”, the “movie in bed incident” (Counts 1 and 2) and the “piggyback incident” (Alt Count 3). The “pink bed and dildo incident” (Counts 4 and 5). While I found that the child may not have been entirely accurate when describing some of her responses to the assaults by exaggerating the extent and nature of her resistance to the contact offences, I accepted her evidence and ultimately found each count and the alternative to Count 3 proved beyond reasonable doubt. My finding that Count 3 had not been proved beyond reasonable doubt did not involve any diminution of that acceptance nor did my finding on Count 7; it was decided on a specific factual and legal basis: see R v Ladmore.

17. Count 6 was described as a “grooming offence”. Its proof relied on what the child said about Ladmore’s behaviour towards her, observations by family members and inferences drawn from items recovered during the police investigation.

18. Ladmore gave evidence at his trial. I did not accept him as a witness of truth. I found he lied to the Court. Some of his denials were absurd; he had no credibility.

19. The facts are set out in my earlier judgment: R v Ladmore. In brief summary, I note Counts 1 and 2 relate to an incident when the child was in bed with another younger child watching a movie. Ladmore was also in the bed. He was naked. Count 1 involves his touching the complainant’s vagina. He then held her head, he presented his penis to her and asked that she “suck it”. When she said “no”, he hit her and threatened her. She licked his penis for a second or two and then ran away: Count 2. It is not suggested the hit carried with it any particular violence and it was not relied upon as a particular circumstance of aggravation.

20. Alternative Count 3 occurred in the lounge room of Ladmore’s home. He had given the child a piggyback ride. He was only wearing his underwear. He dropped her on to the lounge and pulled her pants down fast and put his penis on her vagina. The child said in evidence, “He tried to do for ages, like for ages but he only had a second”. She does not attribute any words to the accused, nor did she describe where exactly the penis was in the second the touching occurred. I could not find beyond reasonable doubt penetration occurred, but an objective analysis of the facts was that Ladmore used his penis to touch near the child’s vaginal area; part of what was becoming a regular practice of sexualising her and making her accustomed to sexual activity.

21. Counts 4 and 5 relate to an allegation said to have occurred while a child was sleeping over in an elevated bed purchased after Mr Ladmore separated from his wife in June 2022. The complainant said Ladmore touched her with his hands and then with the black dildo waking her up. He then pulled her by the leg, moved her shorts aside and licked her vagina for a brief period.

22. Count 6 relates to the evidence that showed Ladmore gave special attention to the complainant. He bought her presents, even though her parents asked him not to. He gave her small cash gifts. He bragged to her father that she wanted him to be her dad. She had the run of his home. She expected attention from him, and she got his attention. He showed her adult things. He did adult things to her and with her. He gave her benefits that a child could be expected to respond to.

23. Images recovered from the accused phone showed a sleeping child: Trial Exhibits G and M. The final image appears to be the remnants of what had been a video file. Each image shows the child’s head in a similar position. Counts 8 and 10 relate to the third image which shows what even the accused accepted was the tip of a penis and ejaculate on the child’s cheek. I found that the image was of the accused’s penis.

24. Count 11, photo files recovered from the accused’s iPhone, reveal a number of images from February 2022. Two show a naked child or children in a bath. The images were taken through a light fitting from the ceiling cavity of Ladmore’s home. To allow the image to be taken a light bulb would have had to have been removed. The main images showed the complainant. The images are indistinct and not explicit. Another image recovered from the accused’s phone showed a hand holding the buttocks of a child with her underwear moved. That image I found was of the offender’s hand on the child complainant.

A proportional sentence

25. A sentence must be proportionate to what was done. An assessment of objective seriousness of an offence is essential to setting the parameters for the sentencing outcome.

26. I must also give effect to the basic principles of sentencing law set out in s 3A Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) and of the common law. One important principle is a sentence of imprisonment should never exceed that to which can be justified as appropriate or proportionate to the gravity of the crime considered in the light of its objective circumstances: Hoare v The Queen (1989) 167 CLR 348 at [354]; Way at [125]. The objective seriousness of the particular offending must accordingly be determined in the light of the entirety of the facts and circumstances in question.

27. I start this part of the sentencing exercise with one fundamental principle in mind. Every act that involves the sexual exploitation of a child is serious. There is an absolute prohibition on sexual activity with children. That principle is intended to protect children from the physical and psychological harm taken to be caused by premature sexual activity: Clarkson v R [2011] VSCA 152; R v Gavel [2014] NSWCCA 56; R v Van Ryn [2016] NSWCCA 1. That principle is one important reason for the high maximum penalties and high standard non-parole periods fixed for such matters.

28. In each offence the child was in Ladmore’s home as a guest and under his protection. She was there because of her parents’ trust in him. She was there to spend time with his children. She was young only 8, 9 or 10. She was a complete innocent, and he manipulated her both literally and figuratively. I accept that most of the offences were opportunistic. There was some limited planning involved; planning to gain that opportunity, the subject of the grooming offences. The exception, of course, is the bathroom photograph of the incident.

Grooming offence – Count 6

29. This offence commenced when the child was 8 and only ended after she complained, aged 10. All the evidence before me, including post offence conduct, concluded the offender had a particular obsession with the child. At one level his behaviour towards her was favourable but unexceptional. Her parents complained he spoiled her, but his behaviour did not illicit any suspicion that crimes were being committed. He made his public behaviour towards her appear innocent. But close examination of his behaviour, particularly the evidence of the child at trial, convinced me beyond reasonable doubt that what he was doing was unusual and directed to creating a relationship where she would tolerate his behaviour towards her and believe his threats.

30. Ladmore showed her pornography and how to access online porn sites. He showed her the suitcase and the sex toys in it. He was accustoming her to sexual activity and sexual behaviour. When I determine the objective seriousness of this offence the following matters apply here:

1. It was a secret crime hidden from those who loved the child and had her best interests at heart;

2. The offender relied on the child’s own sense of guilt to prevent disclosure, thus emphasising that sense of guilt;

3. He interfered with the child’s privacy, her right to a healthy psychosexual development, by requiring her to feed into and gratify his sexual desires and fantasies with a long-term view of having her submit to sexual activity with him;

4. He abused his power as an adult and attempted to form what he knew was a destructive relationship;

5. His gifts and other behaviour were all designed to manipulate the child into accepting his sexual advances and behaviour towards her;

6. What was done placed the child’s psychosexual development at risk: see R v Asplund [2010] NSWCCA 316 at [48].

31. I must also have regard to the period of years over which Count 6 occurred and the relative ages of the offender and the child. This offence was serious because of what was done and because of the other crimes it enabled the offender to commit. Care must be taken in my assessment of the seriousness of those crimes, because while his psychological manipulation of her can be taken into account. Great care must be taken not to double count this factor; as it is also critical to my assessment of Count 6.

Sexual touching and sexual act offences – Counts 1, 2, Alt 3, 4 and 10

32. The actual character of the act, including the degree of physical contact involved or incited is of considerable significance in assessing the objective seriousness of sexual touching offences. The age of the child relative to the range encompassed by the offence is also relevant. Here she was 10, at the bottom of the range for the relevant offences. The younger the child the more serious the offence generally.

33. I must consider the age difference between the perpetrator and the child. She was 10 and he was over 40.

34. The absence of pain or physical harm is not strictly a mitigating feature, but it can be taken into account in this assessment.

35. Count 1 involved touching the child’s vagina over her clothes. It was not a fleeting touch, but it was relatively, an offence low in the range of seriousness for offences of its type.

32. Count 2 involved Ladmore first asking her to suck his penis and then holding her by the head until she licked it. The use of force and direct contact of her lips with his genitals made this a particularly serious example of its type. The best that can be said on his behalf, is that the contact was very brief.

33. Alternative Count 3 also involved the use of force. He threw the child to the lounge, pulled her pants down and placed his penis against her genitals. As the child resisted him, the episode was brief but the circumstances of this skin on skin contact by with penis makes, it a particularly serious example of its type. Again, the best that can be said is that the contact was very brief.

34. Count 4 immediately preceded Count 5, the act of sexual intercourse. The child while sleeping with another child in the accused’s home woke to find the accused touching her by hand and with the black dildo. A black dildo matching was found in a locked suitcase at the accused’s home. The act was serious because of the nature of the object used to wake the child.

35. Count 10 involved a sexual act towards a child with the offender ejaculating over the face of the sleeping child. That description is enough to indicate how serious this offence was. This offending was moderated only by the fact that the child remained unaware of what had occurred, and it does have no direct impact on her. That said his exploitation of a child sleeping in his home, in this manner, makes this act particularly despicable.

Sexual intercourse – Count 5

40. The principles noted above also apply to offences involving sexual intercourse. Here the act involved licking the child’s genitals. There is no hierarchy of seriousness of kinds of sexual intercourse. the nature of the intercourse must be considered, although it does not necessarily determine objective seriousness.

41. Here the act of intercourse was very brief; partly because the child was awake and resisting. The fact of intercourse was of brief duration is not an entirely irrelevant consideration. It is one objective fact that must be considered as it goes to the degree of physical contact involved, and one important consideration is the degree of physical contact. As offending of this nature is capable of having a profound, long-term, and generally a deleterious impact on a victim duration is often irrelevant to the shock and the distress of the experience: SB v R [2022] NSWCC164; R v Lau [2022] NSWCCA 131; Cowling v R [2015] NSWCCA 213.

42. An element of the count was that the child was under the authority of the offender. That additional element increased the available sentencing range. Great care needs to be taken here. If I take into account how and why the child was at his home and then give additional weight to this evidence it would be to double count matters, and I cannot do that.

43. The act of intercourse was brief, there was no suggestion of penetration, not that this is required: Crimes Act, s 61HA(1)(c). And where exactly was licked on the child’s genitals cannot be determined. This can be classified as a mid-range offence and could not be in the high range of objective seriousness, as the Crown submit.

Produce child abuse material – Counts 8 and 11

44. The child was not aware that she had been used to produce the material, the subjects of Counts 8 and 11. She may, I hope, never be aware of the details. The damage done to children who are aware of their abuse can be profound.

45. The offender exploited a young and vulnerable child in his care to obtain images for his own prurient interest. The images were not distributed. They were later deleted. There were only three images for Count 11 and one for Count 8. Commonly, such offences involve very large numbers of images and more often than not the child victim is acutely aware of what is being done.

46. In this instance the child was in Ladmore’s home as a guest and under his protection. She was there because of her parents’ trust in him. She was there to spend time with his children. She was young, under 10. She was completely innocent, and he manipulated her both literally and figurately.

47. I have to consider the nature and content of the images. Ladmore went to considerable trouble to obtain the two bath images. This showed planning and deliberation far in excess of anything previously done. But although the child was naked, the images are not very clear nor are they explicit. In the other incident he manipulated the sleeping child by moving her.

48. While of course serious, given their nature, the small number of images calling for a custodial penalty fall well to the lower end of the range of objective seriousness for such matters.

49. The image for Count 8 however, depicts an innocent child in bed. It is a pictorial representation of what was done, the subject of Count 10. Again, great care must be taken not to double count matters that go to the seriousness of both crimes, as they have many elements and facts in common. It is the taking of the image that must be punished. He made a record of this disgusting act. That a record was able to be recovered proved his undoing. Without the images he could not have been convicted or Counts 8 or 10, as the child slept on unaware of what was being done to her.

50. That there was one image, and that the child was unaware of it reduces somewhat the objective seriousness of this crime, but the nature of the image is disturbing, as is the production of it. It requires some additional punishment in addition to the commission of the serious crime depicted in the image.

Victim impact

51. A Victim Impact Statement (‘VIS’) should attest to the personal harm suffered by the victim as a direct result of the offence. There were matters in the VIS which went beyond those allowed: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act, s 28. I have not had regard to them. Mr McCallum, counsel for Ladmore, fairly allowed the full statement to be read.

52. The VIS serves a very practical purpose of drawing to the offender the Court’s and the community’s attention the personal, economic damage and harm caused by the crimes. The child’s VIS was read to the Court by her mother. It is Exhibit B in these proceedings. In part it said:

“You were kind to me, you spoiled me, I trusted you … My family trusted you, but you were a liar … I knew I was right telling Mum … I am proud of myself for being brave and speaking up … I’m so relieved that everyone knows the truth now and they believe me … I am glad you can’t hurt me or any other children anymore. Remember you did this! You are where you belong. I hate you so much. You’ve ruined my life inside and out … I am brave and strong, and I will get through this. I know I will have a good life.”

53. The term ‘victim’ is used in relation to such statements. It would be wrong if anyone in the community used that term in a pejorative sense. As the VIS makes clear, the child was not in fact a victim, she is a survivor of a sexual crime. She came forward to expose what was done. She is commended for doing so. She did nothing wrong; she was believed.

54. Section 25A Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act must be considered. The effects of child sexual abuse depend on many factors including the age and gender of the child, the age and gender of the perpetrator, the nature of any relationship between them and the nature, number and frequency of abuse experiences. Constellations of symptoms varied upon the child, their family environment, and in particular the amount of support and love the child feels and receives. Whether or not the child is believed by significant others is of considerable importance. The diversity of abuse experiences means that the outcomes of child sexual abuse will also be diverse: D T Kenny, “The social dynamics and impacts of institutional child sexual abuse” (September 2017) 29(8) Judicial Officers Bulletin 70.

55. If there is any consolation, in my long experience dealing with such matters, a child who is believed, a child who is loved, a child who has strong family support can recover from abuse such as this, particularly if those around them turn down the volume and focus on care for the child and not dwell on the past. Try not to magnify the trauma as this may magnify any symptoms.

Criminal history

56. The offender has no criminal history, one matter on his record can be ignored. While I cannot find that his good character was assistance in the commission of the offence, I do accept as the Crown submit, that his prior good character is of less significance than it would be in many other types of offences. Particularly as he was trusted by her family to care for the child.

The case for the offender

Evidence

57. Ladmore maintains his innocence. This is his right. He is not to be punished for exercising it. He is however, not entitled to the benefits often given to offenders who enter guilty pleas and or those who express full and proper remorse.

58. No oral evidence was led on sentence. I received a letter from his father. His parents have provided him throughout his life, and throughout the trial, with valuable support. Mr Ladmore Senior is an upstanding member of our community with a history of service at many levels. He told me:

“I am profoundly aware of the absolute seriousness of the charge that Mark has been found guilty of and the fact that this incident has had a shattering effect on both extended families. We are still trying to come to terms with the situation as I am sure everyone involved is.

Mark also has to come around to accept that life following his sentence will never be the same. He has come around to the fact that he has been found guilty … and is prepared to live with whatever sentencing brings. He is aware that he will have to live with the shame and embarrassment of his actions for the rest of his life.

I am confident that, after he has paid his dues and with his extended family[’s] support, he will be able to adapt to the realities of life as it now is and if he gets the chance he can once again become a meaningful contributor to our society.”

Personal circumstances

59. In his written submissions, Mr McCallum, summarised his personal circumstances: Sentence MFI 2. What he set out is not controversial and I adopt this summary from those submissions.

60. Ladmore is now almost 45. He was aged 40 to 41 over the offending period. He was born on the South Coast of New South Wales. He lived his whole life in the local area, except for a brief period in Canberra. He enjoyed a stable and supportive childhood within a close family. He still has strong family support. He was never exposed to any; domestic violence, drug use, or alcohol use, or physical abuse as a child. He lived with his parents when granted bail for these matters.

61. I will ignore entirely one allegation of breach of bail during the trial.

62. He was in one significant relationship which lasted 15 years. He has children, he has maintained regular contact with them, but he has had no contact with them since he was charged.

63. He left high school after completing Year 11. He completed trade qualifications. He has continuously been employed all of his life. He owned his own business from 2016 until the time of this arrest. His personal reputation suffered as a consequence as to being charged and the business ultimately folded prior to trial.

64. His ultimate goal on release is to return to that business and, given his past history of work, I accept the submission that his prospects of doing so would be good.

65. The offender instructed Mr McCallum and his instructing solicitors, that he has never been diagnosed with any mental health conditions, no one ever had any suspicion or concern about such matters.

66. The offender used alcohol and mentioned was made during the trial of other drugs, but it is not suggested that his alcohol or other drug consumption had anything to do with either his character or the commission of the offences.

Structure of the sentence

67. I am required to impose an appropriate sentence of each offence and to structure the overall sentence. The aggregate sentence here is just an appropriate mechanism to encompass to all of the offender’s crimes: Mill v The Queen [1988] HCA 70; (1988) 166 CLR 59 at [62]-[63].

68. Public confidence in the administration of justice requires sentencing courts avoid any suggestion of a discount for multiple offending. This is particularly so where offences fall into separate and discrete episodes. Where events occur as part of an episode and have features in common, however, there can be considerable concurrence. I also have to, as I have already indicated, take care not to take two relevant factors into account as independent when they are not: Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610 at [40]. Care must be taken not to double count matters that are common to a number of offences.

69. I will have to indicate an appropriate sentence for each matter. Not infrequently a straightforward mathematical addition of sentences, appropriate for each offence if considered separately, will end up with an ultimate aggregate that exceeds what is called for in all of the circumstances: R v Holder; R v Johnston [1983] 3 NSWLR 245 at [260] (Street CJ); R v Van Ryn [2016] NSWCCA 1 at [228]-[230]. A court has to consider whether the appropriate punishment for each offence, if added one on top of the other, could result in a sentence that is unduly harsh. An unduly harsh sentence may crush any motivation for reform and engagement in rehabilitation. This requires some moderation of the sentences to be indicated, and here particularly, a moderation of any accumulation between the counts.

70. It has to be understood that the severity of a lengthy sentence is not simply linear. The severity of a sentence increases at a greater rate over the length of the sentence. To give an example; a sentence of two years has a greater impact than one. A sentence of five years has a greater impact than two: R v Clinch (1994) 72 A Crim R 301 at 306, approved in, MAK v R [2006] NSWCCA 381.

71. All those considerations must be balanced. The ultimate sentence should not exceed what is called for in the circumstances of the case: Postiglione v The Queen [1997] HCA 26; (1997) 189 CLR 295 at [307]-[308].

Submissions

72. Mr Kimble for the Director of Public Prosecutions and Mr McCallum for the offender, who both appeared at trial and again today, provided comprehensive written submissions to which they spoke this morning. In terms of principle, there are no major differences between them. I have sought to, in this judgment to address what differences there were.

73. The prosecution position is clear. The objective seriousness of all the offending falls in the mid to high range and there is not a great deal in the offender’s subjective case to moderate any sentence. General deterrence, he submits, is of the utmost importance; as well as punishment, accountability and denunciation. He notes that sex offences have a profound and deleterious effect upon their victims for many years, if not their whole lives. The Crown submit the only appropriate sentence is a lengthy period of full-time custody.

74. Mr McCallum responded that, in broad terms, the contact offences vary between the lower end of the range and more towards the middle. He cautions about double counting the grooming offences because the specific offences help prove that offence.

75. Both counsel put submissions about where on some notional range each contact offence fell. Judges are obliged to resolve issues in dispute; my preference, however, is to assess seriousness by reviewing objectively proved facts as I have sought to do, rather than identifying the extent to which the seriousness of the offence in question differs from some abstract, notional or theoretical offence. That process can lead to an error of approach as noted by McHugh J in Markarian at [54].

76. Mr McCallum also submits that there are special circumstances here that require a longer parole period because this is Mr Ladmore’s first time in custody and that the community would benefit from him being supervised and overseen for as long as possible. He noted he has good work prospects and prosocial supports in the community and his prospects of reoffending are low; particularly after serving a lengthy sentence, which would act as a deterrent on him.

Special circumstances

77. The minimum period for which the offender should be imprisoned must properly reflect the gravity of each of his offences and the other purposes of sentencing: R v Simpson [2001] NSWCCA 534; 53 NSWLR 704 at [59]. I accept the offender will need help adjusting to normal community life. But given the length of the sentence I must impose his ordinary parole period will allow for that. But he should be, I accept, supervised for as long as is practicable. There will be a very modest finding of special circumstances here.

Synthesis

78. I have attempted to identify all the matters that are relevant to the sentence and to discuss their significance. Ultimately, I have to make a value judgment about the appropriate sentence given all the material before the Court: Markarian at [51].

79. A sentence should mark the Court’s view of the seriousness of each crime individually and correctively. It should let other wrongdoers know the retribution which will fall on them if they commit similar crimes: R v Herring (1956) 73 WN (NSW) 203 at [205]; Ryan v The Queen [2001] HCA 21; (2001) 206 CLR 267; R v Windle [2012] NSWCCA 222.

80. Mention was made of the principle of general deterrence. Mr Crown took me to authorities going back many decades where judges of this Court and superior Courts have sought to make clear to the community how seriously the Courts view matters such as this. Yet these offences keep on being committed.

81. Principles relating to general deterrence are obviously important to matters involving the sexual abuse of a child. Close attention must paid to the maximum penalties, and where applicable, standard non‑parole periods. They require particular focus on retribution and deterrence. Care must be taken that I neither, consciously or unconsciously, give those variables undue weight, and in doing so can downplay the importance of other important sentencing factors, not the least being, that ultimately Ladmore must be returned to the community. It is hoped that when he can be return, he not reoffend. Therefore, I still have to consider, despite the sparseness of the evidence raised in mitigation, his prospects for reform and rehabilitation: Markarian at [54].

82. In matters such as this however, the Court also has an obligation to attempt to vindicate the dignity of the complainant, and to express the community’s disapproval of the offending. Further, by removing the offender from the community I must attempt to send others a signal about the seriousness with which such matters will be viewed by the Courts and in doing so attempt to afford protection to the vulnerable, that is children, against repetition of such offending by others.

83. This matter caused considerable disruption of a small local community. One historical function of the criminal law has been an attempt to discourage victims of their families and friends from resorting to self-help. Such matters can only escalate tensions in the community.

84. Ladmore must be punished and punished severely. He will lose a large portion of what would otherwise have been one of the most productive periods of his life. He must be, however, released to community, he will need support, but his main supporters are his elderly parents, and they may not be there for him, and in their last years he may not be there for them.

85. His release will be conditional. It will require an order of the State Parole Authority. It is clear from all the material I heard at trial that he has had a decidedly unhealthy criminal fixation on the child. To the lay observer that reflects a deep psychological problem. If his problems are not addressed in custody they will need to be addressed in the community.

78. Ladmore went into custody on 21 March 2025 following my verdicts. He had spent 4 days on remand before being allowed bail. This sentence will start on 17 March 2025.

High Risk Offenders Warning

87. Mr Ladmore, before I pronounce sentence I am obliged to tell you of the existence of legislation called the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW). It applies to the serious sex offences which you have committed and for which you are about to be sentenced. Your legal representatives will explain the significance of this legislation to you. It means that you could be subject to executive action after your non-parole period expires and after the sentence expires. That term, executive action, could mean that you are detained further or subject to particular conditions on you on parole or after you have served your sentence. It is not a matter that I can take into account in mitigation of sentences.

Orders

88. I have to indicate a sentence for each matter:

• In relation to Count 1, intentionally sexually touch a child then of or above the age of 10 years – I indicate a sentence of 1 year and 6 months.

• Count 2, intentionally incite a child of or above the age of 10 years to sexually touch – I indicate a sentence of 4 years imprisonment.

• Alternative Count 3, intentionally sexually touch a child of or above the age of 10 – I indicate the sentence of 4 years imprisonment.

• Count 4, intentionally sexually touch a child then of or above the age of 10 years – I indicate a sentence of 2 years and 6 months.

• Count 5, sexual intercourse with a child of or above the age of 10 in circumstance of aggravation and being under the authority – I indicate a sentence of 6 years of imprisonment and a non-parole period of 4 years and 6 months.

• Count 6, the grooming offence – I indicate a sentence of 3 years with a non‑parole period of 2 years and 3 months.

• Count 8, use a child then under the age of 14 years for the production of child abuse material – I indicate a sentence of 1 year with a 9 month non‑parole period.

• Count 10, intentionally carry out a sexual act towards a child under the age of 10, namely 9 – I indicate the sentence of 3 years and 6 months.

• Count 11, use a child then under the age of 14 years for the production of child abuse material I indicate a sentence of 1 year with a non‑period of 9 months.

89. The term of the aggregate sentence is 14 years imprisonment. The non‑parole period is one of 10 years reflecting a very modest finding of special circumstances. That 10 year non‑parole period will commence on 17 March 2025. You will be eligible for consideration for release to parole by the State Parole Authority on 16 March 2035. The balance of the term of 4 years will commence on 17 March 2035 and expire on 16 March 2039.

90. To reiterate: A sentence of 14 years; minimum period to be spent in custody 10 years; earliest possible parole date, 16 March 2034; sentence expires on 16 March 2038.

**********

Decision last updated: 19 August 2025