R v Long

[2025] NSWDC 32

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

R v LONG [2025] NSWDC 32

Hearing dates:

17 February 2025

Date of orders:

17 February 2025

Decision date:

07 March 2025

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Before:

Lerve DCJ

Decision:

Sentenced to an aggregate sentence – see paragraphs [72]-[77]

Catchwords:

CRIMES – sexual offences – sexual intercourse with child over a number of years – family friend - finding of guilt after trial

SENTENCE – general deterrence – limited criminal history – special circumstances – aggregate sentence - totality

Legislation Cited:

Crimes Act, 1900

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act, 1999

Cases Cited:

Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37

Chamseddine v R [2017] NSWCCA 176

MC v R [2017] NSWCCA 316

R v Burchell (1987) 34 A Crim R 148

R v Muldoon unrep. NSWCCA 13.12.1990

R v Tuala [2015] NSWCCA 8

Rv Van Ryn [2016] NSWCCA 1

Category:

Sentence

Parties:

Rex
John LONG

Representation:

Counsel:
Ms V Morgan (for the Crown)
Mr R Keller (for the Offender)

Solicitors:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions
Barron Law

File Number(s):

2023/00182045

Publication restriction:

There is to be no publication of the name of the victim nor anything that may tend to identify them.

JUDGMENT

1. On 1 October 2024 the Offender appeared at the Wagga Wagga District Court and pleaded not guilty to each of 13 counts on an indictment. On 14 October 2024 the jury returned verdicts of guilty to 11 of those counts, namely that he:

Count 2: Between 1 January 1992 and 31 December 1992 at Young in the State of New South Wales did assault [CD] and at the time of the assault committed an act of indecency on [CD], a child then under the age of 10 years namely 4 or 5 years, contrary to s 61M(2) of the Crimes Act, 1900 as it then was; and further

Count 3: Between 1 July 1996 and 30 June 1997 at Young in the State of New South Wales, had sexual intercourse with [CD] a child then under the age of 10 years, namely 8 or 9 years, contrary to s 66A of the Crimes Act; and further

Count 5: On 25 December 1999 at St Georges Basin in the State of New South Wales had sexual intercourse with [CD] a child then above the age of 10 years and under the age of 14 years, namely 12 years, contrary to s 66C(1) of the Crimes Act; and further

Count 6: Between 25 December 1999 and 29 February 2000 at St Georges Basin in the State of New South Wales, had sexual intercourse with [CD], a child then above the age of 10 years and under the age of 14 years, namely 12 years, contrary to s 66C(1) of the Crimes Act; and further

Count 7: Between 1 January 2000 and 31 January 2000 at St Georges Basin in the State of New South Wales had sexual intercourse with [CD] a child then above the age of 10 years and under the age of 14 years namely 12 years, contrary to s 66C(1) of the Crimes Act; and further

Count 8: Between 25 December 1999 and 23 May 2000 at St George’s Basin in the State of New South Wales did assault [CD] and at the time of the assault committed an act of indecency on [CD] in circumstances of aggravation, namely, that at the time of the of the offence [CD] was under the age of 16 years namely 12 years contrary to s 61M(1) of the Crimes Act, and further

Count 9: Between 25 December 1999 and 23 May 2000 at St George’s Basin in the State of New South Wales did assault [CD] and at the time of the assault committed an act of indecency on [CD] in circumstances of aggravation, namely, that at the time of the of the offence [CD] was under the age of 16 years namely 12 years contrary to s 61M(1) of the Crimes Act, and further

Count 10: Between 25 December 1999 and 23 May 2000 at Vincentia or elsewhere in the State of New South Wales did assault [CD] and at the time of the assault committed an act of indecency on [CD] in circumstances of aggravation, namely, that at the time of the of the offence [CD] was under the age of 16 years namely 12 years, contrary to s 61M(1) of the Crimes Act and further

Count 11: Between 25 December 1999 and 23 May 2000 at Vincentia or elsewhere in the State of New South Wales did assault [CD] and at the time of the assault committed an act of indecency on [CD] in circumstances of aggravation, namely, that at the time of the of the offence [CD] was under the age of 16 years namely 12 years, contrary to s 61M(1) of the Crimes Act and further

Count 12: Between 1 May 2000 and 23 May 2000 at Sanctuary Point in the State of New South Wales did assault [CD] and at the time of the assault committed an act of indecency on [CD] in circumstances of aggravation, namely, that at the time of the of the offence [CD] was under the age of 16 years namely 12 years, contrary to s 61M(1) of the Crimes Act and further

Count 13: On or about 20 May 2000 at Sanctuary Point in the State of New South Wales had sexual intercourse with [CD] a child then above the age of 10 years and under the age of 14 years, namely 12 years in circumstances of aggravation namely that [CD] was under the authority of John Long, contrary to s 66C(2) of the Crimes Act.

2. As the Offender pleaded not guilty and put the Crown to proof there can be no discount or consideration for any plea of guilty. That is not to say that the penalty is increased or aggravated by reason of the fact that the Offender put the Crown to proof, merely that there can be no consideration or discount for any plea of guilty.

3. At the sentence hearing there was initially an issue about the applicable maximum penalties. However, it is agreed between the parties that the maximum penalties are those as set out by Mr Keller, counsel for the Offender, in his written submissions.

4. The maximum penalties applicable at the time of the offending are:

Count 2:     10 years imprisonment,

Count 3:     20 years imprisonment,

Counts 5, 6 & 7:   8 years imprisonment,

Counts 8 – 12 incl:   7 years imprisonment, and

Count 13:     10 years imprisonment.

5. Although standard non-parole periods now apply to some of the offences, standard non-parole periods did not apply at the time of the offending.

Facts

6. It will be necessary for the purposes of proceeding to sentence to find the facts beyond reasonable doubt consistent with the verdicts of the jury. The court is extremely grateful to both parties in that the Crown has set out in the Crown tender bundle on sentence the proposed facts. Counsel for the Offender agrees that it is open to the Court to find those proposed by the Crown are the facts on which the Offender is to be sentenced. Independently, I also agree that it is appropriate to find the facts as proposed by the Crown. Given the number of counts on the indictment I will deal with the seriousness of each matter after the facts relevant to that matter. There is the factor of a breach of trust in each of the matters. The significant age difference between the victim and the Offender is relevant in all matters.

7. The victim was born in 1987. The Offender was born on 27 May 1973 and accordingly is 51 years of age at the time of sentence. The Offender is a lifelong family friend of the parents of the victim the victim referred to the Offender as her “uncle”. The Offender is the son of Rhonda Long, brother of Christy Long. The victim’s father is JL and the victim’s mother is SL. The Offender was previously in a long term relationship with Donna Byrne, the relationship getting in 1995 and ending in 2018. The couple had eight children together. Two of the brothers of the victim’s father (PL and RL) had previously been in a relationship with the Offender’s mother. It was through these relationships that the victim’s father met the Offender when he was about 10 years old. In about 1988 Rhonda Long was in a relationship with the victim’s mother’s brother, RK.

8. In about 1988 or 1989 RK, Rhonda Long, Christy Long and the Offender moved to a property “Cherokee” at Young. In the 1990s JL and SL purchased a residence in Young where they lived with the victim and her two younger sisters. Sometime later Rhonda and the Offender moved into the bedroom at that residence with JL, SL, the victim and her two sisters. In 1999 JL, SL, the victim and her two sisters moved to an address in St Georges Basin. Those premises were a three-bedroom home with an inground salt water swimming pool at the rear of the property. Around December 1999 the Offender, Rhonda Long and their three children moved into a caravan on that property at St George’s Basin. In early 2000 the Offender, Rhonda Long and their three children moved to an address at Sanctuary Point.

Count 2

9. Between 1 January 1992 and 24 September 1994 the Offender was residing at the property “Cherokee”. The victim and her family were visiting the Offender and his family at the property; such visits were a regular occurrence. At the property they would play cards, fish, ride bikes and fix cars.

10. At the time of a particular visit the victim was four, five or six years of age. The Offender took the victim out for a motorbike ride through the paddocks around the house. The victim cannot recall if she was sitting in front or behind the Offender on the bike. The Offender drove the bike with one hand while placing the other hand on the victim’s genital area on the outside of clothing. The Offender rubbed his hand against her vagina. The victim did not tell anyone what had occurred.

11. The victim was four, five, or six years of age, therefore in about the middle of the age range contemplated by the section. The touching was on the victim’s genital area but on the outside of clothing. I could not find beyond reasonable doubt other than that the touching lasted for a short period of time. There is a significant age difference between the victim and the Offender, approximately 14 years. In all of these circumstances the matter is marginally below mid-range.

Count 3

12. Between 11 July 1996 and 30 June 1997 the Offender and Donna were residing with JL, SL, the victim and her siblings at the residence in Young. The victim was eight or nine years of age at the time. Donna (Offender’s partner) was pregnant with her first child. The Offender and Donna occupied the room within the main house.

13. On one occasion, the victim walked past the Offender’s bedroom and saw that he was lying on the bed colouring in a book. The victim entered the bedroom and talked to the Offender about the colouring-in book. She got onto the bed, laid down and watched him colour in the book.

14. While the victim was lying on the bed the Offender reached over, placed his hand underneath her underpants and penetrated her vagina with his finger. The Offender left his finger inside the victim’s vagina for several minutes. The victim tried pushing the Offender’s hand away. She also attempted moving her position on the bed so she was further away from him. The Offender stopped and the victim moved away from him.

15. The victim was eight or nine years of age and accordingly towards the upper end of the age range contemplated by the section. The intercourse involved was digital penetration. There was some degree of resistance by the victim and the penetration occurred for a number of minutes, and accordingly could not be said to be merely fleeting. Other persons were present within the house. The matter is below mid-range but not significantly so.

Count 5

16. On Christmas Day (25 December 1999) the Offender, Donna, JL, SL and all the children were at the St Georges Basin address celebrating Christmas together. On Christmas morning the victim woke and was permitted to open one present before breakfast after which she could open all her other presents. This particular Christmas the victim and her siblings received “pool” related gifts including boogie boards and pool noodles. Shortly after opening the presents the adults and children all went to the pool area.

17. The victim was in the pool with her two sisters and the Offender, swimming and playing. The victim’s parents and Donna went back into the house to prepare the next meal of the day. The Offender stayed in the pool with the victim and one of her sisters. While in the pool the victim was lying on top of a boogie board and the Offender was near her. The Offender put his hand down into the victim’s swimming bottoms and touched her vagina. He then inserted one of his fingers into her vagina. The victim tried to move away from the Offender and tried to push his hand away but she was unable to stop the Offender. The facts recite “the touching inside the vagina was quick, the victim saying, ‘It didn’t go on for long.’”

18. That intercourse is digital, the offending was opportunistic, and the offending was over a short period of time. In the circumstances this matter is below mid-range.

Count 6

19. Within the time frame of the indictment, that is 25 December 1999 to 20 May 2000, the victim, JL, SL, Donna and the Offender and all of the children were at the St Georges Basin residence playing a game of “spotlight” in the backyard. The backyard had different levels or dips to level off the backyard at one point during the game the victim was hiding along the bank near the creek in the backyard. The victim had been hiding with the Offender while playing the game. The Offender reached over with his hand and touched her vagina underneath her clothing. While the Offender had his hand on the victim’s vagina he inserted a finger into her vagina causing her pain. The Offender told the victim to stop and moved away from him. The Offender told the victim not to say anything to her parents. At the time the victim did not tell anyone about this offending.

20. Again, the intercourse is digital. The Crown in written submissions describes the offending as “blatant”. It is difficult to disagree with that assessment. The victim told the Offender to desist. Some pain was caused. She was told not to tell her parents. This matter is below mid-range, but it is more serious than the conduct to which count five relates.

Count 7

21. Between 25 December 1999 and 20 May 2000, the victim and the Offender were within the house at St Georges Basin. The victim entered the bathroom to wash her hands before eating, but she does not remember whether it was before lunch or dinner, or for that matter who else was home at the time. She was standing at the basin with the bathroom door partially open. The Offender entered the bathroom and approached the victim. He cuddled her from behind before placing his hand into her pants underneath her clothing. At the time, his fingers were touching the inside of the external lips of her vagina and he moved his fingers towards the opening of her vagina. The Offender put pressure on to the inner lips of the victim’s vagina causing her pain. The victim tried to move away from the Offender. When she did this the Offender stopped what he was doing. The sexual intercourse lasted several minutes.

22. Noting the intercourse was digital penetration the nature and extent of the penetration and it was essentially opportunistic this matter too is below mid-range but noting that the intercourse went on for several minutes not significantly below mid-range.

Count 8

23. On an occasion between 25 December 1999 and 20 May 2000 the Offender and the victim were at the home at St Georges Basin. The victim was tidying her bedroom when the Offender entered and lay on her bed. They began having a discussion and the victim continued to move around tidying her room. The victim was wearing pyjamas at the time. The victim approached her bed and was facing the Offender when he touched her vaginal area underneath her clothing. She described the Offender rubbing the outside of her vagina. She told the Offender that she “didn’t like it” and to “stop”. The Offender touched the victim in this way a few minutes. The Offender told the victim “just don’t say anything to your parents” when he stopped the offending conduct on this occasion. The victim did not tell anyone about what had occurred.

24. The touching was skin on skin and went on for some few minutes. The victim verbally resisted the Offender telling him she did not like it. The victim was about 12 years of age at the time. The matter is at the low end of the mid-range of seriousness.

Count 9

25. On an occasion between 25 December 1999 and 20 May 2000 the victim and the Offender were home at the St Georges Basin property. The victim had finished school early and travelled home by bus arriving home at about 1:30pm. Logically this matter must have occurred after the beginning of the school year. After arriving home, the victim went to the kitchen and made a cake. When the cake had finished cooking the Offender entered the kitchen and the victim cut him a piece of the cake.

26. As the victim was standing at the counter to cut the cake the Offender approached her from behind. He attempted to cuddle her before placing his hands down her pants and touching her on the vagina. The touching physically hurt the victim and the touching lasted for a few minutes. The conduct ended when the victim walked away to sit at the table to eat a piece of cake. The victim did not tell anyone about what had occurred.

27. In written submissions the Crown maintains this matter is above mid-range. The touching went on for some few minutes and the touching hurt the victim. The touching was skin on skin. In all the circumstances the matter is well within the mid-range of seriousness.

Count 10

28. On an occasion between 25 December 1999 and 20 May 2000 the victim and the Offender were in the Offender’s blue Ford motor vehicle travelling to the shops together. No one else was in the car. The Offender was driving and the victim sitting in the front passenger’s seat. As they were driving along the Offender reached over and started to touch the victim’s vagina underneath her clothing. On this occasion he did not insert his finger but touched the outside of the vagina.

29. The offending was of short duration but the touching was skin on skin. The matter is below mid range.

Count 11

30. This offending occurred immediately following the conduct to which count 10 on the indictment relates. While driving the Offender took hold of the victim’s right hand and brought it towards his penis. The victim’s hand contacted the Offender’s penis, which was inside his pants, for a moment before she was able to pull her hand away. The Offender attempted to bring the victim’s hand back but she resisted.

31. There was some degree of resistance by the victim after the second attempt to bring her hand towards the Offender. The touching was momentary. The Offender was clothed at the time. This matter is below mid-range and is less serious than the conduct to which count 10 relates.

Count 12

32. This offending occurred at the Sanctuary Point premises. The victim was sleeping over at the Offender’s house on a futon on the floor, which is where she typically slept when staying over.

33. After dinner, the victim was watching a movie in the lounge room. She was lying on the futon with a blanket covering her. The Offender was lying underneath the same blanket next to the victim. With his hand still underneath the blanket the Offender reached over and touched the victim’s vagina underneath her clothing. The victim pushed the Offender’s hand away. This was immediately followed by the Offender placing the victim’s hand on his penis underneath his clothing. The victim went to sleep on the lounge room floor.

34. There are two aspects to this offending. Both involved skin on skin contact. The offending was brief. The matter is marginally below mid-range.

Count 13

35. This offending occurred on the same night or “sleepover” to which count 12 relates. The victim was asleep on the floor lying between the Offender and her younger sister. The Offender’s family was sleeping the other side of him. The victim woke up to the offending rubbing her vagina and he then inserted a finger into her vagina. The victim moved the Offender’s hand away and physically moved away from the Offender. The victim went back to sleep following the incident. The following day the victim began to feel pain in her vagina. At the time the victim did not tell anyone about what had occurred.

35. The intercourse is digital and occurred for a brief period of time. The conduct as the Crown submits was particularly brazen, given the proximity of the Offender’s family. The offending caused the victim pain. The matter is slightly below mid-range. The victim complained to her mother the following day.

Complaint and investigation

37. Around 21 May 2000 the victim called her mother into the bedroom after having taken a bath and asked her mother whether anything looked different about her vagina because it was hurting. Her mother said it looked fine, but later asked the victim whether anyone had touched her. The victim told her mother that the Offender had touched her. The victim asked her mother not to tell her father as she was worried about how her father would react. The victim’s mother told the victim’s father later that night. The following day the victim’s father went to the victim’s school and spoke with staff about what had been disclosed. The victim’s father was advised that the police needed to be called.

38. On 23 May 2000 the victim was interviewed by staff attached to the Child Abuse Squad and Department of Community Services. During the interview the victim only disclosed the conduct to which count 3 relates. An apprehended violence order was put in place The investigation was later discontinued when the victim’s father made a statement to the effect that the victim did not wish to continue with the matter.

39. Only weeks after the AVO had been put in place the victim’s parents recommenced socialising with the Offender.

Criminal History

40. The Offender was born on 24 May 1973. He has a limited record consisting of traffic matters. The most serious of those was a conviction for Drive While Disqualified in respect of which a Community Service Order was imposed. There has been nothing recorded against the Offender since 2012. The history is limited and realistically has no real practical significance so far as this matter is concerned except that it demonstrates that the Offender has rehabilitated.

41. However, it is uncontroversial that good character does not carry the same weight and significance in matters such as this as it might in other circumstances.

General Deterrence

42. The facts are recited in a somewhat matter-of-fact bordering on clinical fashion. The fact remains however that the Offender committed a number of sexual offences against the victim. The abuse of trust was significant. The Offender treated the victim essentially as a sexual plaything over a number of years. I note that there was some context or relationship evidence led at the trial. Given the verdicts, there is no reason to doubt that evidence. Accordingly, the counts on the indictment are not to be treated as isolated incidents.

43. It is undoubted that there is a strong need for general deterrence when dealing with offences of child sexual assault. This concept goes back to at least the Crown appeal in the matter of R v Muldoon unrep. NSWCCA 13.12.1990. More recently, see for example the judgment of Hulme J in R v Van Ryn [2016] NSWCCA 1 at [179] where his Honour said:

“The Crown referred to EG v R [2015] NSWCCA 21 at [42] where Hoeben CJ at CL said:

‘General deterrence, denunciation and the protection of the community are principles of sentencing which are relevant to cases involving child sexual abuse. The concern of the courts is to send a message to those who would sexually abuse children intentionally and repeatedly that their actions will not be tolerated and that they will receive significant punishment.’"

44. Walton J in giving the leading judgment (Hoeben CJ at CL, Hulme J agreeing) in Chamseddine v R [2017] NSWCCA 176 said at [50]:

“It is well recognised that sexual offences against children are objectively serious and cause significant harm to the victims. In R v Gavel [2014] NSWCCA 56; (2014) 239 A Crim R 469, the Court stated at [110]:

‘This Court 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] 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 do". The absolute prohibition on sexual activity with a child is intended to protect children from the physical and psychological harm taken to be caused by premature sexual activity: Clarkson v R [2011] VSCA 157; 32 VR 361 at 364 [3], 368-372 [26]-[39].’"

45. Some of the other cases that deal with the issue of general deterrence include R v Burchell (1987) 34 A Crim R 148 and MC v R [2017] NSWCCA 316.

Victim Impact statement

46. Part of the Crown tender bundle is a victim impact statement, which was read to the court by the victim. That victim impact statement eloquently sets out the short term and long term harm suffered by the victim. The court hopes that the Offender was listening carefully when that statement was read out.

47. However, without deprecating the undoubted effects on the victim, the contents of that statement do not ground a finding of any factor of aggravation. In this regard I note in particular the decision of R v Tuala [2015] NSWCCA 8.

48. However, as I indicated at the sentence hearing the effect of the offending on the victim is taken into account by virtue of s 3A(g) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act, 1999.

Subjective Case

49. No oral evidence was called from or on behalf of the Offender. However, a volume of written material was relied upon, which is contained within exhibit 1 on sentence. That contains the outline of written submissions, extracts from the Law Part codes relevant to the applicable maximum penalties at the time of offending, a report from Ms Julie Dombrowski, psychologist and four letters or references in the nature of character references.

50. I note that initially at the sentence hearing there was an issue with the relevant maximum penalties. However, it was agreed between the parties at the sentence hearing that the applicable maximum penalties were those set out by Mr Keller, counsel for the Offender, in his outline of written submissions.

51. I will initially go to the report of Ms Dombrowski, which commences by briefly setting out the facts. She then notes that the Offender’s criminal history consists of traffic matters. She notes that Ms Lorraine Anderson, psychologist with Corrective Services New South Wales, assessed the Offender as being at an average risk of committing further sexual offences.

52. At paragraph 10 of the report she notes that the Offender spoke with an unsophisticated vocabulary and that he gave a history of having experienced memory difficulties since childhood although he has no known history of brain injury. There was apparently nothing in his presentation that raised any concerns regarding the Offender’s cognitive functioning. The report goes on to note that during the period of the offending he would consume up to 24 beers on weekends and social contexts.

53. The Offender grew up in Young, New South Wales, with his parents and siblings. His father worked as an interstate truck driver. His parents separated when he was quite young. His mother used alcohol heavily and neglected the Offender and his siblings when intoxicated. A paternal aunt intervened to provide care. His mother had several partners who also used alcohol heavily the home. Some of those physically abused him and his mother.

54. Although initially in his outline of written submissions Mr Keller put that the principles enunciated by the High Court in Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37 did not apply that position changed at the sentence hearing. The details of the Offender’s deprivations in formative years are sparse but nevertheless I am satisfied those principles are enlivened at least a limited extent reducing the Offender’s moral culpability to that extent. Be that as it may the Offender told the author of the report that he enjoys a close relationship today with both parents.

55. It appears from paragraph 15 of Ms Dombrowski’s report that the Offender had a limited formal education, noting that he completed year seven or year eight that he could not recall exactly which one. He is literate to the extent that he can read a newspaper but would require assistance completing a Centrelink form. He has worked in various short-term and seasonal positions which were essentially in the agricultural sector and as a factory hand in manufacturing. In about 2019 he commenced working as a truck driver. It seems he has always been in employment.

56. The Offender commenced using alcohol at the age of 18 years and consumed up to 24 beers in social contexts throughout his early adulthood. He has reduced his alcohol during middle adulthood. He denied use of illicit substances or abuse of prescription medication.

57. At paragraph 19 of the report the author notes the Offender identifies as heterosexual and denies any experience of childhood sexual abuse. The Offender denied any specific interest in pre-or post- pubescent children and had an understanding of the sexual consent laws in Australia. The Offender told Ms Dombrowski that he believed child sexual offences were both illegal and immoral that he struggled to articulate white child sexual abuse might be harmful beyond potentially causing physical harm to the child.

58. The Offender has never been diagnosed with a psychiatric illness nor has he had experience of depression and anxiety or psychosis. He did experience some symptoms of psychological trauma after being injured in a house fire when he was younger. His brother died in that fire.

59. Ms Dombrowski assesses the Offender’s risk of sexual recidivism is in the “average risk category”. This is generally consistent with the assessment of Ms Anderson, who authored the report annexed to the Sentence Assessment Report. Given these opinions, I am unable to make any finding on balance that the Offender is unlikely to reoffend. Ms Dombrowski notes (page 9) that the Offender’s risk of recidivism may be further reduced through participation in sex offence specific treatment that enables him to explore the factors that allowed him to overstep moral and legal boundaries in his sexual offending.

60. The Offender continues to deny the offending. Ms Dombrowski notes (paragraph 25, page 8) that “he provided no information to suggest that the subject offending was driven by social/intimacy deficits, sexual regulation difficulties, a preoccupation with sex, negative mood states or a misunderstanding of consent laws.” She goes on to say, “Despite denying any specific sexual interest in children the subject offending suggests that a possible paedophilia arousal pattern maybe also relevant and understanding his sexual offending.”

61. Given that the Offender continues to deny the offending and in the absence of any other material the court is simply unable to make any positive finding on balance that the Offender is remorseful. No such submission was advanced on behalf of the Offender.

62. I note the author of the sentence assessment report under the heading “attitudes” on page 2 of the report says, “During the preparation of this report Mr Long continued to deny his involvement in the offences stating he could not remember anything from that time. He also maintained that he was never alone with the victim”. The Offender insisted to the author of the report that the victim fabricated the allegations against him. The author of the report goes on to note that the Offender showed no insight into the impact of his offending.

63. Ms Anderson, the psychologist, notes that as the Offender has maintained categorical denial for all sexual offences he may be eligible for the Denier’s Programme.

64. The offending ceased in 2000 and there are only traffic matters recorded against the Offender since then. This taken with the contents of the various references within Exhibit 1 on sentence in my view entitle the Offender to a finding on balance that he has good prospects of rehabilitation. Those references speak well of the Offender’s work ethic.

General remarks

65. Mr Keller in his oral submissions reminded the court that standard non-parole period is not applicable to any of the matters before the court. He also put that the Offender has demonstrated that he can rehabilitate himself. The submission was also advanced, correctly in my view, that the principle of totality has some work to do in the matter before the court. Counsel also accepted that the principles enunciated in Bugmy v the Queen are enlivened to a limited extent.

66. It was argued on behalf of the Offender that the court would make a finding a special circumstances. I accept that such a finding should be made, however, I am also of the opinion that finding should not be particularly generous. The matters that justify finding a special circumstances include the Offender’s age, that this is his first time in custody, and the need for supervision and assistance to ensure that the Offender is properly reintegrated into the community.

67. It is accepted that the appropriate commencement date of the sentence is 13 October 2024. A submission was made to the effect that the Offender had been on strict bail and had not breached that bail. I understood that submission went to a submission that the court can have some confidence that the Offender will comply with court orders and orders of parole but it also fortifies the finding that there are good prospects of rehabilitation.

68. The Crown in oral submissions cautioned the Court not to put too much weight on the issue of delay, noting - to use the Crown’s expression - that delay is the “stock in trade” of child sexual assault matters.

69. Further, the Crown made it plain that the Crown was not submitting that the contents of the victim impact statement enliven any factor of aggravation. The Crown went on to submit that any finding of special circumstances would not be substantial. The Crown also submitted, correctly in my view, thats there would need to be some partial accumulation of sentence to recognise the different offending.

70. I will need to give proper regard and effect to sections 3A and 5 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act. Section 3A sets out the purposes of punishment, namely:

1. to ensure that the Offender is adequately punished for the offence,

2. to prevent crime by deterring the Offender and other persons from committing similar offences,

3. to protect the community from the Offender,

4. to promote the rehabilitation of the Offender,

5. to make the Offender accountable for his or her actions,

6. to denounce the conduct of the Offender, and

7. to recognise the harm done to the victim of the crime and the community.

71. Section 5 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act provides in effect that a court should not impose a sentence of imprisonment unless having considered all possible alternatives no other sentence is appropriate. Given the maximum penalties provided, the nature of the offending, the need for general deterrence and the multiplicity of offending there must be a sentence of full time imprisonment imposed in this matter. Counsel for the Offender did not argue to the contrary.

72. This is an appropriate matter for the imposition of an aggregate sentence. I will set out hereunder in tabular form the sentences that would have been imposed had separate sentences been imposed. If separate sentences were imposed there would need to be some level of partial accumulation to recognise the different offending. However, the principle of totality has work to do in this sentencing exercise.

Count	Offence	Description	Maximum Penalty	Indicative sentence
2	Indecent Assault on child under 10 years – s 61M(2)	1.1.92 – 24.9.94 – touch vaginal area outside clothing riding motor bike	10 years	18 months
3	Sexual Intercourse with Child Under 10 – s 66A(1)	11.7.96 – 30.6.97 Digital penetration in bedroom in Young	20 years	6 years
5	Sexual Intercourse with child 10 -16 years - s 66C(1) Crimes Act	25.12.1999 Digital penetration while victim on boogie board in pool at St Georges Basin	8 years	2 years 6 months
6	As above	25.12.1999 -20.5.2000 Digital penetration while playing spotlight	8 years	2 years 9 months
7	As above	25.12.1999 - 20.5.2000 – digital penetration in bathroom – victim washing hands	8 years	2 years 6 months
8	Aggravated Indecent Assault – s 61M(1) Crimes Act	25.12.99 – 20.5.2000 – rub outside of vagina under clothing in bedroom when victim tidying room	7 years	2 years 6 months
9	As above	25.12.99 – 20.5.2000 – touching victim on vagina under pants in kitchen – cake baking	7 years	2 years 9 months
10	As above	25.12.1999 – 20.5.2000 – touching vagina under clothing in blue Ford	7 years	2 years
11	As above	Immediately following count 10 – Offender takes hold of victim’s hand placing it on his penis	7 years	2 years 3 months
12	As above	20.5.2000 – touching vagina under clothing while on futon watching movie at Sanctuary Point	7 years	2 years 6 months
13	Aggravated Sexual Intercourse child 10-14 years under Authority – s 66C(2) Crimes Act	Same night as count 12 – digital penetration	10 years	3 years 6 months

Orders

73. The Offender is sentenced to an aggregate sentence of 12 years with a non parole period of 8 years

74. The non parole period dates from 13 October 2024 and will expire on 12 October 2032

75. The balance of term on parole of 4 years will commence on 13 October 2032 and will expire on 12 October 2036

76. The Offender will be eligible for release to parole at the expiration of the non-parole period and I recommend that release

77. The sentence indicates a finding of special circumstances, the reasons for which were enunciated within the reasons. The non-parole period is two thirds (66.6%) of the total sentence.

**********

Decision last updated: 12 March 2025