R v Miner (a pseudonym)

[2025] NSWDC 117

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

R v Miner (a pseudonym) [2025] NSWDC 117

Hearing dates:

14 February 2025

Date of orders:

14 February 2025

Decision date:

14 February 2025

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Before:

Haesler SC DCJ

Decision:

Sentence of imprisonment of 6 years with a non-parole period of 4 years

Catchwords:

CRIME — Child sex offences — Intentionally sexually touch child <10 — Intentionally carry out sexual act with child <10 — Intentionally incite child <10 to do sexual act to them

SENTENCING — Aggravating factors — Breach of trust — Father offends against daughter — Age of child

SENTENCING — Mitigating factors — Prior good character — Plea of guilty

SENTENCING — Penalties — Imprisonment

SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Deterrence — General deterrence — General principles — Moral culpability Multiple offences — Totality — Objective seriousness

SENTENCING — Sentencing procedure — Agreed facts — No traversal of pleas of guilty — Instinctive synthesis — Rejection of offender’s assertion about his motive — Psychological reports

SENTENCING — Subjective considerations on sentence —Personal history — Mental health disorders

Legislation Cited:

Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW)

Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)

Cases Cited:

Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; (2013) 249 CLR 571

Devaney v R [2012] NSWCCA 285

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

Meissner v The Queen [1995] HCA 41; (1994-1995) 184 CLR 132

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

MRWv R [2011] NSWCCA 260

Olbrich v The Queen [1999] HCA 54; (1999) 199 CLR 270

R v Elfar [2003] NSWCCA 358

R vGeddes (1936) 36 SR (NSW) 554

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

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

R v JDX; JDX v R [2017] NSWCCA 9

R v PGM [2008] NSWCCA 172

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

R v Thompson, R v Houlten [2000] NSWCCA 309; (2000) 49 NSWLR 383

R v Van Ryn [2016] NSWCCA 1

R v Windle [2012] NSWCCA 222

Ryan v R [2017] NSWCCA 209

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

Tepania v R [2018] NSWCCA 247

Weininger v The Queen [2013] HCA 14; (2003) 212 CLR 629

Texts Cited:

D T Kenny, “The Social Dynamics and Impacts of Institutional Child Sexual Abuse” (September 2017) 29 Judicial Officer’s Bulletin 8

Category:

Sentence

Parties:

Wade Miner (a pseudonym) (the offender)
Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)

Representation:

Counsel:
K Hogan (for the offender)

Solicitors:
Legal Aid (NSW) (for the offender)
R Taylor solicitor advocate for Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)

File Number(s):

2023/300872

Publication restriction:

Pseudonyms have been used for the names of the offender and the child. Pursuant to s 15A Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW), there is to be no publication of any information, picture or other material that identifies or is likely to lead to the identification of the child. Identifying information has been removed from this version of the judgment to comply with the statute.

JUDGMENT – ex tempore revised

1. Wade Miner (a pseudonym) has accepted his guilt in relation to a number of sexual offences against his biological daughter, from when she was five years old. He appears for sentence today.

2. When sentencing, a judge has to identify all the factors that are relevant to the sentence, discuss their significance and make a value judgment about the appropriate sentence: Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25; (2005) 228 CLR 357 at [51] (McHugh J). That sentence has to take into account all relevant factors based in the material put before the Court.

3. In sexual matters involving children, particularly where the perpetrator is a father, not every matter can be fitted into specific categories. Human behaviour and human characteristics are too varied for that. I have to synthesise many competing features. Judges must attempt to translate the complexity of the human condition and human behaviour into mathematics or units of punishment, usually expressed in time in custody: Weininger v The Queen [2013] HCA 14; (2003) 212 CLR 629.

4. When he was before the Local Court, Miner said he would plead guilty to five offences of intentionally sexually touching a child under the age of ten years, charged pursuant to 66DA Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). That offence carries a maximum penalty of 16 years imprisonment. Parliament has said that for an offence which, taking into account objective factors, falls within the middle of the range, there is a standard non-parole period, or minimum time in custody, of 8 years.

5. Miner also pleaded guilty to an offence, of intentionally carrying out a sexual act with or towards a child who is under the age of ten, pursuant to s 66DC(a) Crimes Act: Sequence 6. And a further offence pursuant to s 66DC(b) Crimes Act, of incite a child under the age of ten to carry out a sexual act with or towards the person: Sequence 7. Section 66DC offences carry maximum penalties of 7 years.

6. His guilty pleas in the Local Court took place after engaging in the early appropriate guilty plea program. The utilitarian value of the plea requires I reduce each sentence by 25%. The guilty plea had other values. It involved some acceptance of responsibility. In particular, he spared the child from having to prepare for and participate in, a trial. These are important matters that must also be taken into account: R v Thompson, R v Houlten [2000] NSWCCA 309; (2000) 49 NSWLR 383 at [3].

No traversal of the guilty pleas

7. The guilty plea entered in the Local Court and adhered to today must be considered final. A plea of guilty constitutes an admission of the essential elements of the offence charged. There was, on the material before me, a deliberate and fully informed decision to plead guilty.

8. A person may plead guilty on grounds which extend beyond the person’s belief in his guilt. He may do so for all manner of reasons, for example, to avoid worry, inconvenience or expense, to avoid publicity, to protect his family or friends or in the hope of obtaining a more lenient sentence than he would if convicted after a plea of not guilty. The entry of a plea of guilty upon grounds such as these, nevertheless, constitutes an admission of all the elements of the offence: Meissner v The Queen [1995] HCA 41; (1994-1995) 184 CLR 132.

Maximum penalties and standard non-parole periods

9. The maximum penalties noted above are important guides to the exercise of my sentencing discretion. Content must be given to any standard non-parole period. The maximums and where applicable the standard non-parole period convey to the Court and to the community Parliament’s view of the objective gravity of the offences.

10. Although it is sometimes useful, I do not find it helpful to compare and contrast the actual offence with an abstract one. Nor am I required to identify features of the offence which were or not taken into account when considering the role of the non-parole period: Tepania v R [2018] NSWCCA 247 [103]-[120]; Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), s 54B(6).

11. Further, I cannot engage in a staged approach to sentencing nor should I fix on a non-parole period and then oscillate my ultimate sentence or those to be indicated around it. There is on the material before me, including each plea of guilty, and the circumstances of each offence and the circumstances of the offender, reasons to move from the non-parole period here.

Agreed Facts

12. Miner was born in 1970. He and the child’s mother had a 12 year relationship. They separated in 2018. After the separation the child would live with her mother but would spend weekends with her father.

The first incident – Sequence 2

13. When the child was about five years old, she was with her father at the home she shared with him on the weekends. He showed her videos and photographs of naked women on his mobile phone. He pointed out women’s genitals and talked about genital hair. He told the child to open her legs and used his hands to touch her vagina. That is the first offence for sentence: Sequence 2.

14. The facts reveal that at the time the offender and the victim were naked. Of itself, I draw no adverse inference against the offender for that fact. It is not uncommon for nakedness, absent sexualised behaviour, to be accepted in some families.

The second incident – Sequences 4, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10

15. The next event occurred when the child was about eight years old. It occurred in her bedroom at his home. The offender showed the child videos and photographs of naked women at the beach and pointed out the women’s genitals to the child. He then opened the child’s legs, exposing her vagina. He touched her vagina using his hands. The child described him “playing with” her vagina: Sequence 4.

16. The offender then touched the victim’s chest with his hands: Sequence 8. He touched the child’s buttocks with his hands: Sequence 9. He told the child to remove her underwear. He moved closer to her on the bed and placed his penis on her vaginal area: Sequence 10.

17. After this act he pulled the child to the bathroom where he sat on the toilet and masturbated until ejaculation. The child was required to watch him. At the time he and the child were naked. He showed his ejaculate to the child: Sequence 6. He placed some into his own mouth and then asked her to taste it. She refused. He then told her to go to bed: Sequence 7.

Disclosure

18. The child made her first disclosures to her mother. Police were contacted and Miner has had no access to the child since that date. He was arrested on 21 September 2023 and has been in custody ever since.

19. He agreed to participate in an Electronically Recorded Interview. He made the admissions I have referred to in relation to the nude photographs. He told police he did what he did because his daughter had been asking questions about what happens when she grows up. He admitted he may have touched her vagina. He said she would have opened her legs herself. However, he also told police he told the child to open her legs and admitted using his hands to, as he said, “explain” parts of the vagina to the child. He told police he did this because the child was asking about the layout of her genitals.

20. He also admitted to showing the child his own genitals. At the time he denied masturbating or ejaculating in front of the child, but by his plea, he has admitted the elements of those offences.

An issue in dispute

21. There are “Agreed Facts” for sentence before the Court. One asserted fact is very much in dispute, that is, the offender’s motivation. He told police in the police interview, par 14, that while he admitted showing the complainant nude photographs, he did this as the victim had been asking questions about what happens when she grows up. He also asserted to psychologists, who prepared reports for the Court, that he was just trying to help the child in her psychosexual development, he was acting out of love and concern for her and that she had exaggerated what had occurred because of misunderstandings and her imagination.

22. The bald facts for sentence are set out in the Agreed Facts: Exhibit A. The offender’s statements to the psychologist were self-serving and intended to be exculpatory. Considerable caution should be exercised if any reliance is placed upon material where there is no evidence given by the offender and no direct evidence is placed before the Court to support those assertions: R v Elfar [2003] NSWCCA 358.

23. The assertions made by the offender to his psychologists were included in the reports, but they were neither endorsed nor parroted by them. Rather, what was said helped them form, to the extent they could, their professional opinions and helped them in their assessment of him.

24. It is clear, from a close reading of both reports, that neither accepted those statements at face value; and nor do I. Dr Klamer noted, at par 40, what appeared to her to be avoidance-based coping strategies, utilising sex as a primary form of coping. Miner’s emotional and sexual self-regulation, it appears became:

“More difficult to control following the breakdown of his relationship … and associated feelings of loneliness and … isolation … [He] … engaged in the offending behaviours, likely having sexualised the victim and view[ing] her as a willing (and hence able to consent) participant.”

25. She notes he still minimises his criminal behaviour.

26. Dr Hughes summarises Dr Klamer’s findings as indicating “cognitive distortions”. He notes that Miner seems to have used sex as a coping strategy and accordingly, sexualised his daughter.

27. This is a brief summary of the material that I raised with the parties during discussion. Where there is a factual dispute, a judge acts upon what is known.

28. I have to make my own assessment of the evidence as part of my overall synthesise of relevant factors. Matters in mitigation must be established on balance of probabilities, matters in aggravation of penalty must be established beyond reasonable doubt. It is also recognised that sometimes a sentencing court must sentence according to what is known or agreed: Olbrich v The Queen [1999] HCA 54; (1999) 199 CLR 270.

29. I sentence according to what is known and the Agreed Facts. On the material before me, I cannot accept the assertions by the offender, nor can I accept the submissions on his behalf based on those instructions made by his counsel, Ms Hogan.

30. On the material before me, supported by the conclusions, albeit guarded, of the two experts there was a sexual element to this offending. To hold otherwise would be to fly in the face of all the evidence.

Objective seriousness

31. A sentence must be proportionate to what was done. Assessing the seriousness of each offence is essential to setting the parameters and appropriate overall sentencing outcome.

32. There is a simple, and what should seem unambiguous, reason why matters such as these will be each be treated as objectively serious offences. There is an absolute prohibition on sexual contact with a child. That prohibition recognises the profound harm exposure to premature sexual activity can cause a child and on any relationship the child has with the perpetrator and the impact disclosure of such matters will have on the family of the child.

33. The offender was the child’s father. He professed care and love for her. He professed to taking an interest in her wellbeing. However, I find that whatever he tells himself, he exploited the child for his own sexual interests.

34. In doing so, he was not thinking of the child, he was thinking of himself. In doing so, he caused her immediate distress, and later, to feel the blame for his separation from her. He has caused his former partner immense harm. And he has potentially caused his child immense harm to her psychosexual development.

35. I have to assess each individual offence. In doing so, I consider and compare the acts or acts done, the character of the sexual touching, the degree of physical contact involved. They are all significant.

36. I take into account the offences occurred at the home where the child resided over weekends, and where she had her own bedroom.

37. The relationship between the offender and the child and their relative ages is important. He obviously had authority over her, and it is also obvious he breached the trust that a child shows to her father. Breach of a position of authority and breach of trust are technically separate concepts, but here they are so inextricably intertwined that care needs to be taken not to double-count these matters: MRWv R [2011] NSWCCA 260.

38. The age of the child relative to the range encompassed by the offence is also relevant. She was five for the first offence, and eight for the second series of offences. There was some persistence, but I am sentencing for the two distinct incidents reported by the child and soon after admitted by the offender.

39. Submissions were made as to where in the range the matters should fall. The law is more nuanced than what can be revealed by simple labels. Each act was serious. Some because of the nature of the touching or the object, particularly the penis, used to touch and the length of time over which the events occurred were more seriousness.

40. Some of the offences, Sequences 8 and 9, were, if taken out of context, entirely innocent. It is the context that gave them their sexual component, for without that sexual component they would otherwise be seen as normal parent / child activity.

41. The seriousness of each matter individually will be reflected in the indicted sentences. The collective seriousness of the two incidents will be reflected in the aggregate sentence to be imposed. As I have indicated earlier, each offence was so serious that custodial sentences must be imposed. As they vary in seriousness, the indicated sentences will reflect the relative seriousness between them.

Victim impact

42. The child’s mother read a careful, considered and although calmly given, emotional, Victim Impact Statement on behalf of the child and herself.

43. The disclosure and the subsequent removal of her father from the community has had an impact on her; an impact on her mother. First and foremost, she noted, their child is still young, and she has lost her father. She has no contact with him, and she may never have contact with him. She, in a sense, blames herself for her disclosure. As her mother made clear, and I endorse, she should not.

44. What will occur in the future we cannot predict. The effects of child sexual abuse can depend on many, many factors. The symptoms or constellations that follow may vary, depending upon the child’s environment and in particular, the amount of love and support the child receives. And it is clear that she is getting full love and support from her mother and others.

45. I have to consider the degree of disruption to the family that follows the abuse disclosure. She has lost a significant other, her father, as a consequence of his actions.

46. The diversity of abuse experiences means the outcomes of child sexual abuse will also be diverse. Judges have received information about those matters to assist them in assessing such matters: D T Kenny, “The Social Dynamics and Impacts of Institutional Child Sexual Abuse” (September 2017) 29 Judicial Officer’s Bulletin 8.

47. My own experience, as I after the Victim Impact Statement was read to the Court, is that reducing the burdens on the child and the mother is consistent with “turning down the volume” and focusing on the future and the child’s health and wellbeing.

48. To that extent, referring to what I said earlier, the early guilty pleas have to be taken into account; they show he still has some concern for the child and the mother.

The case for the offender

49. Miner did not give evidence. He provided Dr Hughes and Dr Klamer with material about his background; which is uncontroversial.

50. While a judge is entitled to be sceptical of opinions unsupported by factual details, there is no reason here to doubt the professional opinions of the psychologists; they appear well founded. As I noted earlier, they did not uncritically parrot claims by the offender, who did not give evidence, nor were any expressions by him reported without proper evaluation and professional context: Devaney v R [2012] NSWCCA 285 at [88]; Ryan v R [2017] NSWCCA 209 at [9]-[10]; R v JDX; JDX v R [2017] NSWCCA 9.

51. The offender is now 54. He has one matter on his criminal record which for all intents and purposes, I can ignore.

52. Dr Klamer referred the matter to Dr Hughes because of concerns about neurodivergence. She wanted an assessment on that specific topic. Her report, to the extent she could, detailed Miner’s attitude to his offending. She applied her training and gave her opinions to the history she had been given.

53. She considered his family and development history. She concluded he was raised within a large and dysfunctional family. His father died by suicide when he was very young. There are allegations other members of the family had engaged in sexual abuse. But there is no evidence before me the offender himself was a victim. But there is evidence of indirect exposure to the impacts of physical violence, substance abuse and mental health disorders suffered by his father and later his mother. Another brother committed suicide. There are reports of sexual assault by a brother on his own family members.

49. Dr Klamer was concerned about Miner’s offence minimisation which made it difficult for her to make a direct link between developmental experiences and his offending. But she noted the absence of a father figure and the likely impacts on him of an overly protective mother.

50. She also notes that there was some evidence of bullying as a child, but he appears to have been academically gifted. He lost time at school at the time of his brother’s suicide. At an early age he was attracted to music. He was able to find a career in the music industry with some success.

51. Working in that industry was consistent with his holding fairly open attitudes to sexual relationships, with his partners and others. This may, Dr Klamer postulates at par 28, have had an impact on his behaviour. It, following the separation from his former partner “allowed him to view the [child] in a sexual manner and / or resulted in him engaging in such sexual activities [as alleged] to cope with his underlying feelings of loneliness and social isolation”.

52. He reports lifetime abstinence from illicit substances, although he had some history of alcohol abuse while young. That stopped many years ago.

53. He told her that he is spending time in custody on special management area protection and that he is slowly becoming comfortable to being in custody.

54. She assesses him as, in the lead-up and at the time of the offence, to have been experiencing symptoms consistent with a diagnosis of Major Depressive Disorder. Other matters she could not formally assess. That is one reason why she asked for a further assessment

55. She notes as a possibility, that one coping mechanism for his history, background and the damage that it may have done to him was – utilising sex as a primary form of coping. She notes, at par 40, his emotional and sexual self-regulation appears to have been more difficult to control following the breakdown of his relationship with the child’s mother.

56. She says that a Major Depressive Disorder, can be triggered during times of adversity, can manifest in psychological vulnerability. She recommends neuropsychological assessment and a criminogenic treatment program be engaged in, as well as mental health treatment and support. A copy of her report will go to Community Corrections.

57. Dr Hughes reviewed Dr Klamer’s conclusions about Miner noting what she describes as “cognitive distortions”, in particular his maintaining his account that his behaviour was about teaching her about her body and sex. She reitertates many of the matters raised by Dr Klamer.

58. Dr Hughes’ final assessment, so far as neurodivergence is concerned, is that Miller did not appear to be, overall, outside the variations in a neurotypical population.

59. She noted that he had no relevant conditions or characteristics that appear likely to have affected his ability to understand the inappropriateness or seriousness of his actions.

60. She noted that targeted treatment of criminogenic factors needs be further explored either by custodial or community-based programs. And she noted that no relevant conditions appear present which would influence the commission of the offences, despite reported poor mental health and socialisation which would have, in her opinion, contributed to some poor decisions regarding his own needs and internal justifications of them.

61. Those reports help inform me about the man for sentence today. His background (which involved exposure as a child to a number of adverse matters) impeded, as is clear, his forming of a moral compass. His moral culpability is not to be assessed in the same way as a person who did not have those significant disadvantages and the other matters that impacted on him when a child. I will give them full weight: Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; (2013) 249 CLR 571 at [43].

62. He has a depressive illness. His mental illness has to be considered and taken into account. An illness may mean his time in custody is harder than other prisoners, but he appears to have adjusted to living in gaol. I do not underestimate the lived experience of gaol. And it would seem, on the material before me, unlikely that he would get any further help while he is in custody. He certainly needs further help which will have to be delivered in the community.

63. A submission was made by Ms Hogan that there is a causal link between his depressive illness and the commission of the offences. While I accept that sexual behaviour was used as a maladaptive coping mechanism, such a direct link was not found by Dr Hughes, and I could not find it either. That does not mean I do not take into account his mental illness. It is one important factor that has to be considered when this sentence is formulated and how I structured. It requires some measure of leniency. And it helps me understand the person for sentence.

Good character

69. Miner was, prior to commencing committing these offences, a person of good character, something I have to take into account in mitigation of penalty. He does not fall within the statutory exception to this rule: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act, s 21A(5A). There is no way that the offences occurred because of his good character, as he was the child’s father and thus had access to her in the ordinary way.

70. There are some classes of offences where character may carry less weight and I was referred in submissions to R v PGM [2008] NSWCCA 172 at [43]–[44]. That matter involved a pattern of repeated offending over many months, and a relationship deliberately fostered for sexual gratification. This matter does not fall into that category.

71. That said, the moment he offended against his child when she was five years old Miner no longer had the good character that others in the community have bestowed on him.

72. His prior good character is relevant, and I do take that fact into account. Everything depends on the circumstances of the case.

Totality

73. I am required to impose an appropriate sentence for each matter to be indicated and structure the sentence so that it is just and appropriate to the totality of his crimes: Mill v The Queen [1988] HCA 70; (1988) 166 CLR 59 at [62]-[63].

74. I have to evaluate his individual and overall criminality. Not infrequently, a straightforward arithmetical addition is inappropriate. Here, I have to consider the whole of the circumstances, in particular that six of the offences relate to one incident, but they are separate aspects of that incident, and one sentence could not properly reflect what was done: R v Holder; R v Johnston [1983] 3 NSWLR 245 at 260 (Street CJ); R v Van Ryn [2016] NSWCCA 1 at [228]-[230]. At the same time, while there is no discount for multiple offending, I have to synthesise a just and appropriate sentence that properly reflects all that he did and the purposes of sentencing which apply to each indicated sentence, but more in particular here, the aggregate sentence I will indicate.

Special circumstances

75. The offender will need help adjusting to normal community life on release. He will need, as the reports indicate, treatment to help him avoid and deal with his maladaptive coping mechanisms. I will extend his period on parole by a finding of special circumstances. I am mindful however that the minimum period he must spend in custody must properly reflect what he did and the other purposes of sentencing: R v Simpson [2001] NSWCCA 534; 53 NSWLR 704 at [59].

Submissions

76. I have been assisted by careful submissions by Mr Taylor, for the Director, and both oral and written submissions by Ms Hogan, for the offender. She submits that Miner has good prospects for the future. I accept that he has only offended in the way outlined. And if he receives the treatment he needs, and if he uses his time in custody to reflect on what he did, it is highly unlikely he will offend as he did ever again. But given his minimisation and lack of insight, any finding as to prospects must be guarded.

Synthesis

77. I have sought to summarise all of the material which has been put before me. I have to take into account all that material; some aggravate, some mitigate, there are no golden rules: R v Geddes (1936) 36 SR (NSW) 554 at [555]-[556]; Markarian at [65]. Giving weight to the conflicting purposes of punishment is what makes this sentencing discretion so difficult.

78. Importantly here, the Court has to recognise potential harm and the actual harm done to the child, not from the physical acts themselves, but from the need the community sees in removing the father from the child and removing the father from the community. The impact on others has to be considered and the impact on the community of offending such as this also has to be considered. The community has a responsibility, along with the courts, for protecting children from being exposed to premature sexual activity.

79. Ultimately, a proper sentence marks the Court’s view of the seriousness of the crimes both individually and collectively. It also lets this offender, and others, know what will happen if they commit similar offences: 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.

Orders

80. I will indicate an aggregate sentence which will date from 20 September 2023. Each indicated sentence will be reduced by 25%.

81. The indicted sentences are:

• In relation to Sequence 2 – 1 year 10 months with a non-parole period of 1 year and 2 months.

• Sequence 4 – 2 years and 4 months with a non-parole period of 1 year and 6 months.

• Sequence 6 – 2 years.

• Sequence 7 – 1 year 6 months.

• Sequence 8 – 9 months, non-parole period 6 months.

• Sequence 9 – 9 months, non-parole period 6 months.

• Sequence 10 – 3 years, non-parole period 1 year 11 months.

82. The term of the sentence is 6 years, the non-parole period is 4 years. It will commence on 20 September 2023, making the offender eligible for consideration for release to parole on 19 September 2027. The balance of the term of 2 years will commence on 20 September 2027. The aggregate sentence will expire on 19 September 2029.

High Risk Offender warning

83. I am told that the offence falls within the category of offending that requires a High Risk Offender warning. This means that if you do not engage with Correctives in the treatment that is recommended, you may not only be refused parole, but additional conditions could be placed on you when you are released to parole. The need for additional conditions may even extend, if necessary, to when you have served this sentence. You are advised to co-operate with Probation and Parole and Corrections.

84. A copy of the two reports will go with the warrant.

**********

Decision last updated: 08 April 2025