R v Ramon

[2020] NSWDC 858

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

R v Ramon [2020] NSWDC 858

Hearing dates:

17/9/20-1/10/20, 26/11/20, 15/12/20

Date of orders:

15/12/20

Decision date:

15 December 2020

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Before:

Bourke SC DCJ

Decision:

Convicted and sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 9 years with a NPP of 6 years (23/5/20-22/5/26). I find special circumstances.

The indicative sentences are:

Count 5 – 5 years 6 months with NPP 3 years 8 months.

Count 7 – 3 years 3 months with NPP 2 years 1 month.

Count 8 – 2 years 1 month.

Count 9 – 3 years 6 months with NPP 2 years 4 months.

Count 10 – 2 years.

Count 11 – 2 years with NPP 16 months.

Count 14 – 1 year 2 months.

Count 15 – 3 years 9 months with NPP 2 years 5 months.

Count 16 – 2 years.

Count 17 – 6 years with NPP 4 years.

Count 19 – 3 years with NPP 2 years.

Catchwords:

Crime – Sentence – Aggravated sexual intercourse 10 to 14 years – Indecent assault under 16 years - Aggravated incite or commit act of indecency with or towards a child under 16 years

Legislation Cited:

Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

Cases Cited:

NT v R [2007] NSWCCA 143

R v MJR (2002) 54 NSWLR 368

R v PGM [2008] 187 A Crim R 152

Category:

Sentence

Parties:

NSW DPP – Crown
Shane Ramon - Offender

Representation:

Ms C Hurford for Crown
Mr L Brasch for Offender

File Number(s):

2018/44640

Publication restriction:

Non-publication order in relation to the identity of the complainants and the mother of the complainants.

SENTENCE

1. I note in this matter of Mr Ramon that there is a statutory provision which prohibits any person from publishing the names or any details which might identify either of the complainants in the matter, whose names I will be referring to. However, as I have said, that provision prevents their names being published elsewhere.

2. The offender, Mr Shane Ramon, stood trial before a jury between 17 September and 30 September this year on an indictment containing 19 counts. Those counts alleged sexual offences against two children, AB and BB. On 30 September 2020 the jury returned a verdict of guilty in relation to 11 of those 19 counts, namely counts 5 and 7 concerning AB and counts 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16 and 19 concerning BB.

THE OFFENCES

3. In all, the offender is to be sentenced for the following offences: Two offences of aggravated sexual intercourse, those being counts 5 and 17, with a child aged 10 to 14 years. That is an offence under section 66C(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) for which the maximum penalty is 20 years' imprisonment and for which a standard non-parole period of nine years is specified. Five offences of indecent assault of a child under 16 years of age, that being an offence under section 61M(2), the maximum penalty for which is ten years' imprisonment and for which a standard non-parole period of eight years is specified.

4. Four offences of aggravated incite or commit act of indecency with or towards a child under 16 years, that being an offence under section 61O(1) of the Crimes Act, for which a maximum of five years' imprisonment is specified.

5. The maximum penalties and, where applicable, standard non-parole periods, are of course guide posts in the sentencing exercise to which I have had regard.

FACTS

6. The facts of the 11 offences have been set out by the Crown in a document, which is accepted by counsel for the offender as accurately setting out the evidence given at trial. The facts are as follows. The victims of the offences, as I have said, are AB and BB, who are the daughters of CB (mother) and DB (father). The two persons separated in about 2012, after which they had shared custody of the girls. The offender entered into a relationship with CB in about 2012 and thereafter he took on a role which was essentially that of a stepfather. Subsequently the offender and CB had a son together, who was born in 2013.

7. The offence in count 5 is one of aggravated sexual intercourse with a person between the ages of 10 and 14 years. This offence occurred in about October to December 2017 when AB was about 13 years old and was at home with the offender when her mother had gone out to buy some milk. The offender asked AB if she could give him a back massage, something she had apparently done before. AB agreed and the two went to the offender's bedroom, where AB sat on top of the offender while he lay on the bed face down. She then gave him a back massage.

8. While this was occurring, the offender reached back with his hand and slipped it through the bottom of the shorts AB was wearing and into her vagina. Digital penetration of this kind is of course within the extended definition of sexual intercourse within the Crimes Act. The offender alternated between several fingers for a while, sometimes removing them to lick his fingers. This went on for about five minutes. At the time of the offence AB was under the authority of the offender, who was her stepfather.

9. Count 7 is an offence of indecent assault of a child aged under 16 years. This offence occurred when AB was aged about 13 years. On an occasion between about January and February 2018, AB and her brother were in the offender's vehicle, having just dropped off a friend of the offender's at an address in Glenmore Park. As they were travelling home, AB was seated in the front passenger seat while her brother was asleep in the back. The offender, while driving, pulled down his pants and started to touch his penis. He did this with his left hand while using his right hand on the steering wheel.

10. While doing this, the offender continued to talk to AB normally, as if nothing was happening, although no doubt with the intention that she see what he was doing. The offender then took hold of AB’s hand and pulled it towards his penis, but she pulled away from him and leaned towards the window. The offender then started to rub AB's thigh and tried also to put his hand under her clothes in the area of her thigh. However, she pushed his hand away and he went back to rubbing his penis. He eventually stopped when they arrived home.

11. Count 8 is an offence of aggravated incitement of a person under 16 years to commit an act of indecency. That offence occurred between about July 2014 and September 2016 when the family resided at Couridjah with the offender's parents. The offence occurred when the offender and BB were in the garage. BB was sitting on a bench in the garage and the offender stood in front of her. The offender made BB touch his penis. BB did so because she was scared. BB said to the offender that she "did not want to do it", however, the offender said, "It was fine."

12. The offence in count 9 is an offence of indecent assault which occurred between 1 July 2014 and 30 September 2016, also at Couridjah. This offence occurred while still in the garage when the offender touched BB on her breasts, bottom and vagina, underneath her clothes with his fingers, and removed her leggings and shirt.

13. The offence in count 10 is an offence of aggravated act of indecency towards a person under 16 years of age. The circumstance of aggravation is that the victim was under the authority of the offender at the time. This incident occurred in the ensuite bathroom which adjoined the offender's parents' bedroom at the Couridjah home and it occurred while the offender's parents were on holidays. On that occasion the offender went into the ensuite bathroom and instructed BB to "come in in a couple of minutes". A few minutes later BB opened the sliding door to the bathroom a little bit, and when she did she saw the offender with no clothes on. The offender's phone, she could see, was on top of the toilet, and the offender was standing in front of the phone watching pornography and masturbating. BB "freaked out" and walked away.

14. The offence in count 11 is an offence of committing an act of indecency on a child under the age of 16 years. This offence occurred between July 2014 and September 2016 while the family were still residing at Couridjah.

15. On this occasion the offender, who was naked, walked into the bathroom while BB was having a shower. He then started kissing BB on the cheek, however, the offender left after BB told him to go away and leave her alone.

16. The offence in count 14 is an offence of inciting a child under the age of 16 years to commit an act of indecency with the offender in circumstances where she was under his authority. This offence occurred on an occasion between about July and December 2017, at a time when the family were residing at Glebe Place in Penrith. At the time, BB was sitting at a desk in her bedroom doing some homework while the rest of the family was getting ready for dinner. On this occasion the offender came into her bedroom and stood next to her at the desk and asked her to touch his penis. The offender said, "Can you touch my penis, please," but BB said, "No." The offender then got angry and said, "Please." However, BB again said, "No, I don't want to. Now, leave me alone", to which the offender reacted by stomping out of the room.

17. Count 15 is an offence of indecent assault upon a child under the age of 16 years. That offence occurred between July and December 2017, again when the family were residing in Penrith. On this occasion BB was in her bedroom, having just come out of the shower. She was drying off and had no clothes on at the time. The offender came into her room wearing no clothes. The offender positioned himself behind BB, who was standing and trying to get her clothes from the drawer to get dressed. While BB was facing away from the offender, the offender, who was standing behind her, started to rub his penis on her vagina. He rubbed it on the outside of her vagina but it did not go inside. She told him to stop and told him that he cannot do that to her. The offender then got angry and left the room.

18. Count 16 is an offence of committing an act of indecency on a person under the age of 16 years in circumstances of aggravation, in that the person was under the authority of the offender. This offence occurred between about July 2017 and February 2018 at Penrith. On this occasion BB was in the shower and the offender opened the bathroom door and walked in, masturbating. The offender asked BB to watch him masturbate, to which she initially said, "No," but then eventually said, "Yes, fine."

19. Count 17 is an offence of sexual intercourse with a child between the ages of ten and 14 years in circumstances of aggravation, namely that the child was under the authority of the offender at the time. This occurred on the same occasion to which I have just referred, when the offender pulled BB out of the shower and tried to have penile vaginal intercourse with her. She said, "No." At the time her feet and hands were on the floor at the end of the shower door while the offender was near the shower door. He was not wearing a condom. BB said that the offender's penis went "half in, but I pushed him away. I said, 'No.' It went in a bit and it hurt." At that time BB mother came home and the offender ran out of the bathroom. Before doing so, however, he said to her, "You can't tell anyone. I'm going to get in big trouble if you tell."

20. The final offence which is the subject of count 19 is an offence of indecent assault of a child under the age of 16 years. This offence occurred between about 1 December 2017 and 9 February 2018, but it is agreed that the likely occasion was just after Christmas 2017 when BB was still 11 years old. At the time BB was half asleep in her bed during the night and at some point during that night she realised that the offender was also in her room and was touching her with his fingers. He touched her on the breasts and vagina, under her clothes but on top of her underwear. She eventually fell asleep again and was not sure when the offender stopped touching her.

OBJECTIVE SERIOUSNESS

21. Those are the facts of the offences for which I must sentence Mr Ramon. Clearly each of the offences for which he is to be sentenced are serious. This is marked firstly by the maximum penalties, and where applicable, the standard non-parole periods. In addition, however, and as is well known, sexual offending against children by an adult is regarded with extreme abhorrence in our community. This has become particularly so in recent decades, given the realisation of just how common and how damaging such offences are.

22. It is, as the Crown submitted, for this reason that considerable emphasis must be placed on the need for general deterrence. In accordance with the acceptance of just how prevalent and serious child sexual abuse is, the courts have acknowledged a change in community attitudes to such offences and have emphasised the need for serious punishment to be imposed. As was said by the then president of the Court of Appeal, Keith Mason, in R v MJR (2002) 54 NSWLR 368:

"The pattern of increasing sentences for child sexual assault matters 'has come about in response to greater understanding about the long-term effects of child sexual abuse...as well as by a considered judicial response to changing community attitudes.'"

23. In assessing the objective seriousness of the offences before the Court, one of the important factors is the nature of the sexual act involved. In R v PGM [2008] 187 A Crim R 152, Fullerton J said:

"While there is no hierarchy of sexual acts that constitute sexual intercourse for the purposes of the criminal law, it is generally accepted that some forms of sexual activity may be regarded as more serious than others. This is, of course, necessarily modified by the context in which the offence occurred and other circumstances of the particular offending."

24. In general terms, as the Crown submitted, penile penetration is often regarded as being more serious than acts such as fellatio, cunnilingus and digital penetration, but of course each case must be determined on its own facts, and although the nature of the sexual act is important, it is not the sole consideration. Rather, I must take into account a range of factors, including how the offences took place and their character, the age difference between the victim and the offender, as well as the specific age of the child within the age range specified in the offence, as well as the duration of the offence and the effects on the victim. Generally speaking, the younger the child, the more vulnerable and defenceless he or she will be, and accordingly, the more serious the criminality.

25. The offence in count 5 involving sexual intercourse with a child under 14 years of age is an offence which contains, as an element of the offence, that the victim was under the authority of the offender. AB was 13 at the time of this offence, which is towards the upper end of the age threshold for this type of offence. The offender was significantly older, at 37 to 38 years of age. The offence involved digital penetration of the vagina, and I accept the Crown's submission that it was an opportunistic offence rather than one involving any significant planning. However, it did go on for a period of time and it is aggravated by reason that it was committed in the victim's home, where she should have been entitled to feel safe. The Crown submitted that this offence falls at or slightly above the mid-range of objective seriousness. However, in my view, its objective seriousness lies slightly below the mid-range.

26. Count 7 also involved AB. This offence occurred between about January and February 2018, when she was 13 and the offender was 38 years old. It is an offence of indecent assault of a child aged under 16. As AB was 13 at the time, she was fairly significantly under the upper age range for this type of offence. Again, the offence was opportunistic in that it did not involve any planning. The offender masturbated in front of AB and attempted to have her hand touch his penis and also rubbed her on the thigh and attempted to place his hand under her clothing.

27. While there is no clear evidence as to the duration of the offending in this case, I am satisfied that, given the order of events, it went on for some time and was certainly not fleeting. The offence did not involve skin on skin contact, however, it was committed in circumstances where AB was under the offender's authority, and this aggravates the offence, given that this is not an element of that charge. I accept the Crown's submission that this offence falls below the mid-range of objective seriousness, but certainly not within the low range.

28. The remaining offences involved BB. Count 8 is an offence of inciting BB to commit an act of indecency with the offender in circumstances of aggravation in that she was under his authority. This offence was committed in conjunction with the offence in count 9, being an indecent assault. These two offences occurred between about July 2014 and September 2016. At that time BB was between the ages of eight and ten, while the offender was between the ages of about 34 to 36 years. There was thus a significant disparity between their ages. Also, at the time of the offences, BB was significantly younger than the 16-year upper threshold for these offences.

29. The offences occurred in a garage at the family home, which is an aggravating feature, because the victim was entitled to feel safe in her home. Each of the offences appears to have been fairly opportunistic rather than involving planning. The count 8 offence involved skin to skin contact, in that the offender made BB touch his penis. Similarly, the count 9 offence involved skin to skin contact, when the offender touched BB on her breasts, bottom and vagina. At the time, BB was under the authority of the offender, however, this is an element of the count 8 offence and does not further aggravate it, but this is an aggravating feature of the count 9 offence. I regard each of these offences as being just into the mid-range of objective seriousness.

30. Count 10 is an offence of committing an act of indecency towards BB, which occurred between about July 2014 and September 2016. At the time, BB was between the ages of eight and ten, while the offender was between the ages of about 34 to 36. There was clearly, therefore, a significant age disparity. Again, the offender was in a position of authority, however, this is an element and not an aggravating feature for the purposes of sentence. At the time BB was significantly under the 16-year age threshold.

31. The offence occurred in the home then occupied by BB, which is an aggravating feature. I accept that the offence was somewhat opportunistic, although it did involve some planning by reason of the offender's request to BB that she come into the bathroom "in a couple of minutes," which she did, at which time she saw the offender masturbating while watching pornography. The offence did not involve any direct physical contact. I accept the Crown's submission that this offence falls below the mid-range, although not in the low range.

32. Count 11 is another offence of indecent assault of BB. At the time of this offence, which also occurred between about July 2014 and September 2016, BB was between the ages of about eight and ten and the offender between the ages of 34 to 36 years, which is of course a significant disparity. Again, at the time BB was significantly under the 16-year age threshold. The offence involved the offender, who was naked, walking into the bathroom while BB was in the shower and kissing her on the cheek but leaving when she told him to go away. Again, the offence occurred in the family home, which is an aggravating feature. The offence is also aggravated by reason that BB was under the offender's authority at the time. I agree with the Crown's submission that this offence falls towards the lower range of objective seriousness, although not at the bottom of that range.

33. Count 14 is an offence in which the offender incited BB, between about July and December 2017, when she was about 11 years old, to commit an act of indecency by asking that she touch his penis, which she refused to do. At the time she was significantly under the 16-year threshold and there was a significant disparity in age, in that the offender was 37 or 38 years old. Again, the offence occurred in the victim's home, which aggravates its seriousness. It was somewhat opportunistic and did not involve any actual physical contact. At the time BB was under the authority of the offender. However, this is an element and not a matter in aggravation on sentence. I assess the objective seriousness of this offence as being within the lower range of objective seriousness.

24. Count 15 is an offence of indecent assault which occurred between about July and December 2017, when BB was about 11 years of age and the offender was 37 or 38 years of age. The age difference, again, involves considerable disparity and BB was significantly, again, under the 16-year threshold. The offence is aggravated also because it occurred in the family home. This offence was opportunistic and occurred in circumstances where BB was under the authority of the offender, which aggravates its seriousness. The offence involved the offender being naked at a time when BB had just finished showering and involved him standing behind her and rubbing his penis against her vagina. I assess the objective seriousness as being within the mid-range.

25. Count 16 and count 17 occurred during one incident which took place between about July 2017 and February 2018. At that time, BB was 11 years of age and the offender was 37 or 38. In relation to count 16, BB's age, being 11, was significantly under the 16-year threshold for this type of offence; and in relation to count 17, was also well under, although to a lesser extent, the threshold of 14 years for that offence. The offences occurred in the family home, which aggravates their seriousness. Each of the offences, I accept, was opportunistic rather than involving significant planning. I assess the objective seriousness of the count 16 offence as being below the mid-range, although not within the low range. As to count 17, the objective seriousness, which involved the offender inserting his penis partially into BB's vagina without the use of a condom, as being slightly below the mid-range for an offence of this type.

26. Count 19 involved an offence of indecent assault committed between December 2017 and February 2018 when BB was also 11 years of age. The offender at that time was 37 or 38. There was therefore a significant disparity between their ages. Also, BB was significantly under the 16-year threshold for this offence. The offence occurred in her bedroom at her home, which is an aggravating feature. Also, at the time of the offence, BB was under the authority of the offender, which aggravates the seriousness. Again, it was an opportunistic offence not involving any planning. In my view, this offence, which involved the offender touching BB with his fingers on the breasts and vagina under her clothes, although on top of her underwear, lies slightly below the mid-range of objective seriousness.

27. Victim impact statements from AB and BB were admitted on the sentence and AB read her statement aloud in Court. Each of those statements speak eloquently about the damaging effects that the offender's actions had on them. Each of them speak about the confusion and sense of betrayal that no doubt arises from offences like those before the Court. As AB put it in her statement, "Why would you not be able to trust a parental figure?"; and as BB said in hers, "The first time it happened I was scared and confused about what was happening to me. I thought it was normal so I pushed it aside, but when I got older I figured out it was wrong. I was scared all the time around you."

28. In accordance with authority, I do not treat the contents of these victim impact statements as establishing any feature that aggravates any of the offences, however, the passages that I have just noted are entirely consistent with the sense of helpless confusion and betrayal that will ordinarily be expected to arise from offences of this kind. As Harrison J put it in NT v R [2007] NSWCCA 143 at paragraph 38:

"Little children are entitled to grow up free from defilement by sexual predators and free from risk of psychological upset, confusion and difficulties in later life caused by such conduct. When a child is living in a family situation, he or she is particularly vulnerable to sexual molestation from a male parent or stepparent. The community regards the family unit as one in which each parent is in a position of trust in respect of the child and under a duty to rear it and give it proper guidance and to refrain from using the child for sexual pleasure. The child is usually helpless to protect itself against sexual attack from the parent...One sees in such cases that the child is too embarrassed, too afraid, or develops too great a sense of guilt to complain. When the male parent takes advantage of the helplessness of the child, he not only commits a breach of trust, but it is a cowardly breach of trust. The protector of the child's body, the guide and mentor of the child, in those circumstances has abandoned his proper role in order to gratify his lust on the child."

SUBJECTIVE MATTERS

39. I turn to consider the offender's subjective case. His subjective personal circumstances have been placed before the Court by means of a psychological report and a letter from his partner, CB, who is also the biological mother of AB and BB. CB describes the offender as not being the type of person who would commit these offences and says that she is in shock not only that he was charged, but that he has been found guilty of various offences. She describes him as a selfless human being with a compassionate heart who has dedicated many months to helping in a charity organisation while at the same time struggling with his own anxiety and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. She describes the effects upon herself as devastating, and that she has, in effect, lost any relationship with her daughters.

40. I have no doubt that these matters and the sentence of imprisonment that I must impose on the offender has, and will have in the future, a serious impact on CB and her son, as well as on the offender. However, it is not surprising that CB has lost her relationship with her daughters, given that she refuses to accept the truth of the offences and given that she gave evidence at the trial in support of the offender and in attempted contradiction of the evidence of her daughters. Furthermore, and as CB agreed in her evidence at trial, she has supported the offender and implicitly rejected the versions given by her daughters right from the beginning.

41. Although she was asked more than once by police to provide a statement, she continually refused or failed to do so, but instead chose apparently to accept the offender's denials. Her continued denial of the offender's guilt extends to this day, and she tells psychologist Ms Cullen that, "To this day I still 100% don't believe the allegations." That denial is maintained in circumstances where, as CB agreed in her evidence at trial, she has never even viewed the police interviews with her own daughters. It also flies in the face of the evidence given by both AB and BB at trial, which, in my view, was compelling and believable.

42. While I take into account the undoubted and huge impact that these events have had and will continue to have on CB, the weight I can attach to this in sentencing the offender is limited. I also accept that the prison term to be imposed will have a very significant adverse impact on the offender's son. However, no submission was made to me that the impact on family in this case is such as to amount to the type of exceptional hardship discussed in the case law. The undoubted hardship that will be suffered by CB and by her son is a matter I have taken into account in a general way, but it is not a matter that operates to significantly reduce the sentence that must be imposed in this case.

43. The psychological report, which was not supported by evidence from the offender, sets out his background and his current circumstances. According to that report, he is the middle of three sons born to his parents. He described his childhood as being free of abuse or deprivation, and in short, that it was a very good and supportive upbringing. He still maintains a close and supportive relationship with his parents and older brother. The offender is now almost 41 years of age. He apparently left school after completing year 10 and then worked for a time in bricklaying with his father. At age 36 he says he completed years 10 to 12 at TAFE. His work history is reasonably consistent, comprising construction work, driving an Uber taxi and at one stage operating a cafe.

44. Although he has a history of some alcohol and cannabis use, this has never been a significant problem for him. He does, however, have some significant health problems. Since about age 20 he has been suffering from kidney stones and has had three to four operations to deal with this problem. This has involved, according to the offender's report, significant discomfort and pain, and he claims that it has at times caused erectile dysfunction, typically before and after surgery. The psychologist reported that the offender has been diagnosed with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, which he says was associated with being assaulted more than once while in custody in 2018.

45. The diagnosis of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and the history of kidney stones and a hernia operation were confirmed by the psychologist in a telephone call to the offender's General Practitioner. The psychologist noted, based on testing, that the offender had elevated signs of cognitive and physiological depression, which suggested the possibility of persistent Depressive Mood Disorder. As such, the offender is likely to be plagued by thoughts of worthlessness, hopelessness and failure, leading to likely sleep disturbance and decreased energy levels and appetite. I take all of this into account in determining the sentence.

46. He is, as noted in the psychological report, now a somewhat frail individual, and I have taken into account the evidence about his physical and mental health issues in determining the appropriate sentence. I have also taken into account the concession made by the Crown to the effect that the offender was, on 1 October 2020, the subject of an assault while in custody. No doubt events of that kind will be likely to increase his fears whilst in custody and to make that custody somewhat more difficult.

47. The offender's criminal history is fairly limited and does not include any prior offences of a sexual nature. It does, however, to some limited degree, disentitle him to the leniency that he would be entitled to if these were his first offences of any kind.

REMORSE AND PROSPECTS OF REHABILITATION

48. The offender maintains his innocence and so there is no remorse. In terms of future risk, the psychologist concluded that the offender lies within the low priority category of risk. However, given the nature of, and period of time over which the offences were committed, and in the absence of an acknowledgement of those offences and some appropriate treatment, I cannot reach a positive view about his prospects of rehabilitation. In my view, his risk of future offending of this kind is uncertain, even though his opportunities for access to children are likely to be limited.

DETERMINATION

49. I am satisfied that the section 5 threshold in the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 has been crossed and that no penalty other than one of full-time imprisonment is appropriate. In forming that view and in determining the appropriate sentence, I have had regard to the purposes of sentencing set out in section 3A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act.

50. I intend to impose an aggregate sentence. The aggregate sentence that I impose will be a head sentence of nine years' imprisonment and a non-parole period of six years' imprisonment.

51. I am required to indicate the sentences that I would have imposed for each of the relevant offences if I was dealing with them separately, and I will now do that. For count 5, five years six months with a non-parole period of three years eight months. For count 7, three years three months with a non-parole period of two years one month. For count 8, a head sentence of two years one month. For count 9, a head sentence of three years six months with a non-parole period of two years four months. For count 10, two years' imprisonment. For count 11, two years, with a non-parole of 16 months. For count 14, a term of imprisonment of one year two months. For count 15, three years nine months with a non-parole period of two years five months. For count 16, two years' imprisonment. For count 17, six years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of four years. For count 19, three years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of two years.

52. In determining the aggregate sentence I have had regard to principles of totality. I am conscious of the fact that the aggregate sentence that I have imposed represents only a small percentage of the total of those indicative terms that I have announced. However, that is because I have - as I must - had regard to totality principles and the importance of avoiding a sentence that might have the effect of crushing any prospects of rehabilitation. It was submitted on behalf of the offender that any sentence should commence on 23 May 2020 so as to take into account the time already served and I intend to adopt that approach, which was not strenuously opposed by the Crown.

53. I have found special circumstances for varying the ordinary ratio between head sentence and non-parole period, based upon this being the offender's first period in custody and the need for an extensive period of supervision once he is released to parole. As I have said, I impose an aggregate term of imprisonment of nine years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of six years. That head sentence will expire on 22 May 2029. The non-parole period will expire on 22 May 2026. I direct that a copy of the psychological report which was tendered on sentence be provided to Corrective Services and to Justice Health.

**********

Decision last updated: 02 March 2021