R v Vaughan Mark Hildebrand (No. 1) - [2019] NSWDC 957

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Vaughan Mark Hildebrand (No. 1) [2019] NSWDC 957
Hearing dates: 26 – 27 September 2019
Date of orders: 27 September 2019
Decision date: 27 September 2019
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Tupman DCJ
Decision:

10 offences contrary to s 474.17(1) of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) – Sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 5 years with a 3 year non-parole period.

1 offence contrary to s 474.19(1) of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) – Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 3 years.

11 offences contrary to s 61I of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) – Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 3 years with a non-parole period of 2 years.

1 offence contrary to the common law offence of ‘wilful misconduct in public office’ – Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 3 years.

1 offence contrary to s 7(1) of the Weapons Prohibition 1998 (NSW) – Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 3 years with a non-parole period of 2 years.

2 offences contrary to s 192J of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) – Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 3 years.

Catchwords:

CRIME – Combination of NSW, Commonwealth Offences and Common Law Offence - Sexual intercourse without consent – Use carriage service to menace or harass– Using carriage service to solicit child pornography – Possess prohibited weapon – Dealing with identity information with intent to committing indictable offence – Wilful misconduct in public office – 26 substantive offences – 18 additional offences taken into account on sentencing – 15 female victims – Offending over 10 years aged between 18 and 28 – Offender started offending at 18 years old – Offender was a serving police officer during the later offences – Offender acted callously and in a manipulative way, threatened women, often family friends and work colleagues, into sending sexually explicit photos or engaging in sexual acts online for the purpose of forcing them to engage in sexual intercourse with him – Offender acknowledged guilt, some insight into impact on victims and had relatively good prospects of rehabilitation – PTSD from police service but no connection with offending – Combination of aggregate sentences with indicative terms, fixed terms, separate sentences and assessment partial accumulation of all sentences after assessment of overall criminality.

Legislation Cited:
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) ss 5, 23, 49(2), 53A;
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) ss 61I, 192J;
Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) ss 1B, 16BA;
Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) ss 474.17(1), 474.19(1);
Weapons Prohibition Act 1998 (NSW) s 7(1).

Cases Cited:
R v Obeid (No 12) [2016] NSWSC 1815;
R v Thomson & Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 383;
R v Thomson & Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 383;
RL v R [2018] NSWCCA 274.

Category: Sentence
Parties: The Queen
Vaughan Mark Hildebrand
Representation: Crown Counsel: Mr. John Bowers
Instructing Solicitor: Mr. Daniel Waldmann
Defence Counsel: Mr. Richard Jankowski
Instructing Solicitor: Victoria Havryliv

Grounds of appeal

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

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

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

Consideration

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

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

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Vaughan Mark Hildebrand (No. 1) and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2019] NSWDC 957
Decision Date: 27 September 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Vaughan Mark Hildebrand was a serving police officer who was charged with multiple offences over a period of 10 years. Hildebrand was found guilty of 26 substantive offences and 18 additional offences were taken into account on sentencing. Hildebrand’s offending included using a carriage service to menace or harass, using a carriage service to solicit child pornography, possessing a prohibited weapon, dealing with identity information with intent to committing an indictable offence, and wilful misconduct in public office. Hildebrand engaged in these offences against 15 female victims, aged between 18 and 28, often targeting family friends and work colleagues. Hildebrand’s offending commenced at 18 years old and continued while he was a serving police officer. The court found that Hildebrand acted callously and in a manipulative way, threatening women into sending sexually explicit photos or engaging in sexual acts online for the purpose of forcing them to engage in sexual intercourse with him. Hildebrand acknowledged guilt and had some insight into the impact on his victims. Hildebrand also had relatively good prospects of rehabilitation, although he suffered from PTSD from his police service which had no connection with his offending. The court found that Hildebrand’s offending was serious and required a significant sentence. The court determined that the appropriate sentence would be a combination of aggregate sentences with indicative terms, fixed terms, separate sentences and an assessment of partial accumulation of all sentences after an assessment of Hildebrand’s overall criminality. The court sentenced Hildebrand to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 5 years with a 3 year non-parole period for 10 offences contrary to section 474.17(1) of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth). Hildebrand was also sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 3 years for 1 offence contrary to section 474.19(1) of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth). For 11 offences contrary to section 61I of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), Hildebrand was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 3 years with a non-parole period of 2 years. Hildebrand was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 3 years for 1 offence contrary to the common law offence of ‘wilful misconduct in public office’. For 1 offence contrary to section 7(1) of the Weapons Prohibition 1998 (NSW), Hildebrand was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 3 years with a non-parole period of 2 years. Finally, for 2 offences contrary to section 192J of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), Hildebrand was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 3 years.

Orders

Orders of the court

10 offences contrary to s 474.17(1) of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) – Sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 5 years with a 3 year non-parole period.

1 offence contrary to s 474.19(1) of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) – Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 3 years.

11 offences contrary to s 61I of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) – Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 3 years with a non-parole period of 2 years.

1 offence contrary to the common law offence of ‘wilful misconduct in public office’ – Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 3 years.

1 offence contrary to s 7(1) of the Weapons Prohibition 1998 (NSW) – Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 3 years with a non-parole period of 2 years.

2 offences contrary to s 192J of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) – Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 3 years.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Vaughan Mark Hildebrand (No. 1) [2019] NSWDC 957
Hearing dates:	26 – 27 September 2019
Date of orders:	27 September 2019
Decision date:	27 September 2019
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Tupman DCJ
Decision:	*10 offences contrary to s 474.17(1) of the Criminal Code Act 1995* (Cth) – Sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 5 years with a 3 year non-parole period. 1 offence contrary to s 474.19(1) of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) – Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 3 years. 11 offences contrary to s 61I of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) – Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 3 years with a non-parole period of 2 years. 1 offence contrary to the common law offence of ‘wilful misconduct in public office’ – Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 3 years. 1 offence contrary to s 7(1) of the Weapons Prohibition 1998 (NSW) – Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 3 years with a non-parole period of 2 years. 2 offences contrary to s 192J of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)** – Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 3 years.
Catchwords:	CRIME – Combination of NSW, Commonwealth Offences and Common Law Offence - Sexual intercourse without consent – Use carriage service to menace or harass– Using carriage service to solicit child pornography – Possess prohibited weapon – Dealing with identity information with intent to committing indictable offence – Wilful misconduct in public office – 26 substantive offences – 18 additional offences taken into account on sentencing – 15 female victims – Offending over 10 years aged between 18 and 28 – Offender started offending at 18 years old – Offender was a serving police officer during the later offences – Offender acted callously and in a manipulative way, threatened women, often family friends and work colleagues, into sending sexually explicit photos or engaging in sexual acts online for the purpose of forcing them to engage in sexual intercourse with him – Offender acknowledged guilt, some insight into impact on victims and had relatively good prospects of rehabilitation – PTSD from police service but no connection with offending – Combination of aggregate sentences with indicative terms, fixed terms, separate sentences and assessment partial accumulation of all sentences after assessment of overall criminality.
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) ss 5, 23, 49(2), 53A; Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) ss 61I, 192J; Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) ss 1B, 16BA; Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) ss 474.17(1), 474.19(1); Weapons Prohibition Act 1998 (NSW) s 7(1).
Cases Cited:	R v Obeid (No 12) [2016] NSWSC 1815; R v Thomson & Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 383; R v Thomson & Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 383; RL v R [2018] NSWCCA 274.
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	The Queen Vaughan Mark Hildebrand
Representation:	Crown Counsel: Mr. John Bowers Instructing Solicitor: Mr. Daniel Waldmann Defence Counsel: Mr. Richard Jankowski Instructing Solicitor: Victoria Havryliv