STATE OF TASMANIA v KIM LEE BESTER 10 DECEMBER 2025
COMMENTS ON PASSING SENTENCE SHANAHAN CJ
Under s 194K(1)(b)(i) of the Evidence Act 2001 a person in relation to proceedings in any court, must not publish identifying information, or cause identifying information to be published in respect of any person in respect of whom a crime is alleged to have been committed under s 125B of the Criminal Code 1924 (“Code”). But in this case, the Court has received written advice from the complainant, being a person over the age of 18 years, under s 194K(4) of the Act, dated 20 May 2025, consenting in writing to the publication of identifying information. Hence, these comments do not seek to anonymise the names of those involved.
There are three counts on indictment number 256 of 2023. Ms Bester, you have pleaded guilty to the second and third counts on that indictment which are offences contrary to s 125B(1) of the Criminal Code 1924 (“Criminal Code”), being an indecent act with, or directed at, a child. The first count on the indictment is one of persistent sexual abuse of a child, being contrary to s 125A(2) of the Criminal Code in respect of which your former partner, Darren Pedder, (to whom I will refer to as Mr Pedder) pleaded guilty. The complainant is the same in each of the three counts, she is your daughter.
At a recent hearing on 10 November 2025, I was informed that Mr Pedder’s body had been found on the previous weekend and that once his death was confirmed, the proceedings against Mr Pedder would be abated. His role in the offending on counts 2 and 3, to which you have pleaded guilty, continues to be part of the relevant contextual facts.
I want to make it clear at the outset that I am sentencing you for counts 2 and 3 and not Mr Pedder’s offending at count 1. However, Mr Pedder’s offending is contextually relevant, related to the same complainant and involved you and your relationship with Mr Pedder. For that reason the State read the material facts as they apply to count 1, and I reference them in this sentence, one cannot get an accurate sense of the nature of your offending and its context without reference to Mr Pedder and his offending conduct.
The complainant in this matter is Khloe Elise Daniels, whose date of birth is 17 February 1989. She is your biological daughter and was Mr Pedder’s stepdaughter. The complainant was aged between around 10 and 14 during the offending and she is now 36 years old.
Mr Pedder was born on 28 January 1966. He was aged between 33 and 37 during the offending charged at count 1. He is now deceased. Your date of birth is 20 September 1971, and you were aged around 31 during the offending and you are now aged 54.
You and Mr Pedder began a relationship when the complainant was a very young child, after you had separated from the complainant’s biological father. Your relationship began when the complainant was of such a young age that she does not recall her biological father. Growing up ,the complainant believed that Mr Pedder was her father and she would call him “Dad”. When she was 14, the complainant found out that Mr Pedder was not her biological father.
The complainant lived with you, Mr Pedder and her younger brother and sister at a number of addresses throughout her childhood, including addresses in Glenorchy, New Norfolk, and Chigwell.
While living at the Glenorchy address, the complainant and a cousin had been caught engaging in some exploratory sexual touching. When the complainant returned home, the offender, Mr Pedder, approached her in her bedroom to speak to her about the activity with her cousin.
Mr Pedder asked the complainant how and why she knew so much about sex and she disclosed that she had been subject to sexual abuse from an uncle. He threatened to tell you about this. He made the complainant leave the house.
Mr Pedder then called the complainant back into the house, into her bedroom. He closed the door and said to the complainant that he had decided not to tell you, her mother, about what had been happening between the complainant and her uncle. Mr Pedder then pulled out his penis and told the complainant to touch it, which she did. He then told the complainant to put his penis in her mouth and that she had to suck it. He penetrated her mouth with his penis. Mr Pedder told her not to tell anybody about it. This amounts to occasion 1 in terms of the persistent sexual abuse charge against Mr Pedder, and is alleged to be a rape.
It is alleged that after the abuse of the complainant began Mr Pedder would sexually assault the complainant on a regular basis until she was aged 14.
At the beginning of the period of abuse, Mr Pedder would engage in oral sexual abuse with the complainant by penetrating her mouth with his penis. After some time, he began to touch the complainant’s vagina and would penetrate her vagina with his fingers. He would also perform oral sexual intercourse on her. He showed the complainant pornographic videos, including a video of you, her mother, penetrating your vagina with a sexual aid. The offending conduct escalated to regular anal rapes of the complainant.
Toward the end of 2001, Mr Pedder began to engage in vaginal penile penetration of the complainant. This would occur three to four times a week and would sometimes happen twice in the same day. The offending frequently increased during school holidays. The offender would not wear a condom and the complainant was fearful that she would become pregnant. The complainant was scared to tell Mr Pedder “no”, and complied with the instances of sexual abuse because she believed she had to.
As the complainant came to understand the nature of what Mr Pedder was doing, the complainant feared that Mr Pedder would hurt her if she refused him. She also felt confused about Mr Pedder’s position in her life as they had a good relationship otherwise, and the complainant felt he loved and protected her and she enjoyed being in his company.
It was for these reasons that the complainant did not, at first, disclose what Mr Pedder was doing. Sometime after the abuse began, when the complainant was in the shower, Mr Pedder came in under the guise of helping her to wash her hair. The complainant got out of the shower and dried herself. Mr Pedder told her to put the towel down and to bend over and attempted to penetrate her vagina with his penis but was unable to, given her small stature. He then penetrated her anus with his penis, causing her pain, which is occasion 2 of the persistent sexual abuse. This is the first occasion of anal sexual abuse.
Whilst the complainant and her family were living at the New Norfolk address when she was aged 11, you, Mr Pedder, and the complainant had been at a party at a neighbour’s house. The complainant and Mr Pedder left together and walked home. Upon returning home they went around the back of the house where the complainant was made to perform oral sexual intercourse on Mr Pedder. This is occasion 3 of the persistent sexual abuse; a further allegation of rape.
On an occasion in around 2000 or 2001, after you had left the house, the complainant spoke to Mr Pedder and said that she did not feel comfortable with what he had been doing to her. Mr Pedder said she would not be allowed to come in his car, something that she loved doing, or to expect any more presents. Mr Pedder then headbutted the complainant and said that she could come and speak to him in the lounge room or stay in bed and sook.
The complainant joined Mr Pedder in the lounge room and sat on his lap, crying. Mr Pedder said they would do it one last time and promised that after that they would not do it again. Mr Pedder walked into his bedroom and was followed by the complainant. He made her perform oral sexual intercourse on him while he licked her vagina. This is occasion 4 of the persistent sexual abuse, a further allegation of rape.
Toward the end of 2001, the complainant and her family moved to an address in Chigwell. It was at this address that Mr Pedder engaged in vaginal sexual intercourse with the complainant for the first time, that is occasion 5 of the persistent sexual abuse, a further allegation of rape..
On an occasion after the first instance of vaginal rape, the complainant was left alone at home in Chigwell with Mr Pedder while you and her siblings went out. The complainant was in the bathroom when Mr Pedder entered. He told her to sit on the edge of the bathroom sink. He placed a towel underneath her and engaged in vaginal sexual intercourse with her. This forms occasion 6 of the persistent sexual abuse. Mr Pedder told the complainant that she did not need to worry about getting pregnant, as the sperm would come back out of her vagina.
At some point prior to the last two particularised occasions, the complainant disclosed Mr Pedder’s offending against her to you. You told the complainant she should go out with her more often to avoid being alone with Mr Pedder and to pretend that it was not happening.
On a Saturday night in 2002, at approximately 11.30pm, the complainant, then aged 13, was at home in Chigwell. You and Mr Pedder were also present and the complainant’s younger siblings were asleep. By this time, the complainant had disclosed Mr Pedder’s abuse to you.
The complainant was using the computer in the lounge room and you and Mr Pedder were in the same room watching television. You and Mr Pedder left the lounge room and walked into your bedroom. Around five minutes later, the complainant could hear that you were having sexual intercourse with Mr Pedder.
The noise stopped and you came out into the lounge room wearing a dressing gown. You told the complainant that Mr Pedder wanted the complainant to watch them; that is, watch you and Mr Pedder having sexual intercourse. The complainant said “No”. You said, “Come on”, and told her to follow you into the bedroom. The complainant went into the room and sat on the bed while you and Mr Pedder touched each other. There was pornography playing.
You told the complainant to touch and suck Mr Pedder’s penis and you held his penis while the complainant performed oral sex on him. You were touching Mr Pedder while this happened. You and Mr Pedder then engaged in sexual intercourse in front of the complainant and she had to watch you. At one point, Mr Pedder put the complainant’s hand on your breasts until you moved her hand away. This forms occasion 7 of the persistent sexual abuse charge against Mr Pedder and the first count of an indecent act with or directed at a child, against you. It is the subject of count 2 on the indictment.
On a later occasion, the complainant was playing on the computer in the lounge room at Chigwell. The complainant’s younger brother and sister were asleep. While she was using the computer, you and Mr Pedder were having sexual intercourse in the lounge room. You then moved into your bedroom. Around 10 minutes later, you came out and told the complainant to come with you.
The complainant went into the bedroom and sat on the edge of the bed. Mr Pedder took her hand, put it on his penis and made her touch him in a rubbing motion. He then penetrated the complainant’s mouth with his penis. You and Mr Pedder subsequently had sexual intercourse in front of the complainant. Mr Pedder made the complainant touch his penis while he was having sexual intercourse with you. And this forms the eighth occasion of the persistent sexual abuse and the second count of an indecent act with or directed at a child, against you, being the subject of count 3 on the indictment.
In 2003, the complainant became aware that Mr Pedder was not her biological father. In around Easter 2003, the complainant told a close friend about the offending. The complainant then told her maternal grandmother, saying words to the effect, “Dad has been doing awful things to me.” Her grandmother asked if it was in a rude way and the complainant told her that it was. The complainant was upset. Her grandmother invited the complainant to live with her for a period of time.
After the complainant resided with her grandmother, she subsequently moved to reside with her biological father for a period, before returning to your custody and that of Mr Pedder when she was approximately 16 years old. The offending was reported to Tasmania Police in 2003. Mr Pedder was initially charged with crimes involving this offending in 2003, specifically one count of rape and one count of an indecent act with a young person. This matter was adjourned sine die in May of 2004 and the complainant was informed that prosecution would not proceed at that time.
Once the complainant was an adult, she spoke to you about what had happened and asked why you had involved her in what was going on. You said to the complainant that Mr Pedder had always wanted a threesome and that it was his fantasy.
In early 2018, you sent the complainant a text message forwarding an email that you had sent to Mr Pedder in which you admitted to your offending. I have read that communication.
In March of 2018, the complainant created a Facebook Messenger group titled “The Truth”, including friends and family, in which she forwarded the screenshots of that message. You messaged the complainant, asking her to take the group down. You sent messages to the complainant, including the following:
“It’s making me cry and hurt that I was a part of some of it. I don’t want to brush it under the mat, just don’t want to see it every day. Can you understand that?
Hey Hon, all for the truth to be out there but there’s some people I don’t want to know about me. Was meant to be for the ones that didn’t believe you at the time. I don’t know some of these people and therefore it [sic] none of their business. You didn’t have permission to use that email that I sent him so therefore it can’t be used.”
The complainant approached police again in March of 2018 and re-reported your conduct and that of Mr Pedder, and provided your text messages and email to the police.
The complainant participated in video‑recorded statements with police in April and May of 2018. In February 2019, you and Mr Pedder were both spoken to about the matter by Tasmania Police. You both declined to participate in a record of interview but generally denied the allegations. Mr Pedder stated that the complainant was a compulsive liar.
Mr Pedder was subsequently re-charged for the offence, subject to indictment, in October of 2020, and you were charged in November of 2020.
This matter was listed for a pre-recording of the complainant’s evidence on two occasions. The first time on 23 and 24 October in 2023, and secondly on 27 and 28 of February 2025. I am told that the delay between these dates was due to requests for further disclosure by Mr Pedder’s counsel. Subsequently, additional disclosure was provided and the contents of the original file were provided to counsel.
You entered pleas of guilty to the charges on the indictment on 24 February 2025. Your plea of guilty was indicated by email from your counsel on 21 February 2025, just under a week prior to the second scheduled pre-recording of the complainant’s evidence.
Mr Pedder entered a guilty plea on 27 February 2025, the day that the pre-recording was set to begin. The matter was adjourned for a period of some months at that time, for you to seek a psychological assessment and receive that report. The matters were then listed again on 8 September 2025.
Since that time, the non-appearance of Mr Pedder caused further delay and was not ultimately resolved until his body was found in November 2025.
The complainant’s victim impact statement was read by Cassandra Dowling, who is with Victim Support Services, on behalf of the complainant. That statement sets out the impacts on the complainant’s life, including a loss of innocence. In her words “they robbed me of my childhood and took away any opportunities I had for my life as an adult”.
Your conduct and that of Mr Pedder breached the trust that the complainant placed in you as her mother. She had a right to be safe. You and Mr Pedder left her confused and hurt. She said:
“Older me was even more lost. My father, whom I have known all my life, who was sexually abusing me, turning out to be my stepfather. I wasn’t told until I was 14. I moved out of my mum’s house to go to my nan’s to get away from it. I lost so much family and was alone again, back and forth with different friends’ families and my extended family members. I went to the police the first time at Glenorchy on the 7th of July 2003 to tell them my stepfather had been sexually abusing me. I hadn’t mentioned my mother, as I didn’t want her in trouble. I was so scared because it wasn’t what I really wanted. I was pushed by my biological father’s wife, who I was living with at that time. It was a hell of a rollercoaster. My stepfather was going back and forth to court, denying it. Everyone knew what they did to me, but still hung out with them. Including my grandmother, who took me away from the abuse. No‑one cared. They thought I made it up. No-one wanted me, and I felt like I was seen as a problem.”
The complainant described the abuse she was subjected to, and how the process has undermined her reporting:
“My mother and Mr Pedder had messed with my head. I reported all of this to police when I was 14 years old, and it went nowhere. Now, I’m here again. I’ve had to prepare to give evidence twice and reliving it all again because both my mother and Mr Pedder lied to everyone for so long.
I asked my mother why she didn’t stand up for me. I have to live with this trauma and what they have both done to me. I need counselling to fix their mistakes, so that I can be the best Mum I can be.
I’ve stood my ground and nearly gave up. Family members and family friends never believed me, and they pushed me away and made me believe I was the bad person. That made me want to push through, so that I could stand up and say, ‘I told you all, I wasn’t lying,’ and to also show my kids that I wouldn’t let anyone hurt them. This is what a mum should do: protect and love her children.
I have taken into account everything in the Victim Impact Statement but will not repeat it here. I described that account as “harrowing” during the course of the sentencing hearing..
Any sentence of imprisonment is to be backdated to 8 September 2025.
It was put that the following constituted aggravating features of your offending. The breach of trust involved in your offending against your child. The complainant was under your care, supervision, or authority. The complainant was deprived of the caring and protective nature of her family home and the appropriate care of parents. The sexual acts were without consent, and whoever initiated them, you facilitated and encouraged the involvement of the complainant. There was a vast disparity in ages and an abuse of the parental role. The range of sexual acts involving the complainant with both you and Mr Pedder, including requiring the complainant to watch you and Mr Pedder have sex. Your offending was not isolated.
You bear a high moral culpability because the offending could not have taken place without your involvement. Whatever pressures you may have felt as a result of your relationship with Mr Pedder, you privileged those over your role as a mother.
The two occasions to which you have pleaded guilty, on their own, involved very serious conduct, including penetrative conduct. Neither you nor Mr Pedder desisted from your offending, and it concluded only following the complainant’s disclosure, and ultimate re-reporting of it. That was compounded by the denials that continued over many years and, based on what I have heard from the victim impact statement, obviously deeply affected the complainant. I find that the sexual acts you encouraged and facilitated involving the complainant were likely to seriously or substantially degrade or humiliate the complainant.
The State took me to the report of Dr Danny Sullivan, a consultant forensic psychiatrist, dated 2 October 2022, in which he speaks about the range of emotional and psychological responses of a victim in cases of sexual abuse perpetrated by primary caregivers.
He also speaks to a range of psychological symptoms experienced by the complainant, including a range of anxiety symptoms which include features of obsessive compulsive disorder, generalised anxiety disorder, and irritable mood.
The submission by the State was, and I accept, that whilst the initial offending by Mr Pedder caused many of the complainant’s issues, your offending contributed in a substantial and material way to the ultimate outcome. Specifically, that your offending, occurring on two occasions, compounded the existing psychological effects of Mr Pedder’s offending. I described it during sentencing as compounding, exacerbating and concretising those impacts.
Your offending denied the complainant the support that another person in her position would otherwise have from her biological mother. The complainant will never know who she would have been but for the abuse perpetrated against her by you and Mr Pedder.
Dr Sullivan describes the conflicted responses of a child who is subject to childhood sexual abuse at the hands of primary caregivers. Of course, the complainant’s victim impact statement spoke bravely and eloquently to the mixed feelings she has had relating to both you and Mr Pedder, and her wish for love and support from you.
The Court has a well-established and obvious duty to protect children from sexual depredation.
Despite the volume of material provided by the State, there are not a great deal of comparable sentences. No doubt that is because of the unusual nature of your offending.
I have noted your plea of guilty, even though it came very late and after a lengthy period between the early report of these matters in the early 2000’s, until the second report and the further investigation of these matters many years later. I have also taken into account the apparent impact that your plea had on Mr Pedder’s position. Of course your plea came at a time after the complainant had been prepared to give her evidence on two separate occasions. I also have taken into account your late agreement to give evidence against Mr Pedder, which was communicated on 21 February 2025. I accept that your plea has more than utilitarian value.
There are no relevant prior convictions.
The State submit that the offences under s 125B of the Criminal Code to which you have entered a plea of guilty, are class 2 offences under Schedule 2 of the Community Protection (Offender Reporting) Act. It is submitted that I cannot be satisfied that there is no risk that you will commit similar offences in the future.
The maximum reporting period for an offender convicted of two Schedule 2 offences is life. The submission is that such an order should be made, but no submissions are made as to the length of that order.
In mitigation I was provided with two psychological reports from Dr Jennifer Wright, being a report dated 24 July 2025 and an addendum report dated 24 October 2025.
In the course of sentencing submissions, I sought assistance as to how the Court should view your actions in the context of your relationship with Mr Pedder. I was told that you were in a relationship with Mr Pedder from about the time that you were aged 19. At that time you had already had one child, the complainant, with a previous partner when you were 17. You and Mr Pedder went on to have two children together. I understand there are no allegations of inappropriate sexual conduct in relation to your children with Mr Pedder.
Your relationship with Mr Pedder was initially a positive relationship, however over time, the relationship became one where you say you were subject to family violence in various forms. I was told the relationship became emotionally abusive and there were threats of violence made by Mr Pedder to you in the course of that relationship. Mr Pedder began to make derogatory comments towards you about your appearance, and your ability to manage the household. He would comment about how you were looking after the children, and a major aspect of the abuse perpetrated against you, it is said, was in relation to your sex life with Mr Pedder and your purported inability to satisfy Mr Pedder sexually. It is hard to see how Mr Pedder’s dissatisfaction with your sexual relationship could ever, of itself, be mitigation for your offending against the complainant. There is a high level of objective criminality in your offending. That is not to say that your relationship with Mr Pedder is not relevant, or that understanding the nature of that relationship might help the Court to contextualise your offending.
In her report of 24 July 2025, Dr Wright opines (at [32]) that the intimate partner violence you described to her is often difficult for others to observe as it leaves no physical marks. It was said that such violence was highly destructive of your self-esteem and emotional well-being, and you developed a mood and anxiety disorder as a result. Indeed, Dr Wright suggests that you yourself were unaware of the impact of that intimate partner violence until 18 months prior to her July 2025 report, and well after the material times in the two counts against you which arose in 2002. To the extent that the relevant intimate partner violence at or around the material time had a physical dimension, it is very hard to accept that you were unaware of it. I am told that you did not seek any assistance in respect of the issues you were experiencing with Mr Pedder prior to your offending. That opinion and history suggests you lacked any insight into the impact of your relationship with Mr Pedder on your offending against the complainant.
It is an unfortunate reality that intimate partner violence is not uncommon in our society, however, offending of the type described in counts 2 and 3 on the indictment, is very rarely reported. Even allowing for unreported offending, the existence of intimate partner violence does not, of itself, explain the other. I sought some explanation from you, through counsel, during the sentencing hearing as to how and why your offending occurred. I was told that it is very difficult to explain how it is that you succumbed to this situation, and it is very difficult for you to understand how that arose. I was told that it is completely inexplicable behaviour. Of course, that makes my task in sentencing very difficult.
I was told that initially you were not aware of the abuse that Mr Pedder was perpetrating against the complainant. Of course that does not speak about when you first suspected something was going on. In that regard, I note the history you gave Dr Jennifer Wright set out in her report of 24 July 2025, where your observation is recorded at paragraph [22] that the complainant “had a tendency towards lying to get attention” is recorded. That observation eerily echoes Mr Pedder’s statement to police in early 2019, where he described the complainant as a “compulsive liar”. Ultimately, you chose to accept Mr Pedder’s account rather than that of the complainant and remained in your relationship with him, even after the offending with which you have been charged and to which you have pleaded guilty. You undoubtedly had opportunities to leave that relationship had you wished.
In any event, I find the proposition that you did not know or suspect that something was going on between Mr Pedder and the complainant, very hard to accept given that you were the complainant’s mother, and you were living with both Mr Pedder and the complainant at the time. I say that despite the occurrence of some of the abuse whilst you were out of the family home. Obviously, some of it occurred whilst you were in the family home. It is unclear as to whether the distinction between suspicion and actual knowledge might explain why I was told that you were not the most accurate historian as to exactly when it became apparent to you that the complainant was being sexually abused by Mr Pedder.
Equally, whilst you may not have been aware of the full extent of Mr Pedder’s abuse of the complainant, that does not mean that you were not aware that some form of sexual abuse was being perpetrated on the complainant. I find that you must have been aware relatively early on in the process that something sexual was going on between Mr Pedder and the complainant. Of course, it is impossible to identify exactly what you knew and when.
I do not accept that you only found about Mr Pedder’s earlier abuse of the complainant after your own offending. You were told by the complainant about that abuse prior to your offending. Indeed, your own offending demonstrates that you must have been aware of a sexual attraction by Mr Pedder to the complainant for some time prior to that offending. That is an aggravating factor relevant to sentence.
It was put that around the time of your offending, the intimate partner abuse had escalated from coercive control and emotional abuse type behaviour, in a sexual context, into threats being made to you, and these are discussed in the psychology reports. It is put that there was a threat to smashing kneecaps, and that Mr Pedder lit a fire in your bed.
I was taken to [35] of Dr Wright’s report of 24 July 2024 which states:
“She …[referring to you] … had no personal desire to include her daughter in sexual acts at all, and would not have done so but for Mr Pedder’s influence, control, and her fear of him at the time. In my opinion, her state of fear of Mr Pedder and her long-term experience of intimate partner violence and coercion by him placed her in a position where she was unable to exercise appropriate judgement and stop what was occurring in regards to these two incidents of exposing her daughter to sexual acts involving Mr Pedder and herself.”
The point is that whatever your desires in respect of your offending or Mr Pedder’s pressure on you, it seems to me that there is a necessarily subjective element of Dr Wright’s opinion. There is no suggestion that you were forced to commit the acts to which you have pleaded guilty, or that they were not voluntary and intentional.
I do not accept that you were in such a difficult place in your relationship with Mr Pedder that you had no course other than the one you took, which resulted in your offending. You were not under direct threat or express duress at the time of your offending. To the extent that you felt pressure from your relationship with Mr Pedder, that is a relevant factor in sentencing but does not substantially lessen your moral culpability for your offending.
As your own counsel put it during sentencing submissions, it can not be that the only way that you could have responded to family violence was to involve your daughter in sexual activity with your partner.
If the effect of Dr Wright’s opinion (at [35] of her first report) that you “would never have engaged in these behaviours on your own accord” is to suggest that you had no choice in your offending, I reject that premise. It is expressly contradicted by your plea of guilty and is an opinion that goes to the ultimate issue. Indeed, it is directly contradicted by Dr Wright’s own opinion, proffered at [37] of her first report, in respect of the third and fourth Verdins‘ principles, where you awareness of your guilt is acknowledged.
It seems likely, and it was conceded as likely by the State, that your offending was at the instigation of Mr Pedder due to his fantasy about a threesome. However, you fell in with that desire and freely participated in the sexual interaction, which included your offending against the complainant.
It was put by the State that you over-reported in the Psychological distress or emotional distress on the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory 3, a psychometric test relied upon by Dr Wright for her opinions. Consequently, it was said that I should place less weight on Dr Wright’s opinion. Dr Wright’s second report dated 24 October 2025 responded to that submission. At paragraph [3]of the second report, Dr Wright opined “These scores do not call into question the totality of her self-report about all areas about which she responded … but only her reporting of high levels of distress about her physical health”.
I accept that, to some degree, your self-reporting to Dr Wright in respect of your physical health was over-reported. However, whatever the results of the psychometric testing, I accept the proposition that to the extent that expert evidence is based largely on self-reporting, it needs to be carefully assessed. This is particularly so when the offending is significantly separated in time from the relevant psychological assessment.
The State made the reasonable point about the temporal gap between Dr Wright’s assessment and your offending and queried the value of such an assessment based on your self-reporting. In response, Dr Wright referred to collateral information sourced from the psychometric testing referred to, and accounts from “her counsellor, her friend and Mr Pedder’s niece”. Of course, their accounts are also separated in time from the offending.
I accept the State’s submission that I have to be careful as to the weight and effect of Dr Wright’s opinions. I accept the State’s submission that there was some difficulty with your self-reporting and a lack of specificity in terms of the nexus between any psychological condition and your offending. That was reflected in your own continuing inability to explain how your offending occurred. I accept, however, that one might expect some difficulties in that regard if someone is suffering the impacts described by Dr Wright.
The State also submitted that there were aspects of self‑protection in your self-reporting during your interview with Dr Wright (at [26] of Dr Wright’s first report), where it is put that you significantly downplayed your involvement in the two instances of sexual abuse against the complainant. For example, it is not reflected in your self-reporting that having made a critical choice on those two occasions to protect yourself rather than your child, you then had insight and remorse immediately thereafter.
The essential submission was that you lacked insight into your own offending. Further, that the downplaying of your role, evident when speaking to Dr Wright, continues into your responses to the offending and becomes the focus of Dr Wright’s report. Further, that very little consideration is given to the emotional impact and ongoing trauma to the complainant, also consistent with a lack of insight. I accept that I should be measured in my assessment of psychological opinion of this type where it is largely, but not wholly based, on self-reporting.
Whilst I accept the description of the skill employed by a psychologist as described by Dr Wright at [5] of her second report, that does not mean that her opinions based on retrospective accounts of offending over twenty years ago, do not have to be carefully considered and evaluated. For example, Dr Wright’s opinion with respect to your presentation, ie “my impression of her was that she was genuinely distressed”, may have a clinical component but was certainly subjective at some level, and that opinion over twenty years after the offending – it has only marginal relevance or value.
Dr Wright in her report of 24 July 2025, proffered her opinion as to the application of Verdins. It was properly accepted on your behalf by counsel that being the victim of family violence and experiencing family violence is not a mental health condition, it is the question of what mental health conditions flow therefrom.
At [36] of Dr Wright’s first report she records your “challenges with Panic Disorder and Major Depression as a result” of your experiences with intimate partner violence. Dr Wright records your acceptance of responsibility at [37] where she observes that you “absolutely understand … what she has done wrong and regrets her actions”. Dr Wright sets out why she says the Verdins principles are relevant to sentencing and I have taken those matters into account.
For the sake of clarity in relation to principle 1 to your sentencing, Dr Wright opines at [34] of her first report, “I have considered whether … [you were] … impaired by Major Depressive Disorder, Panic Disorder and … [your] … experiences of intimate partner violence (particularly coercive control) in such a way as to contribute to the commission of these offences”. I reject the references to experiences of intimate partner violence and coercive control as if they were mental health conditions for the purpose of Verdins.
I accept that in Dr Wright’s opinion you were suffering from the effects of Panic Disorder and Major Depressive Disorder at the material time and that should be taken into account in sentencing. The factual premise relied upon by Dr Wright in respect of the second Verdins principle, ie that you continue to live with Mr Pedder, is now no longer the case. In respect of principles 3 and 4 of Verdins, I am prepared to take Dr Wright’s diagnosis and opinions into account in the context of general and specific deterrence. It is my view that those considerations are to be moderated but not eliminated, and whilst moderated, remain important considerations in relation to this type of offending.
I accept for the purposes of sentencing, in respect of the fifth and sixth Verdins principles, that a sentence of imprisonment may weigh more heavily on you than on a person or normal health, and that you may experience some adverse impacts on your mental health.
Kim Lee Bester, I convict you on counts two and three on the indictment. This Court has identified this type of offending as particularly serious as it involves a substantial and significant breach of trust. To my observation, the penalties imposed have been increasing. I intend to impose a single sentence in this matter.
The seriousness of your offending hardly needs to be re-stated, but I acknowledge it. I also acknowledge the importance of protecting children as a paramount sentencing consideration. These factors, coupled with your moral culpability, the need for general and specific deterrence, vindication of the complainant and denunciation mean that the only possible sentence is a term of imprisonment, to be served immediately. I will back date the sentence to 8 September 2025.
The term of imprisonment imposed takes into account the matters raised in mitigation, which includes but is not limited to your age, health and plea of guilty. It also takes into account the application of the Verdins principles, as I have explained. But for those matters, the terms of imprisonment I impose would have been significantly higher.
Under s 11(3) of the Sentencing Act 1997 I am obliged if sentencing an offender for more than one child sexual offence, to identify the sentence that would have been imposed for each offence had separate sentences been imposed. If I were sentencing you separately, I would sentence you to four years imprisonment on each count, to be served immediately, making a total of eight years’ imprisonment to be served immediately. However, I need to adjust those sentences for proportionality and totality and to best reflect the objects of sentencing.
In the circumstances, I impose a single aggregate sentence of six years’ imprisonment and make you eligible for parole after serving three years of that sentence.
Whilst Dr Wright in her report of 24 July 2025 at [36] states that you pose a very low risk to offending in the future, she does not say there is no risk. I am obliged to make an order under s 6 of the Community Protection (Offender Reporting) Act 2005, unless I am satisfied that you do not pose a risk of committing a reportable offence in the future. I am unable to be so satisfied. I make an order under s 6 of the Community Protection (Offender Reporting) Act 2005, directing that (a) the Registrar cause your name to be placed on the Register, (b) that you comply with the reporting obligations under that Act, and (c), that you must continue to comply with the reporting obligations imposed under that Act for a period of five years.