STATE OF TASMANIA v JED and STB
1 OCTOBER 2025
COMMENTS ON PASSING SENTENCE JAGO J
JED, you have been found guilty by a jury of two counts of persistent sexual abuse of a child and one count of rape. You committed sexual crimes against three different children. The first count is a crime of persistent sexual abuse, committed against a family friend, whom I shall refer to as “K”. These crimes occurred between 1 January 1989 and 31 October 1993. The second count is one of rape, committed against K’s sister, whom I shall refer to as “B”. This act of rape occurred between 18 February 1991 and 17 February 1992. The third count is also a crime of persistent sexual abuse of a child and relates to your stepdaughter, whom I shall refer to as “H”. These crimes were committed between 4 December 1993 and 3 December 2002.
STB, you have been found guilty by a jury of one count of penetrative sexual abuse of a child, and one count of rape. The victim of the first crime was K. The victim of the second crime was B. You did not perpetrate any of the physical acts of abuse against K or B, but your criminal liability arises because you formed an unlawful common purpose with JED to commit sexual crimes against both K and B, and the crimes that were, in fact, committed were a probable consequence of that common purpose.
In sentencing each of the defendants, I am required to make findings of fact consistent with the jury’s verdict. In order for the jury to find the accused guilty, they had to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that with respect to each count, the complainant’s evidence was, in substance, both honest and reliable. In determining the facts for each count, I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the honesty and the reliability of the respective complainants’ evidence generally, as well as specifically concerning the defendants’ criminal conduct. I found the evidence of each complainant compelling, and I will sentence on the basis that each of the unlawful sexual acts occurred as the complainants described in their evidence.
The background to count one, the crimes committed against K, is that the two defendants were family friends with K and B’s parents. At times, K and B’s father undertook some work, wood-cutting with JED. Both K and B gave evidence that their father’s friendship with JED was important to him. K and B were raised in a very volatile family home. K and B’s father was a violent man. Family violence and outbursts of quite extreme temper were common within the home. Both K and B would seek solace outside of the family home. They would, on occasion, attend at the defendants’ home and help with the care of JED’s children, or participate in social outings with JED’s family. It allowed them to spend time outside of the volatile environment of their own home. Both K and B gave evidence of particularly enjoying the company of STB. STB had three children, two of whom lived with her. Those children were H and G. Both of them were younger than K and B.
The first sexual crime committed against K occurred when she was about nine years of age. She had gone to the defendants’ home for the weekend because she had been invited to go to the speedway. She said on the first night she was there, JED crushed up some tablets and put them in STB’s cup of tea. He told K that STB had not been sleeping well and was tired. Later, K went to sleep in the defendants’ girls’ bedroom. They were not at home. They had gone to their grandparents’ house. She woke up during the night to find JED in bed with her. He kissed her on the mouth passionately, placing his tongue into her mouth. Whilst he was doing this, he was masturbating and then he placed his fingers into K’s mouth. His fingers had pre-ejaculate on them. He asked her whether she liked the taste and told her that it was “sweet and good”. He put K’s hand onto his penis and made her touch the ejaculate. K described being able to feel the stubble of JED’s whiskers and recalled it hurting her face. At one point, JED told K that once he had started, he had to finish, or he would die. He also told her not to tell anyone or he would get into trouble. K recalled feeling that it felt “really wrong”.
The next day, K went with JED and STB to STB’s parents’ place to collect the children. As they were leaving the residence, JED slipped whilst walking down some stairs. As he started to fall, he grabbed hold of K’s shoulders, steadied himself and then kissed her on the mouth with his open mouth. This incident of indecent assault was the second occasion relied upon by the prosecution.
The third incident of sexual abuse occurred the following day, which was the Sunday of the weekend that K was staying at the defendants’ residence. STB had gone out with the girls. JED chased K around the house and played a tickling game. She ended up on the bed in the children’s bedroom. He pulled down her pants and underpants and elevated her legs into the air. He lent between her legs and bit her on the vagina. K described the bite as not being hard enough to leave marks, but it felt uncomfortable and wrong.
The fourth occasion occurred when K was nine to ten years of age. She was again at the defendants’ house, having been invited there to meet and play with the defendants’ niece, whom I shall refer to as M. STB had taken the other children out for the day. K said that her and M were sitting in the living room area, talking. JED walked over to where they were sitting, undid his trousers and pulled his penis out. She said that M got up and went over to JED and took his penis into her mouth and started sucking it without him saying anything at all. JED then approached K. He placed his hand onto the back of her head and pulled her head towards his groin and pushed his penis into her mouth. He made her suck his penis. He then put his penis back into M’s mouth before returning it to K’s mouth. K said JED then kept taking turns inserting his penis into both K’s and then M’s mouth.
K said this incident went on for about five minutes before he started playing a chasing game with both of them. He chased them into the girls’ bedroom. Once in the bedroom, he pulled K’s pants and underwear down and licked her on the vagina. He then moved over to M and pulled her pants and underwear down also. Whilst K did not see exactly what happened, she said JED’s head was down near M’s vagina.
I should note M gave evidence on the trial of sexual abuse JED perpetrated on her over several years. Her evidence was admitted on the trial as tendency evidence. Whilst of course, JED is not to be sentenced for any crimes perpetrated upon M, her evidence supports the State’s submission that none of the offending occurred in isolation. JED was committing sexual crimes against more than one young female at the same time. His sexual abuse of children was then frequent and recurring. It is an aggravating factor that he sexually abused K in front of M. It is also a particularly demeaning and offensive act that he moved his penis between the mouths of K and M.
The next episode of sexual abuse occurred when K was about 11 or 12. K was at a barbecue at the defendants’ house at Molesworth. Her parents were there. There were other children present also. They were playing chasings. At one point, K was outside at the side of the house. JED joined her in the same area. He caught hold of K and told her to come to him. He grabbed her and kissed her forcefully on her mouth. K described him putting his tongue inside her mouth.
Later that same day, JED asked K to go for a drive to the shop. They travelled in a vehicle which had a front bench seat. K tried to stay on the opposite side of the bench seat, but JED pulled her in closer to sit next to him. He put his arm around her. He kissed her and then undid his trousers and pulled his penis out. He pushed K’s head down into his groin and made her suck his penis on the way to the shop. K described his penis becoming hard whilst she did this. She also described him as making moaning noises. She recalled going into the shop and JED buying her a chocolate.
By the time K returned to the defendants’ home, her parents had left. The arrangement was for K to stay the night. At one point during the evening, she was in the kitchen. STB and her parents were sitting at the table. K was near the sink. JED came up behind her and placed his hand down the back of her trousers and rested his fingers in the crease of K’s buttocks. K tried to move away. She also tried clenching her buttocks to prevent JED from placing his hand into her buttocks. She remembered JED saying that clenching her buttocks did not deter him but made him want to do it more. K recalled feeling very uncomfortable because there were other people there. She also recalled hoping one of them would see what was happening.
The final act of sexual abuse against K involved STB. This incident was the sixth occasion relied upon by the State in respect to JED and was also the subject of the penetrative sexual abuse of a child charge of which STB was found guilty. It happened the day after K had gone to the shop with JED. She was still at the house at Molesworth. K recalled that in the morning, STB took her into the master bedroom. No one else was there. She said that STB told her that JED wanted to do something different to her and produced a letter. The letter had the words “yes” or “no” written on it. K said that STB told her that JED wanted to put his penis into her vagina and the letter was for her to give permission for him to do that. STB talked to her about what it would feel like. K recalled STB telling her that it would feel like she was “just doing a big poo”, but it would feel good.
K said she felt scared during this conversation but was also surprised because she had not realised that STB was aware of what JED was doing to her. She said up until that point, she had felt safe and comfortable around STB. She said that when STB produced the letter, she was confused and felt pressure, so she circled the word “yes”. She said STB then burnt the letter in a fireplace that was in the bedroom. They then left the bedroom. STB approached JED and told him that K had said yes. JED smiled and said to K “remember once I start, I can’t stop or I’ll die”.
K said she spent the day playing with the children, just like normal. That evening JED told her to go and have a bath and get “nice and clean”. He also told her that he would come into the bath and help her get nice and clean. K went into the bathroom. She locked the door. She said whilst she was bathing, she heard knocking at the door, but no one came in.
She said she went to bed on a mattress, which was on the floor in the master bedroom. Both JED and STB were also in the same room. She was sharing a mattress with STB’s youngest daughter, G. She said once G was asleep, JED got down onto the mattress with her, climbed on top of her and began to push his penis into her vagina. She described it as being extremely painful and said she felt a lot of burning. She said she was asking him to stop. He was saying he could not stop; he needed to keep going.
She said at one point STB said “Darl, she said stop” and JED responded, “I know, but I can’t stop”. K described that he kept pushing his penis into her and that she was crying and asking him to stop. She said STB again told him to stop and he ended up getting off her and getting back up into the bed with STB. In a comment that really highlights the abandonment of decency that was associated with STB’s complicity, K naively described feeling grateful that STB was in the bedroom and had made it stop because she was in so much pain. K said she got up and went into the toilet and felt a painful burning sensation. She said she was too scared to go back into the bedroom, so she stayed the night in the loungeroom. She recalled the following morning, STB saying to her “don’t worry, it’s my turn tonight”.
I sentence STB on the basis that she formed an unlawful common purpose with JED to sexually assault K, and the sexual intercourse which occurred was a probable consequence of that. I am also satisfied that her conduct amounts to abetting JED, although given the factual circumstances, the basis of criminality liability matters little, in terms of the sentencing outcome. The criminality of her conduct lies in the conversation she had with K in the bedroom, the production of the letter, and the telling of JED that the answer was yes. She was present in the bedroom when the incident occurred. She must have seen JED climb onto the mattress with K and commence having sexual intercourse. She did nothing to dissuade that. It was only when K began to cry out in pain that she demonstrated any decency and tried to stop it. STB, for reasons that in my view, are somewhat inexplicable, was only charged with penetrative sexual abuse of a child in respect to this incident and, of course, must only be sentenced for that crime. I am satisfied that STB knew JED’s intention was to have sexual intercourse with K and she, to some extent, facilitated him in achieving that. Given the trust K said she had in STB, it is not surprising that when she produced the letter, K felt compelled to circle “yes”. It was a gross breach of trust. By participating as she did, STB destroyed the only source of safety and comfort that K had in JED’s home. Her moral culpability is very high. I do take into account that STB encouraged JED to stop once it was apparent that K was in pain, but by then the violation of, and harm to K, had already been occasioned.
The crime against B occurred on an occasion when she was about 14 or 15 and was staying overnight at the defendants’ home. Her father had dropped her off there and the plan was that she was to stay the evening and help babysit the children. After the children had gone to bed, she was in the loungeroom with JED and STB. She recalls STB saying to her something like “I had a bet with [JED] that you couldn’t drink two beers”. B replied that she could. Some beers were produced and B remembered STB egging her on to drink the beers quickly. B did this. It was her first experience of drinking alcohol. She drank the two beers and passed out. She recalled waking up and instantly knowing that something was wrong. JED was on top of her, raping her. He had his penis inside B was thrusting into her. B glanced sideways and saw STB standing in the room with her hands behind her back, staring at her. She said she started screaming and tried to push JED off. She said she then vomited all over him and she could recall being taken to the bathroom. As she passed the hallway, she remembered seeing a flash of children in the doorway. She described the sexual intercourse as being very painful. She was a virgin when the incident occurred. She could not remember anything else about the incident. She said the following day; she was in different clothing than that which she had worn to the house. She said STB told her that she had passed out and thrown up everywhere and she had put her in the bath. She also told her that every time JED went near her, she started to scream and became hysterical.
The following morning, B was bleeding from her vagina. She said something to STB about it. STB gave her a tampon and told her “You’re no longer a virgin”.
Later that morning, her father came and collected her. She remembered telling her father that STB had said because she used a tampon, she was no longer a virgin. Her father replied with words to the effect of “don’t be ridiculous”. She said she felt shut down and did not say anything more about the sexual assault to either of her parents.
JED was obviously the principal perpetrator of the rape against B. I sentence STB on the basis that she had formed an unlawful common purpose with JED to sexually assault B and the rape was a probable consequence of that. As with K, I am also satisfied her behaviour amounts to abetting the crime, as evidenced by her encouragement of B to consume the alcohol, and her presence in the room when JED was raping B. It is difficult to see how her ongoing presence in the room whilst JED was raping an intoxicated, passed out 15-year-old, can be anything other than an encouragement to commit the crime. Again, the pathway to criminal responsibility matters little in terms of the sentencing outcome. I am satisfied that STB was well aware of what JED intended to do and was complicit in the rape of B. STB’s behaviour involved a terrible breach of trust. B described STB as her friend, someone she could talk to about the difficulties at home, and her involvement in the crime deprived B of that source of support. Moreover, B had gone to JED’s home to help STB care for the children. STB had an obligation to protect her, not allow her to be abused.
The third victim of JED’s sexual abuse was his stepdaughter, H. H was STB’s daughter. H referred to JED as her Dad. There is no suggestion STB was involved in the sexual abuse of H.
The first crime occurred when the family were living in Melbourne. H was about seven. She was lying on a bed. JED came in and sat next to her, put his hands down her pants and started rubbing her on the vagina. She described it as he was “grabbing, like the vagina part”. The defendant then took H’s hand and placed it onto his penis. She described his penis as being “floppy at first” but then he got an erection. JED told her not to tell anyone about it and he left the room.
H said that this type of touching happened “every chance he got”; whenever her mother was not around. She said the abuse usually involved him touching her vagina and making her put her hand onto his penis. She said her mother was never at home when the abuse occurred.
The family moved to Tasmania when H was about 11. H said it was in Tasmania that JED started having sexual intercourse with her. She recalled the first incident occurred when she was in her bedroom. JED came in and pulled her pants down. He also pulled his own pants down. He put his penis into her vagina. She recalled feeling a lot of pain. She said he ejaculated, and later she saw white liquid coming out of her vagina. JED did not use a condom. JED told her she was not to tell anyone about what had happened.
The next occasion of rape H could remember, occurred at a residence in Tottenham Road, when she was about 15 years of age. She was living there with JED and her brother. Her mother also lived in Tottenham Road, but in a different house. She recalled this occasion occurred in JED’s bedroom. By this time, JED had a penile prosthesis inserted because of damage that had been sustained in a motor vehicle accident. The evidence on the trial was that the surgery to implant the device occurred in November 2000. H recalled JED asking her to go into his room and telling her to lay down. He pulled her pants down. She recalled seeing JED press a button and that made his penis hard. He then inserted his penis into her vagina.
The next incident of rape also occurred at Tottenham Road when she was living there with JED. On this occasion, H recalled being in her room. JED came in and started talking to her about his “penis pump”. She recalled JED telling her he had to use it to make his penis hard. He showed her the button that caused his penis to become erect. He made her push on the button until his penis became erect. He then put his penis inside her vagina and had sexual intercourse with her. Following the vaginal sexual intercourse, JED made H turn around and he then inserted his penis into her anus and raped her anally. She went to the toilet and her bottom was bleeding.
H said the acts of sexual intercourse she could specifically recall were not isolated ones. She said there were “a few times” when it occurred. She said those occasions also involved him using the penis pump to get an erection. She said that most of the time, he would use the pump himself. She said these other occasions usually happened in his bedroom and took the form of vaginal rapes.
H also recalled an occasion when she was about 15 years of age, when the defendant came into the bathroom whilst she was taking a bath and touched her to the breast with his hand.
H gave evidence that JED would offer her money or promise to buy her treats before he sexually abused her.
The offending of JED and STB came to light when K made a formal complaint to ACT police in about 2017. Five years earlier, in 2012, she had observed a photograph of JED on Facebook. He was pictured with his granddaughters. JED being around young female children concerned K, and she contacted JED’s daughter to warn her. At that time, she also told her husband about what JED had done to her but was not in a position to pursue charges with the police. In 2017, she made a formal report to police. It is noteworthy that years earlier, probably in about 1994, M had made a complaint to police in South Australia about what JED had done to her. No charges were pursued at that time. JED was made aware of this complaint in about 1996. It is an aggravating feature that he continued to sexually abuse H, despite being aware of his earlier offending and facing the prospect of being charged.
JED was interviewed by police about K’s allegations. He denied them. He was not specifically questioned about the allegations of B or H, but in essence in his interview, he endeavoured to portray that he was not the type of person who would sexually abuse children. STB was also interviewed by police. She, too, denied any knowledge of any sexual abuse being perpetrated against any of the complainants.
The defendant, JED, is now 70 years of age. He has no prior convictions which, in my view, impact upon the sentencing exercise. There are some dated matters for dishonesty, driving and alcohol related offending, but they are of such an age and nature that they carry no real weight. JED was raised in the Hobart area. He has held various labour-based positions of employment throughout the years. As a young man, he was sexually abused by a priest. He has since made representations to the Royal Commission into institutionalised sexual abuse. The abuse had a significant impact upon him. He subsequently found it difficult to maintain intimate relationships. He has been married four times. He has four children to three different mothers. He has a son and daughter surviving. He has no contact with either of them. Tragically, JED’s two eldest children, a girl and a boy, were drowned in 1998. JED was living in Victoria at the time, but their passing had a significant impact upon his mental health, and he experienced intense feelings of guilt that he was not present and there to help them.
Following their deaths, he returned to Tasmania. He developed severe depression. He has a long history of admission to the Royal Hobart Hospital as a mental health patient. At one point, he was subject to electro-convulsant therapy. He has a history of suicide attempts and recurrent suicidal ideation, often precipitated by chronic auditory hallucinations. It is thought the auditory hallucinations most likely stem from his chronic alcohol use and his trauma. JED has been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder. Additionally, he suffers from a number of significant physical impairments. He has had two episodes of stroke, which has left him with right-sided hemiplegia and hemianesthesia. He is now wheelchair bound and has very limited function on his right side. He also suffers chronic lower back pain following a motor vehicle accident in early adulthood. He suffers urinary retention which necessitates the use of a catheter. He has severe gastro-reflux, ischemic heart disease with hypertension, chronic pressure sores with ulceration flowing from his constant reliance on a wheelchair, and arthritis. Additionally, he has chronic COPD, a lung disease, arising from a combination of cigarette smoking and several severe infections he has contracted during various hospital stays.
I have received a number of medical reports pertaining both to JED’s physical and mental health. I should note that prior to the criminal trial, I received evidence in respect to the question of JED’s fitness to stand trial. The evidence clearly established that JED was fit to stand trial – there was no evidence of delusional thinking or other psychotic symptomology. The assessment concluded JED suffered from depressive symptoms and post-traumatic stress flowing from unresolved grief, chronic use of alcohol and the physical impairments arising from his strokes. Ultimately, no application was pursued in respect to the question of whether JED should be declared unfit to stand trial.
JED is in receipt of an NDIS package, which includes 24 hour supported care. He requires assistance to complete all personal care tasks and all household duties. He is reliant upon a significant number of medications, including some for pain relief, which may no longer be available to him in a custodial setting because of prison policy.
I accept JED’s time in custody will be more onerous because of his very poor health, and his mobility issues. He is likely to be vulnerable within the prison environment. There may well be complications arising, and it is reasonable to infer the level of care that will be available to him may not be as thorough or detailed as the 24 hour a day care he receives in the community. He will have to adapt to new care arrangements and possibly an alternate medical regime. I accept this will have its complications and will be stressful and concerning for JED. That said, this Court must proceed on the basis that Tasmania Prisons have an obligation to ensure appropriate medical care, both physically and mentally, is provided to JED.
JED’s age and his poor health are, of course, relevant to the assessment of sentence. They must be balanced, however, against the objective seriousness of his crimes and his high level of moral culpability for the offending. It may well be, given JED’s age and his poor state of health, that he faces the prospect of spending the majority, if not all, of his remaining life in prison. I bear that in mind in formulating the appropriate sentence, but that factor can not, given the gravity of this offending, justify the imposition of an unduly lenient sentence. The lapse of time since the offending is not, in itself, a mitigating factor. For many years after these crimes, JED was able to enjoy his life, living freely within the community, whilst the respective complainants’ lives were burdened by his abuse. JED could have brought these crimes to the attention of the authorities at any time after their commission. He did not. Instead, he moved interstate and extradition proceedings were pursued. At the time the extradition order was made, JED was not well enough to travel. He did ultimately make arrangements to return to Tasmania. The fact remains objectives of general deterrence, protection of children, and vindication of the victims, have just as much work to do today, as they did when these crimes occurred.
JED’s offending continued for many years. He perpetrated these crimes over a 12-year period, against three different complainants. At times, he manipulated the complainants into silence by telling them that they must not say anything. He coerced their compliance by saying things like if he did not finish, he would die. He bribed the complainants with promises of money and treats. By so doing, JED was able to continue his sexual abuse undetected for many years.
STB is 59 years of age. She has no recorded criminal history relevant to this sentencing exercise. She has three children, all of whom are now adults. She has undertaken a number of jobs throughout her life, mainly in the hospitality and farming industries. She, too, suffers from some medical difficulties. In the late 1990’s, she sustained a spinal injury and subsequently developed osteoporosis, which results in considerable pain. She has only one fully functioning lung. I accept that STB’s level of criminality is less than that of JED. She is to be sentenced for two isolated incidents, but for reasons I have explained, her involvement was nevertheless very serious and involved a terrible breach of trust. Through the comments she made to both K and B after the respective incidents, she endeavoured to normalise the abusive behaviours, and it is reasonable to infer, contributed to the fear and uncertainty both girls felt in telling anyone about what had happened. She did not report JED’s behaviour to anyone, and by hiding it, assisted in his abuse remaining undetected for many years. Despite knowing of his proclivities, she allowed H to stay in his care. This is not a situation where STB’s involvement stemmed from her being in a controlling or abusive relationship. It seems she was a willing participant in the two sexual crimes. In both instances, she facilitated the abuse – in the case of K by talking to her about what would happen and how it would feel, as though it was all perfectly normal, and having her mark the letter. In the case of B, by encouraging her to consume the beer, thereby rendering her helpless. Her moral culpability is high.
All three complainants have been badly affected by the defendants’ abuse. I have received impact statements from all three complainants. Of course, I note the impact statement of H is not relevant to STB. They describe in compelling terms the pervasive and destructive impact of the defendants’ crimes upon their lives. The Court is grateful for the provision of such impact statements as they provide essential insight and assist the Court in understanding the true extent of the harm caused by crimes of this nature.
Without referring to the statements in detail because it is not possible to convey the true extent of the harm caused, in just a few words, they reveal profound emotional harm.
In the case of K, she describes how her life has been permanently changed by the abuse. She describes the impact on her as a young child, her overwhelming feelings of fear and confusion. She struggles to recall any good times from her childhood. The impacts have extended into adulthood. She constantly experiences feelings of anxiety, guilt and pain. She has struggled with trusting others and has struggled with her own sense of worth. In particular, she notes some of the traumatic and emotional experiences she endured when she, herself, became a mother. She speaks of the manner in which the abuse has impacted her role as a mother and wife. In simple terms, the abuse has permeated every aspect of K’s life.
In the case of B, she also describes the lifelong impact the abuse has had upon her. She has required extensive professional assistance for the psychological harm she suffered. For many years, she carried a deep sense of shame and guilt. She turned to destructive behaviours in an endeavour to cope. The abuse has adversely impacted her ability to trust, her sense of safety and her sense of self-worth. She remains anxious and hyper-vigilant and continues to have flashbacks. B notes that the sexual abuse perpetrated by the defendants “did not just take away my childhood and innocence, but it changed the way I parented, the way my children have grown up and the way my family has lived”. She also notes the emotional toll on her own mother, who felt immense pain and guilt when she discovered the abuse. B’s comments provide insight into the harm abuse of this nature, causes for the complainant and her whole family throughout generations.
H speaks of the severe impact the abuse has had on her life and reflects on how her life may well have been different if she had not been subject to such abuse. She describes herself as an anxious and depressed person. She has had difficulty in forming positive relationships. She has become an over-protective mother. She feels anxious and hyper-vigilant all the time. She has experienced suicidal thoughts.
It is well understood that the impact of sexual crimes upon children is often extensive, pervasive and lifelong. For each of the complainants, the sexual abuse to which they were subject has marred not only their childhoods but has also significantly impacted their adult lives. It has adversely permeated all aspects of their lives. The trauma described by each of the complainants is precisely the kind of harm that is sadly often experienced by victims of child sexual abuse.
The gravity of JED’s sexual abuse cannot be understated. It was deviant, degrading and belittling behaviour. Both K and B were very vulnerable. They came from a dysfunctional and unsafe family home. They had no capacity to self-protect because of their young age, and they had no confidence in obtaining assistance from within their own family because of the violence and the fear of the repercussions which may flow.
I note in respect to both K and H; it was a sustained period of sexual abuse which included acts of vaginal and oral penetration, and in the case of H, anal penetration, as well as other sexual touching. The occasions that have been identified were not the only occasions of sexual abuse. Those occasions occurred in the context of on-going and persistent sexual abuse. In respect to B, the use of alcohol to render her entirely helpless, is a seriously aggravating factor. It must have been a horrific experience to wake up to being raped, in the home of family friends, whilst the person you considered your friend, looked on. All the offending involved a terrible breach of trust. In relation to K and B, the defendants took advantage of the fact that they were good friends with their parents, and they were entrusted to look after them. The offending against K occurred in circumstances where K had been entrusted to stay at the defendants’ home. She was under their care and supervision. The same can be said for the offending against B.
In respect to H, JED was her stepfather. She knew him as her “Dad”. He had an obligation to protect and nurture her. Instead, he abused her for his own sexual gratification. Much of the abuse occurred within the family home where she was entitled to feel safe and protected. He betrayed not only H’s trust, but also that of STB in his sexual abuse of H.
Some of the offending against K and H happened when they were exceptionally young. H was only seven and K nine when the abuse commenced. Some of the offending against K occurred in front of other children; the incident involving M and the rape that occurred in the bedroom where the other children were sleeping. There is no evidence any of the other children awoke, but clearly neither JED, nor STB, was troubled by the prospect of that occurring. Much of the offending was brazen, occurring when other adults were nearby. The offending of JED involved manipulation and bribes. JED constantly told the children not to tell anyone. He would offer them treats for engaging in the sexual conduct. He sought to normalise the behaviour and thereby protect himself against disclosure. Aspects of the sexual abuse were particularly degrading. For example, the anal rape of H, making H use the penile prosthesis, and passing his penis between the mouths of K and M.
All of this abuse occurred at a stage in each of the complainants’ lives which was of importance for their psychological, sexual and emotional development. As noted, K and B were particularly vulnerable. They must have felt that there was nowhere safe in the world. H had a difficult relationship with her mother and siblings. She went to live with JED because of that and he took advantage of that satiation to abuse her. Over many years, the sexual abuse perpetrated by JED was protracted and purposeful. This was not isolated, nor spontaneous. The rape of B, for example, must have involved some degree of planning given the use of alcohol.
I have regard to the statutory aggravating circumstances I am required to take into account by virtue of the Sentencing Act 1997, s 11A. I also bear in mind the factors enunciated as relevant to sentencing child sexual offences in DPP v Harington [2017] TASSCA 4.
Neither defendant is entitled to any discount on their sentence for pleading guilty, which is a significant matter in cases of this nature. Each of the complainants had to endure the ordeal of giving evidence and whilst neither defendant is to be punished for exercising their right to trial, I have no doubt that each complainant found the Court process a most difficult one. Neither defendant has demonstrated any remorse nor insight into the gravely serious nature of their conduct.
The sentencing goals which are prominent in sentencing matters of this nature, are general deterrence, community protection, punishment, denunciation, vindication of the victims and recognition of the individual harm each complainant has suffered. The sentence must make clear to not only the defendants, but also to the broader community, that those who engage in the abhorrent behaviour of sexually abusing children, can expect to receive harsh punishment. The Court has an obligation to endeavour to protect children and deter such abuse by the imposition of strong sentences that reflect society’s condemnation of such behaviour.
Because I intend to impose a global sentence in respect to each defendant, I am required to identify the sentence which would have been imposed for each crime, had I sentenced separately. This identification will not take into account considerations of totality or proportionality arising from the overall sentence. The sentences I would impose for each crime separately in respect to JED are periods of imprisonment as follows:
- Count 1 (K) – ten years
- Count 3 (B)– five years
- Count 4 (H) – twelve years
In respect to STB, the sentence I would impose for each crime separately are as follows:
- Count 2 (K) – two and half years
- Count 3 (B) – four years
Of course, the aggregate sentence to be imposed upon each defendant is to be moderated by principles of proportionality and totality. In respect of proportionality, the overall sentence must reflect that these crimes were committed against separate complainants, and at different times, and that each complainant has experienced her own significant harm as a result of the offending. The totality principle requires me to take a last look at the aggregate sentence to ensure that it is proportionate to the defendant’s overall criminality, and that the defendant is not subjected to a crushing sentence. The application of such principles, however, must, be balanced and judged against the gravity of the overall offending.
Balancing all relevant considerations, the only possible sentencing outcome is a period of imprisonment in respect to each defendant, and for JED, it must, given the appalling nature of the offending, be a significant one. I will make allowance for parole for each defendant, bearing in mind their respective ages, and the health issues I have identified.
JED, you are convicted of each count upon which you have been found guilty. I make an order under the Community Protection (Offender Reporting) Act 2005 directing that the Registrar cause your name to be placed on the register, and that you comply with the reporting obligations under that Act for a period of 15 years following your release from custody. I impose a global sentence. You are sentenced to imprisonment for a period of 18 years from 4 September 2025. I order that you are not eligible to apply for parole until you have served ten years of that sentence.
STB, you are convicted of each count upon which you have been found guilty. I make an order under the Community Protection (Offender Reporting) Act 2005 directing that the Registrar cause your name to be placed on the register, and that you comply with the reporting obligations under that Act for a period of six years following your release from custody. I impose a global sentence. You are sentenced to imprisonment for a period of five years from 3 September 2025. I order that you are not eligible to apply for parole until you have served three years of that sentence.