The presumption of harm in child sexual offence cases does not require a sentencing judge to adopt any particular formulation of the likely long-term consequences of the offending; it is sufficient that the judge recognises the statutory prohibition reflects a presumption of harm and has regard to the victim impact evidence. A position of authority is an aggravating factor under s 33(1)(u) of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), but the Crown must prove beyond reasonable doubt a causal connection between the position and the offending for that connection to increase seriousness; the absence of such proof does not negate the significance of the age difference and associated power imbalance. A fully suspended sentence for child sexual offences, while undoubtedly lenient, is not necessarily manifestly inadequate where the sentencing judge has properly balanced deterrence and denunciation against rehabilitation.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 17 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 17 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.