Where there is repeated sexual offending against the same victim over a lengthy period, later offences are to be viewed as progressively more serious for the purpose of cumulation orders, because the offender has had the opportunity to reflect on his conduct between offences. Orders for cumulation must reflect the separate criminality of each offence, and the presumption of cumulation under s 6E of the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) applies with particular force to later offences by a repeat offender. The adequacy of cumulation orders is not to be tested by hypothesising a different sentencing structure with lower individual sentences and greater cumulation. The question left open by the dissent — whether such hypothetical restructuring is a legitimate analytical tool — remains a point of contention.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 27 later cases that cite this judgment.
11 of the 27 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.