The majority held that a sentencing judge's rejection of a submission that victims were not harmed, combined with assessment of objective seriousness based on vulnerability, depravity and breach of trust, does not constitute an erroneous attribution of psychological harm. The dissent provides a detailed analysis of the evidentiary requirements for finding substantial emotional harm under s 21A(2)(g) in cases where very young child victims were unaware of the offending, holding that generalised judicial statements about harm to child sexual offence victims cannot substitute for evidence-based findings. The question of whether a sentencing judge can infer future psychological harm to very young victims who were unaware of the offending remains unresolved.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 6 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 6 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.