IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA
AT Melbourne
CRIMINAL DIVISION
SEX OFFENCE LIST	Revised
Not Restricted
Suitable for Publication	

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS		
		
v		
		
LIAM ROSE (A PSEUDONYM)		

---

JUDGE:	HIS HONOUR JUDGE DOYLE	
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne	
DATE OF HEARING:	21 March 2024	
DATE OF SENTENCE:	24 June 2024	
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Rose (a pseudonym)	
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2024] VCC 959		

REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---

Subject:	Criminal Law 
Catchwords: 	Sexual penetration of a child under the age 16 years - intellectual deficits - disparity in age – substantial impact on victim – breach of trust - standard sentence – fitness investigation - cognitive deficits - autism spectrum disorder – substantial utilitarian value – reduced moral culpability - youthful offender principles apply. 
Legislation Cited:	 
Cases Cited:	Clarkson v The Queen 32 VR 361; Bailey Giri v The Queen [2022] VSCA 64; Verdins & Ors [2007] VSCA 102; Muldrock v The Queen [2011] HCA 39; 244 CLR 120; Boulton v The Queen [2014] VSCA 342
Sentence:	Community Correction Order for 42 months with a justice plan, supervision, offending behaviour programs and 280 hours of community work. Sex offender’s registry with life registration.

---

APPEARANCES:
	Counsel	Solicitors	
For the DPP	Mr M. Fisher	Office of Public Prosecutions	
			
For the Accused	Ms A. Hurst- plea 
Mr L. Robertson- sentence 
	Victoria Legal Aid 	

HIS HONOUR:

1	Liam Rose, you have pleaded guilty to five charges of sexual penetration of a child under the age 16 years.  The maximum penalty for an offence of sexual penetration of a child under the age of 16 is 15 years’ imprisonment. 
2	The offending is described in detail in the amended summary of prosecution opening for plea dated 5 February 2024.  That document was tendered as an exhibit on the plea and read in open court.  It represents an agreed summary of facts.
3	I will summarise the offending based on that prosecution summary.
4	You, Mr Rose, were born in January 1999.   You were 21 years old at the time of the offending.  You are now 25 years old.
5	Your mother is Marissa Dougal.  She is married to Geoff Dougal who is your stepfather.  Mr Dougal is the father of Rhys and Micah Dougal.  Rhys is the victim of your offending.
6	You lived with your mother and Mr Dougal in Rosebud, and you had previously lived in Dromana and another address in Rosebud.
7	Rhys Dougal was born in January 2007.  At the time of the offending, he was just 13 years old.  After Geoff Dougal married Marissa Dougal, Rhys lived with his mother, Bianca Symes, and his brother Micah.  He also spent time with his father, in Dromana and then Rosebud.  Rhys would stay with Geoff Dougal and your mother, and you, fortnightly over the weekends and during school holiday periods.  Micah also spent time at his father’s house over the weekends and during school holiday periods until he was 17 years old.   Micah was born in 2003.
Charge 1
8	In September 2020, Rhys was spending the weekend with you, his father, and your mother at Rosebud.  He was in the shower, and you walked in.  You were naked.  You grabbed your penis and started stroking it.  You then grabbed Rhys’ hand and made him touch your penis.  You then grabbed his head and made him suck your penis.  You then bent down and then started sucking his penis.  Rhys had to wash his penis again because he found it disgusting.  Charge 1 is a rolled-up charge incorporating you sucking Rhys’ penis and Rhys sucking your penis.
Charge 2
9	In September 2020, Rhys was present in the living room.  You started stroking his penis over its shorts.  You took him by the hand and dragged him to his room.  You pulled your pants down and you had Rhys touch your penis.  You then pulled his pants down.  You then lay down on the bed.  You had Rhys stroke your penis and then suck your penis.  You then did the same to him including sucking his penis.  Rhys stopped and told you he was going for a shower.  These two acts of oral penetration represent a rolled-up charge of sexual penetration that makes up Charge 2.
Charge 3
10	On the weekend of 11 to 13 September 2020, Rhys was again present at your house.  Rhys was watching YouTube videos in his bed under the blankets.  You walked into the room and removed the blankets.  You started stroking his penis until it was erect.  You then sucked his penis. You told Rhys to ejaculate, which he did. 
Charge 4
11	On Thursday 8 October 2020, Rhys and Micah came over to your residence for the weekend.  On the Thursday evening Rhys was playing pool downstairs.  Micah was on the couch.  You moved up behind Rhys and started rubbing his penis over his pants.  You motioned for him to come to his room. In his room you started rubbing his pants.  You moved him to the bed.  You lay down on the bed.  You had Rhys stroke your penis and suck your penis.  You then did the same to him and sucked his penis.  Rhys tried to walk away.  You grabbed his legs and pulled him back.  You then pulled up your pants.  Rhys went and had a shower.  
Charge 5
12	On Friday 9 October 2020, Rhys was in the downstairs kitchen at your house.  You approached him from behind.  You moved him to your room.  You made him stroke your penis.  Whenever he tried to walk away you would grab him again.  You pulled his head down and made him suck your penis.  You then went onto your knees and started sucking his penis.  He describes having a shower to wash off the experience of having touched your penis.
13	The next day he told his father about what had been happening.
14	The prosecution opening describes sexual contact as taking place regularly and that Rhys says that at times you would stop for a week and then it would start again. This is put as context to the charged acts. 
15	Rhys says that after he told his father about what had been happening, your behaviour stopped.
16	On 10 October 2020, Geoff Dougal spoke to Marissa Dougal about what had happened.  After this Rhys and Geoff and Marissa Dougal went for a walk and talked about what was going on.  Rhys and his father took Micah home because they did not want him to know what had been happening.  Geoff and Marissa Dougal spoke to you about Rhys’ revelations.
17	Following this, Geoff Dougal spoke to Bianca Symes, Rhys’ mother, and police were notified.
18	Geoff Dougal spoke to you, and you made admissions.  You told Marissa Dougal that you knew what you were doing was wrong.
19	After police were notified, you were interviewed.  You made admissions to the police in respect of your offending against Rhys.
Victim Impact Statements
20	Rhys Dougal provided a victim impact statement, as did his mother Bianca Symes, and his brother Micah.
21	Rhys says the biggest impact of your offending has been the loss of his father.  He says that the aftermath has been so emotionally challenging he tried to take his own life.  After he disclosed your offending, he started using marijuana and stopped playing sport.  He describes himself as hanging out with the wrong people.
22	However, he has been able to move on and has been motivated to find work and now feels more confident in his life.
23	He says he has not seen his father since the offending came to light.  He describes you as having been a good stepbrother who took advantage of the situation and broke his trust.  He says that your offending broke his family unit, and he felt responsible.
24	Bianca Symes says she felt very guilty because she had always encouraged the relationship between Rhys and you.  She says, 'it kills me that [Rhys] has lost his relationship with his dad'.  She is angry that you took Rhys’ childhood and innocence away from him.  She felt helpless throughout the court process.  Watching Rhys use drugs was very difficult for her.  She suffered depression and became unwell.  She had panic attacks when Rhys was not with her.  She had to take lots of time off work after your offending came out into the open and take Rhys to appointments.  She did not want to leave him alone.
25	Micah says that before the offending the family was very close, and it now feels like they have been torn apart.  He feels like he does not know his brother anymore.  He says his mother is full of anxiety and often seems depressed.  He says he wished he had his old brother back.  He feels Rhys has missed opportunities because of his anxiety.
26	It is clear from these victim impact statements, and it is not surprising, that your offending, Mr Rose, has had a very substantial impact on Rhys, his mother and his brother.   
27	I say this to Rhys, there is no equivalence between the sentence I impose, and the damage done to you, Rhys, by this offending which I recognise as very significant.  The sentence that I impose reflects a consideration of all the various factors I am required to have regard to, one of which is the impact on the you, your mother and your brother. I reiterate I have no doubt this has been very substantial and will be enduring.
Seriousness of the offences  
28	The seriousness of the offence of sexual penetration of a child under 16 years is reflected in the maximum penalty of 15 years' imprisonment and the standard sentence of 6 years' imprisonment.
29	These offences are obviously objectively serious examples of sexual penetration of a child.
30	The law presumes ongoing harm to the victims of such offences. 
31	In the case of Clarkson, the Court of Appeal said: 
'The absolute prohibition on sexual activity with a child is founded on a presumption of harm.  The prohibition is intended to protect children from the harm presumed to be caused by premature sexual activity, that is, activity before the age when a child can give meaningful consent'. 
32	It is apparent that already there has been substantial impact on Rhys as set out in the victim impact statement.
33	The charges here cover multiple acts of penetration occurring over a six-week period in the context of wider activity.  On one of these occasions, Rhys ejaculated.   He was your much younger stepbrother, just 13 years old.  Therefore, the offending involved a breach of trust.  Notwithstanding your intellectual deficits, to which I will return, the disparity in age has some significance.   Furthermore, the offending occurred when the victim was staying with you and your family at your house, which was his home during these periods.  He had his own room.  He was there to be with his father.  He was entitled to feel safe and to be safe.  
34	Four of the five charges are rolled-up counts and in sentencing for those charges I must have regard to the totality of the circumstances.  Of course, they are single charges subject to one maximum penalty, but the reality is each rolled-up charge in this case involves two acts of oral penetration. 
35	Ordinarily, offending such as this would be met with a substantial prison sentence involving a head sentence and a non-parole period.  
Standard Sentence 
36	The standard sentence for the offences in this case is six years' imprisonment, which operates as a yardstick and is applicable to an offence in the mid-range of seriousness, taking into account only its objective features.   It is not a mandatory sentence, nor is it the primary sentencing consideration, or the starting point from which to add or subtract time.  It is just one of the many matters take into account in deciding the appropriate sentence.  As I have already indicated, the sentence I will impose in this case is less than the standard sentence. 

Procedural history
37	Mr Rose, you were interviewed in November 2020, and you made admissions. Charges were filed in 2021.  The issue of your fitness was raised in a psychological report in mid- 2022.   You were committed for trial in July 2022.  There were further reports provided and two directions hearings took place in the County Court.  The matter was adjourned for a fitness investigation in March 2023, but that fixture was vacated due to witnesses being unavailable.   A further fitness investigation was vacated in June 2023 due to witnesses being unwell.  I finally heard the fitness investigation in August 2023 and made a ruling on 7 September 2023.   The matter then resolved by 25 October 2023.   I heard the plea in this matter on 26 February 2024 and adjourned for a community correction order assessment and a Justice report which took some time to be prepared.
38	Given that the offer of resolution was made inside a month of my ruling on the fitness investigation, and then the matter resolved by the end of October 2023, I regard your plea as an early one.   No witnesses were cross-examined.  The only venue to decide your fitness was the County Court and until that was decided the case could not resolve. 
39	There was an extensive report of Mr Martin Jackson in which he offered the opinion that you were unfit to stand trial and so there was no choice but for the matter to proceed in the way that it did.  
40	I accept your plea indicates a willingness to facilitate the course of justice and perhaps some remorse, although that issue is complicated by your cognitive deficits and your autism spectrum disorder.  The utilitarian value of your plea is substantial.  You have spared the Court, the police, and the prosecution the use of the resources required for a trial.  Importantly, you have spared the witnesses, particularly Rhys, the experience of having to relive these events by giving evidence.   Furthermore, your plea came at the tail end of the pandemic backlog in this court, but it nonetheless contributed to the reduction of the backlog and therefore attracts some additional utilitarian significance.  Your plea is a significant matter in mitigation, particularly in a case such as this.
Personal Circumstances
41	You were born in January 1999.  You were 21 years old at the time of the offending.  You are your mother’s only child.   You never knew your biological father.  You have lived with your mother, Marissa, and Geoff Dougal, your stepfather, since 2010.
42	You completed your primary schooling at Rosebud.  You then went to a specialist school for your secondary education.  You finished there in 2017.    A letter from that school was tendered which confirms the school is for students with a mild intellectual disability indicated by an IQ score of between 50 and 70.  After you left school you did some work on and off as a handyman. 
43	The offending in this case took place in the COVID period.  The significance of this is dealt with in the report of the forensic psychologist who assessed you, 
Dr Hannah Ferguson.  
44	You have always lived with your mother.  Since she started her relationship with Mr Dougal, he has also been a constant in your life.  
45	You receive a disability support pension.
46	The material shows that you have no close friendships, and you spend most of your time at home.  
47	You enjoy gardening and playing video games.  You also have an interest in collecting recyclable cans and bottles to make extra money.   You ride your bicycle around the local area looking for cans and bottles that have been discarded.
48	You have no alcohol or drug problems.  You have no criminal history.
49	Your mother, Marissa Dougal, provided a letter about you and she also gave evidence.  In the letter she described you as childlike and introverted.  She refers to some instability in the family’s accommodation at the time of the offences which caused you some anxiety.   She says since the family moved away from Rosebud you have settled well, and you are now working at the supermarket where she works.
50	In her evidence, she said you have always lived with her.  She said that you are never around children.  Your job is to stock the store at the supermarket.   The rest of the time you are at home.  She said she does not see you ever living independently.   She gave evidence that she has to tell you when to have a shower and when to eat.   You have a routine that you follow.  She said you do not really understand what prison is.  When cross-examined, she said that your job at the supermarket involves simple instructions and unpacking loads that are dropped off.  You follow the same routine every day.  
51	Geoff Dougal, in a letter that was tendered, describes you as a child at heart who needs professional help and guidance.  He says you ‘dig holes in the garden making roads in your make-believe world’.  He says you have been doing very well since moving from Rosebud. 
52	Both your mother and your stepfather say that you have told them you are sorry for what you did. 
53	You clearly have the unconditional support of your mother and your stepfather.  When you were assessed for the Justice Plan and the community correction order, you were supported by your mother.  Both reports indicate that you only had the capacity to give brief responses to the questions that you were asked, and your mother gave the interviewers most of the details about yourself.

Psychological evidence 
54	At the age of seven, you were diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder by a paediatrician.  You received a childhood autism rating scale score of 39.   You also exhibited severe receptive and expressive communication speech delays and fine motor difficulties.
55	In February 2011, a formal intellectual assessment was completed by a Department of Education and Early Childhood Development psychologist, 
Ms Nicola Copley.   I have been provided with that report. The result of that assessment was that you were functioning in the mild intellectual disability range.  This diagnosis was confirmed in a report of Mr Martin Jackson from April 2022.  He assessed you as having a full-scale IQ of 64.  He gave evidence at the fitness investigation in this matter.  In his opinion, you were unfit to stand trial.  I also heard evidence from the prosecution expert, Dr Loft, who had a different opinion.  
56	A psychological report dated 15 December 2023, and a supplementary report dated 5 February 2024 from Dr Hannah Dawson were tendered as exhibits.  As well, an addendum report or an additional report from Mr Jackson dated 22 September 2023 was tendered.  Of course, I have read the original report in this matter as well as the report of Dr Loft.  
57	In his addendum report, Mr Jackson said this:
'Mr [Rose] clearly had an impairment in his capacity to reason and make calm decisions and appropriate judgements due to his mild intellectual disability with severe additional impairment of language skills, profound verbal new learning and memory impairments, severe visual new learning and memory impairments and concrete inflexible thinking.  I am of the opinion that he has no functional decision-making capacity'.
58	Dr Dawson in her addendum report or supplementary report said this at paragraph 18:
'Thus, it is suggested that Mr [Rose’s] neurodivergent functioning and complex presentation when combined lead to poor impulse control and social deficits that impact his judgment including his recognition of acceptable and healthy sexualised behaviours and those that are harmful and inappropriate'.
59	In her first report, and I do not intend to read these paragraphs extensively, she also dealt with the relevance of your cognitive deficits and autism spectrum disorder to the offending at paragraphs really 122 through to 134.  Dr Dawson dealt with your history.  As well she noted that you have experienced gender dysphoria or gender confusion and that's referred to in her report.  In her assessment of the relationship between your deficits and the offending, she said this at paragraph 128:
'The issue with this related to Mr [Rose’s] sexual functioning and confused sexuality at the time of the alleged offending which was during a period of forced isolation during the COVID-19 pandemic lockdown period whereby he solely associated with the complainant.  Thus, in exploring his sexuality, he has developed indications of a paraphilic disorder.  In relation to this, it is important to note that his reduced intellectual functioning has further implications for his understanding of boundaries, consent, higher likelihood of social deficits and misinterpreting cues which is further exacerbated by his ASD'.
60	At paragraph 129, she said:
 'Mr [Rose] has expressed remorse and superficially understands that his actions have been wrong, but he's somewhat unclear about exactly why, given that he has a difficulty understanding both the age and concept of consent'.
61	In other passages of her report, she talked about your insight; for example, at paragraph 67 of her report.  I will come back to that.
62	In relation to the how you would cope with imprisonment, Mr Jackson said that you would struggle to understand and remember new routines in custody, read people’s faces, understand sarcasm, and adjust to the new environment.  He expressed the view that you would be very vulnerable in prison to sexual and physical assault and abuse.
63	In the supplementary report from Dr Dawson, she said this:
 'Moreover, he is at risk of physical and psychological harm within the prison environment due to his vulnerabilities as well as a lack of appropriate support and programs as stated within the original report'.  
64	So those are some of the issues that arise in the voluminous material tendered in this case.
Submissions 
65	Ms Hurst relied on the reports as demonstrating a causal link between your impairments and the offending and I accept that that is the case.
66	Ms Hurst submitted that general deterrence should be given significantly reduced weight in this case.  She referred to the decision of R v Mooney.  She relied on the following passage from Mooney where Lush J said:
'The significance of general deterrence in a particular case will, however, at least usually be related to the kindred concept of retribution or punishment in which is involved an element of instinctive appreciation of the appropriateness of the sentence to the case, a sentence imposed with deterrence in view will not be acceptable in its retributed effect on the offender if its retributive effect on the offender is felt to be inappropriate to his situation and the needs of the community'.
67	These principles were reiterated in the case of Muldrock in the High Court. In Muldrock the High Court referred to that passage from Mooney and then at paragraph 54 said this:
'This principle is well recognised. It applies in sentencing offenders suffering from mental illness, and those with an intellectual handicap. A question will often arise as to the causal relation, if any, between an offender's mental illness and the commission of the offence. Such a question is less likely to arise in sentencing a mentally retarded offender because the lack of capacity to reason, as an ordinary person might, as to the wrongfulness of the conduct will, in most cases, substantially lessen the offender's moral culpability for the offence. The retributive effect and denunciatory aspect of a sentence that is appropriate to a person of ordinary capacity will often be inappropriate to the situation of a mentally retarded offender and the needs of the community'.
68	Ms Hurst submitted that having regard to your cognitive deficits and autism spectrum disorder, specific deterrence should be given little weight and that the criminal process so far, including the lengthy delay, has provided a substantial measure of specific deterrence in this matter.
69	She further submitted that the principles of Verdins apply.   Those principles really mirror the principles in Muldrock and Mooney.  She submitted your moral culpability is significantly reduced and that you are not an appropriate vehicle for general deterrence.  Furthermore, she submitted that a sentence of imprisonment would have a significant detrimental effect on someone such as yourself with your psychological and intellectual issues.
70	The prosecution accepted that the sentencing principles arising from your mental state are clear enough and that the principles in Verdins apply.  Perhaps that is really an acceptance that the Muldrock principles apply, but as I say, the principles mirror each other.
71	Mr Fisher though submitted that the offending was for sexual gratification.  He submitted that the gravity of the offending was high, and your moral culpability was high.  He submitted there were concerning aspects arising from the report such as your limited understanding of your own behaviour, the assessment of risk and your lack of self-awareness.   He submitted that your lack of insight goes to the risk of re-offending, your remorse, and your prospects of rehabilitation.
72	However, ultimately, the prosecution submitted that given your intellectual deficits and autism spectrum disorder, a combination sentence of imprisonment and a community correction order was within the range of available sentences. Whereas Ms Hurst submitted that a community correction order alone is the appropriate sentence.
73	In my opinion, your intellectual disability and your autism spectrum disorder are such that your moral culpability for the offending is very substantially reduced.  Although I am satisfied you knew what you were doing was wrong at some level, based on the psychological material, I am satisfied you did not understand the grave nature of the offending.   Given your intellectual disability, the significance of the age gap between you and Rhys is also reduced.  You did not have the capacity to think and reason in a way as would be expected of a 21-year-old without your cognitive deficits and your autism spectrum disorder. 
74	I am also satisfied you are not an appropriate vehicle for general deterrence and that the process you have been through so far has been a sufficient deterrent given your mental state issues. 
75	In respect of your prospects of rehabilitation, it is significant that you have the support of your mother and stepfather.  It has taken three years for this case to be finalised and there is no suggestion of further offending in that time.   I am satisfied that the delay has been a significant burden on you.   In saying that, I recognise that the delay in resolving this matter has also been a burden on Rhys and his family.  I am satisfied that you though have been able to demonstrate some rehabilitation in that time.  
76	There is obviously a risk of re-offending in your case.  That is evident from the risk assessment conducted by Ms Dawson and what she said at paragraphs 65 through to 67 of her report.  She said this:
'Mr [Rose] displayed difficulties with insight into his offending behaviour.  Whilst he admitted to the offending and ultimately accepted responsibility for his actions, he did not appear to adequately understand why his behaviour was wrongful or harmful'.
77	She said:
'He appeared to experience shame and regret regarding his offending, though was limited in his ability to empathise with the victim.  It was noted Mr [Rose] likely experiences some social impaired social perspective taking attributable to his underpinned ASD features and intellectual limitations'.  
78	She also said this:  
'Encouragingly, Mr [Rose] has not re-offended.  However, he is likely overestimating his ability to control and suppress his sexual urges over the long-term'.
79	It is apparent from the report and her assessment that you are a risk to re-offend.   The prosecutor submitted that your lack of insight goes to remorse and your prospects of rehabilitation.  That may be so, but it also reflects your intellectual disability and your autism spectrum disorder and that is clear from the reports.
80	Your youth is a relevant factor.  You were just 21 at the time of the offending but operating at a much lower age cognitively.  The youthful offender principles which emphasise rehabilitation as the primary sentencing principle are applicable in your case. 
81	I have had regard to the comparative cases involving offenders with intellectual deficits referred to by the prosecution and the defence on the plea which are a guide to the appropriate sentence.  In particular, the Court of Appeal case of Bailey Giri v The Queen [2022] VSCA 64 seems comparable to me.  The offender in that case had similar intellectual deficits and had autism spectrum disorder.  The offending was very serious, involving two victims and some transmit image offences as well.  The ultimate sentence of the Court of Appeal in that case was 40 days with a community correction order after the offender had served 40 days waiting for the appeal to get on.  There are parallels with that case. Of course, there are also significant differences between all the cases referred to and your circumstances.  No two cases are the same.  Those cases are a guide, but no more.
82	The principles in the case of Boulton are relevant to sentencing in this case.  As I said earlier, ordinarily, this type of offending would result in a substantial prison sentence.  However, as I also said earlier, in recognition of the mitigating factors, the prosecution has accepted a combination sentence is open, so that would be a sentence of less than 12 months or less combined with a community correction order.
83	In Boulton, the Court of Appeal recognised that a community correction order can be imposed in serious offences for a period of years with conditions both punitive and rehabilitative and, therefore, a sentencing court should ask the question whether there is any feature of the offence or the offender which requires the conclusion that imprisonment with all its disadvantages is the only option. 
84	In deciding whether I should sentence you to a period of imprisonment, I have also had regard to the likely impact on you of a prison sentence given your mental state issues.   I accept the submission that it would be potentially a very dangerous environment for you.  I accept that prison would be substantially more burdensome on you than someone without your psychological issues and intellectual deficits.  
85	In the end, I have decided that your mental state issues combined with your youth and the delay in this matter, dictate that I should impose a community correction order alone in this case.  Furthermore, your unsuitability for a period of imprisonment given your intellectual deficits and autism spectrum disorder also militates towards such a conclusion.   
86	I am of the view that the optimum sentencing disposition to provide the intervention required to improve your prospects of rehabilitation is a lengthy community correction order with conditions designed to facilitate your rehabilitation; and that because of your intellectual disability and autism spectrum disorder, a community correction order without a period of imprisonment best reconciles the competing sentencing principles in this case.  
87	In this matter, I ordered an extended pre-sentence assessment from the Office of Corrections and a Justice Plan, as well as a Certificate of Intellectual Disability.  In the extended pre-sentence report, you are considered to be a low risk of general re-offending, but of course that is not the case in respect of sexual offending.  I would anticipate though that on this community correction order, you will be required to undergo a sex offenders' program.  
88	Due to your intellectual disability and autism spectrum disorder, the report cautions against the overloading of conditions which would create a risk of non-compliance.  The report in the end recommends supervision, offending behaviour programs, unpaid community work and a Justice Plan.
89	The Justice Plan Report recommends that you engage with a Disability Justice Co-ordinator from the Department of Families, Fairness and Housing for the duration of the order and that you participate in a referral to Forensic Disability Clinical Services and participate in any programs recommended.  I am satisfied that a community correction order with all these conditions will provide the      supervision necessary to improve your prospects of rehabilitation and protect the community from any further offending.
Sentence
90	On all the charges in this case, so that is Charges 1 to 5, you are convicted and placed on a community correction order for a period of 42 months.  The community correction order will have the following special conditions: 
•	supervision; 
•	offending behaviour programs; 
•	280 hours of unpaid community work;
•	and a Justice Plan.
91	I will have you sign that document.  I will have Mr Robertson take it to you and get you to sign it.  You must consent to such an order, Mr Rose.  
92	I need to tell you this.  If you commit another offence punishable by imprisonment during the time this order is in force, so for the next three and a half years, that would be a breach of this offence.  You could be charged with breaching the order and then brought back before me.  One of the options open would be to 
re-sentence you for these offences.  
93	You also have to report to and receive visits from Corrections Victoria.  
94	You have got to go to attend at Correctional Services within two clear working days of the order starting. 
95	If you change your address or your employment, you have to tell Corrections.  
96	You cannot leave Victoria without getting permission of Corrections to do so and you have to obey all lawful instructions from Corrections.  
97	In addition, you must perform all of the specific conditions that I have outlined in this order, that is, supervision, offending behaviour programs, unpaid community work and a Justice Plan and if you do not comply with any of those conditions, you would be in breach of the order, you could be charged with a breach and brought back  before me and you would be at significant risk then of being sent to prison.  
98	So I will have Mr Robertson take the document down to you.  I assume you have spoken to him to some extent about this?
97	MR ROBERTSON:   Yes, I have, Your Honour, yes.
98	HIS HONOUR:   All right.  Mr Fisher, are these all Class 1 offences or are they Class 2?  I mean I know it is life registration - - -
99	MR FISHER:   It is life under SORA.
100	HIS HONOUR:  Yes, there's no doubt about that.  I just wanted to – I do not have the Act in front of me.  I just wanted to work out if they are Class 1 or Class 2.
101	MR FISHER:  I think they are all Class 1, but perhaps I'll just double-check that, Your Honour.
102	HIS HONOUR:  All right, I will sign that.  So, Mr Rose, you consent to this order?
103	OFFENDER:  Yes.
104	HIS HONOUR:  Yes.  Do you understand the consequences if you do not do the things required by this order?
104	OFFENDER:  Yes.
105	HIS HONOUR:  All right.  In addition, Mr Rose, these are Class 1 offences.  There are five of them, so you will be placed on the Sex Offenders Registry and the registration period is for the rest of your life.  You will be given some documents in relation to that.  There are substantial obligations that go with that, that you will be required to comply with.  If you do not comply with the requirements of the Sex Offenders Registration Order, they are criminal offences as well, which would of course breach the community correction order that I have imposed.  So, you must comply with those orders.  Just on the correction order, I order that 80 hours performed pursuant to the treatment and rehabilitation conditions can be deducted from the unpaid community work.  
106	Pursuant to s6AAA, I indicate that but for your plea of guilty, I would have imposed a sentence of 12 months' imprisonment with a three-year community correction order in this matter.  Are there any other orders required?
107	MR FISHER:  No thanks, Your Honour.
108	HIS HONOUR:   Thanks, Mr Fisher.  Thanks, Mr Robertson.  And look I thank all of you for being as calm as you have been during this process.  I understand how difficult this is for you to sit here and listen to all of that, so I just wanted to thank you for how calm and respectful you have been during the process.  All right.  Okay, that is the order.  I will now stand down.  All right.
109	MR ROBERTSON:   As Your Honour pleases.
110	MR FISHER:  As Your Honour pleases.
 - - -