IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA	 Revised
Not Restricted
Suitable for Publication	
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

CR 23-00251

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS		
		
v		
		
Ravinder Church (A Pseudonym) 		

---

JUDGE:	HIS HONOUR JUDGE LAURITSEN	
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne	
DATE OF HEARING:	8 & 25 November 2024	
DATE OF SENTENCE:	9 December 2024	
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Church (A Pseudonym)	
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2024] VCC 1985	

REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Subject:				CRIMINAL LAW
Catchwords:		Charges of encouraging a child under 16 to engage in sexual activity and sexual penetration of a child under 16 – found guilty after trial – criminal history – standard sentencing – Verdins – serious sexual offender – totality – positive prospects of rehabilitation.
Legislation Cited:		Sentencing Act 1991; Sex Offenders Registration Act 2004.
Cases Cited:			R v Verdins (2007) 16 VR 289; Brown v R (2019) 59 VR 462. 
Sentence:		Total effective sentence of 8 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 5 years imprisonment. 
---

APPEARANCES:
	Counsel	Solicitors	
For the Director of Public Prosecutions	Mr M. Fisher (Plea)
Ms V. Gillis (Sentence)	Office of Public Prosecutions	
			
For the Accused	Mr P.A. Chadwick KC	Emma Turnbull Lawyers	

HIS HONOUR:
Introduction
1	On 20 August 2024, a jury found you, Ravinder Church, guilty of a charge of encouraging a child under 16 to engage in or be involved in sexual activity and two charges of sexual penetration of a child under 16.  After a plea hearing conducted over two days, I will today sentence you to a total effective sentence of eight years' imprisonment and will set a non-parole period of five years' imprisonment. I will declare your 111 days of pre-sentence as time served under my sentences, excluding today. 
Circumstances
2	Although you moved into your home in Mount Waverley some time earlier, you were not formally introduced to the complainant until a New Year Eve's celebration on 31 December 2021. On the next day, and for the next three or four weeks, the complainant attended your home regularly. Importantly, on New Year's Day, in answer to your question, the complainant told you he was 14 years old. 
3	During these visits, among other things, you warned the complainant of the occupants of a nearby house and advised him not to attend there because you were robbed by the occupants; they had sex with children; and sold drugs to you. 
4	On about 20 or 21 January 2022, you and the complainant went for a bike ride. After the ride, you showed the complainant text messages you sent to a boy, aged 16 or 17, and asking him to come over to your home and to share pictures of his penis. 
5	On 23 January 2022 at about 6.30 pm, the complainant came to your home, intending only a short visit as his mother did not know he was there. Among other things, you asked him about a girlfriend, whether the complainant liked you, and whether he would like to have sex with you. In effect, the complainant refused the request to have sex. These circumstances constituted Charge 1. 
6	You led the complainant into your bedroom, shut and locked the door. You shut the blinds. You rubbed the complainant's back, kissed his shoulders and back and squeezed his buttocks. 
7	You stopped the complainant from leaving and removed your pants, revealing your underwear. You pushed the complainant onto the bed and sat on top of him. You penetrated his mouth with your erect penis while trying to remove his clothing. This constitutes Charge 2, a charge of sexual penetration of a child under 16. Although the complainant pushed you away, you again penetrated his mouth with your penis. This constitutes Charge 3, another charge of sexual penetration of a child under 16. 
8	The complainant got away from you. He opened the bedroom door. He kicked open the front door and fled to his home. He went directly to his bedroom and told his mother what had happened. She took him to a police station to report the matter. 
9	Later, you were arrested and interviewed. You denied the offending. 
Criminal history 
10	Excluding an appeal, between 22 August 2000 and 28 September 2012, you have appeared in a criminal court on five occasions and have been convicted of charges. You have been sentenced to imprisonment once. On appeal on 
23 November 2007, you were re-sentenced to four years and six months’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of two years and ten months’ imprisonment on two charges of armed robbery. The Court's reasons were relied upon by your counsel. 
11	During the process of re-sentencing you, the Court considered the psychological evidence and concluded your mental disorder had the effect of: 
(a)	impairing your ability to exercise appropriate judgment, make calm or rational choices, think clearly or appreciate the wrongfulness of your conduct; and 
(b)	making you disinhibited. 
12	These matters reduced your moral culpability in your re-sentencing.  
13	There is no previous history of sexual offending. 
Victim impact statement 
14	Roseanne Beckett is the mother of the complainant. On 15 October 2024, she made a victim impact statement, speaking for herself and for her son. 
15	She has various feelings about what happened including guilt over her perceived failure to protect her son. 
16	Despite his initial reaction, her son has suffered a significant psychological reaction culminating in an admission to the mental health ward at the Royal Children's Hospital. His psychological deterioration involved lack of sleep, nightmares, significant paranoia, self-harm and violence towards members of his immediate family. It caused his withdrawal from school for almost two years and a loss of social interaction. His deterioration was such that for most of a year his mother took time off work and worked from home to care for him.  
17	The complainant receives weekly psychological treatment. For most of the last two and a half years he has been heavily medicated. 
18	He has moved from his nearby school to another school and in 2024 to a specialised school which provides support for his needs. His mother has reduced her workload to part-time work to ensure he gets to and from school safely and confidently. His social isolation still means he cannot, for example, catch a bus or take a bike ride with his friends or continue in his karate. 
19	Ms Beckett concludes the statement with this paragraph: 
The young man who is Emmerson today, is not the same young man we knew prior to the incident. His confusion and sadness that he simply lost a friend in Ravinder, was heartbreaking to us around him as the enormity of the situation sank in. While Mr Church was living freely for the past five years, we were trapped living a nightmare in our own prison just metres away.   
Personal 
20	You are 62. You were born and raised in East Timor. You have two brothers. Your father died before you were born and you were raised by your mother. 
21	You attended primary and secondary schools in East Timor. When you were 
12 or 13, you left East Timor after being forced into a refugee boat by a soldier. You travelled to Darwin with your brother, David. Both of you then came to Melbourne.  
22	For three years, you and he lived in Maribyrnong. For some reason, your brother made you leave where you were living and for a period you 'couch surfed'. You moved into a flat in Footscray while you and David searched for your mother and your other brother. 
23	With the aid of Red Cross, by about 1980, you were reunited with your mother. Four years later, you were reunited with your older brother. After a brief stay in Flemington, the family moved to Williamstown. Sadly, your mother died in 2019 and both your brothers in 2023, all from forms of cancer. 
24	You studied English for 12 months after your arrival in Melbourne. You attended secondary school, completing Year 11. You performed well academically but were truant towards the end of your time at school. 
25	You obtained and completed a manufacturing apprenticeship with Country Road in ladies' apparel. You then worked in that industry, gaining promotions, until suffering a serious back injury in 1997. Since this accident, you have not returned to work and have received a Disability Support Pension.
26	You started dating Elsa at 18 and married her at 22. You remained married for 21 years. You and Elsa bought a home in Mount Waverley. You have two sons, aged in their 30s. Both are aware of your offending and maintain a close relationship with you. You believe the breakdown of your marriage was due to the effects of the loss of employment through injury and your addiction to drugs. 
27	You were assaulted in 2016, 2018 and 2021 and injured when knocked off your bicycle in 2019. 
28	Since your remand in custody, you have come to grips with being in a prison. In your previous time in custody, you were assaulted more than once and one of the assaults was rape.   
29	After your release from custody, you wish to live with the mother of your sons in Mount Waverley.
Psychologists    
Simmons
30	Warren Simmons is a psychologist. At the request of your then solicitor, he interviewed you on 16 May 2006. 
31	In the history he took, Mr Simmons detailed your flight from East Timor, your educational experiences, your apprenticeship and employment. Apart from the circumstances of you leaving East Timor and experiences in Australia, a critical event is the injuries to your lower back. Presumably, based on what you told him, he described them as 'significant' and including a fracture of a vertebra and nerve root compression. They incapacitated you and you apparently developed a chronic pain condition and significant depression. You treated this pain condition and mood disruption through using heroin, which you obtained through committing crimes. Your use of heroin became an addiction with a period of almost two years' abstinence where there was an effective substitution of heroin for a narcotic analgesic.   
32	Mr Simmons saw your hallucinations as a feature of your depressive illness, which is the product of the chronic pain condition. He did not mention schizophrenia.  
Cidoni      
33	Gina Cidoni is a psychologist. At the request of your solicitors, she interviewed you on 1 October 2024. You were then in custody. Ms Cidoni is a very experienced psychologist. Apart from her report, she gave oral evidence in this plea hearing. 
34	There were abnormal aspects in your presentation to her. Your affect was flat and your mood was anxious. At times, your thinking was tangential and disorganised. You had some paranoid thoughts and delusions. You think about suicide but had no plans to do so.    
35	Although you told Ms Cidoni of your use of drugs, you would not tell her about the events of the offending. You told her you last used a mixture of methamphetamine and heroin before your last remand in custody. She understood you were using these drugs at around the time of your offending. 
36	In inviting the complainant to have sex with you and not to tell others showed a level of insight into the consequences of your actions. But she could not say it negates a loss of contact with reality.  
37	Ms Cidoni administered various tests. Normally, to arrive at your full-scale intelligence quotient, she would administer eight to 10 subtests. Owing to you being in prison at the time, she used only four sub-tests. She referred to the results of two of those sub-tests: verbal comprehension and working memory. In each, she found you functioned in the borderline range, that is, you performed better than only 5 or 6 per cent of your peers. Those deficits could worsen your struggles with daily tasks, reduce your ability to function independently and adapt to new or complex situations.    
38	She used other tests to assist her diagnoses. First, she diagnosed you as suffering from a severe substance use disorder involving methamphetamine and heroin. The disorder was in early remission due to you being in prison, which denied you access to those drugs. 
39	Second, she quoted from a 2008 report of Dr Sheriff, your general practitioner, where he diagnoses schizophrenia, major depressive disorder, anxiety and chronic insomnia. Owing to your persistent delusions, auditory hallucinations and disorganised thought patterns, Ms Cidoni had a diagnostic choice to explain these features, being schizophrenia or a substance-induced psychotic disorder. She chose the former because the symptoms were present outside your periods of substance use and persisted despite detoxification. While conceding the possibility of substance-induced psychosis due to your heavy, prolonged drug use, I understand her preferred diagnosis was schizophrenia.  
40	Third, Ms Cidoni diagnosed you as suffering from a post-traumatic stress order. This is a form of anxiety disorder. She relied upon the traumatic events in your life including physical assaults, rape while previously in prison and your escape from East Timor as a child. She identified symptoms including nightmares, flashbacks, hypervigilance, panic attacks and avoidance behaviour. 
41	Ms Cidoni found you are impaired in many areas. You are limited in understanding what is said, in your working memory, in understanding and working with information. These limitations can affect how you solve problems and make decisions. These lead to disorganised thoughts and impaired judgment. You are limited in communicating with others. These limitations amount to you being in a very low range of intellectual functioning but falling short of intellectual disablement. Your weaknesses in making decisions and controlling your impulses are worsened by the effects of your psychological ill-heath.    
42	Importantly, Ms Cidoni saw your offending due primarily to your long-standing substance use. She says the state of your mental health compounded the symptoms caused by your substance use. She explained the relationship in her report: 
The impact of his substance use was further compounded by his mental health struggles. Diagnosed with conditions like schizophrenia (or substance-induced psychosis) and PTSD, he was already battling symptoms like delusions, hallucinations, anxiety, and impulsive thoughts. His use of drugs likely intensified these symptoms, distorting his sense of reality and impairing his ability to make rational decisions. This combination created a destructive cycle, where his use of substances worsened his psychiatric symptoms, and his mental health struggles drove him to seek solace in drugs. This combination of factors, along with situational stressors like grief and social isolation, culminated in behaviour that was not consistent with his past, indicating that his deteriorating mental state under the influence of drugs played a central role in the offending. 
43	She could not separate the effect of your drug abuse and those of your mental illness, saying only that the latter had 'a massive compounding effect'. She said it is hard to differentiate and gave the example of using methamphetamine can cause disinhibition but so can schizophrenia. The latter can cause disinhibition and impulsivity owing to a loss of contact with reality. It is this loss which would make it difficult for you to understand how your behaviour might affect others and thinking in terms of consequences. The combination of drugs and illness reduced your understanding of the wrongfulness of your acts. Even the effects of schizophrenia operating alone can fluctuate with your desire for secrecy without fully appreciating the impact of wrongfulness of your actions. Whether the symptoms of schizophrenia were operating at the time of your offending she does not know. Yet, during her cross-examination she seemed to backtrack, saying either the drugs or the condition could produce similar symptoms. She assumed the effects of the drugs because of your long-standing and heavy usage without knowing what you used on the day of the offending, if anything at all. She could not say whether your actions were premeditated or impulsive except that impulsivity is a symptom of your psychological condition.     
44	Ms Cidoni could not say whether your use of prescribed medicines minimised or excluded your psychotic symptoms playing a part in your offending. Even if she knew what illicit drugs you took on the day of your offending, she could not disentangle their effects from those of your psychological condition.   
45	She assessed your risk of sexual re-offending was low-medium. She noted the protective factors of the support of your sons and your compliance with medical treatments. She conceded there is a possibility you will emerge from prison in a weakened state and be a high risk of re-offending. She had assumed an axe was present in the bedroom. On being told the presence of the axe was not placed before the jury, she said it would not change the risk score because the axe and the complainant's confinement in the bedroom addressed the same thing: instilling fear or control. Confinement alone achieves the same risk score as does the presence of both. 
46	Being in prison means you cannot use the drugs you used to escape and cope with your social difficulties. It was a coping mechanism of sorts. 
47	When she interviewed you, your symptoms were evident. You need significant psychiatric help including the prescription of medicines to lessen your symptoms. Due to your intellectual limitations, you need simplified instructions in order, for example, to gain benefits from programmes. You need drug treatment, psychotherapy and treatment related to your offending. She felt your psychological condition could have been dealt with in custody.      
48	As to the effect of imprisonment, she saw your symptoms of delusion, auditory hallucinations, heightened anxiety and paranoia made worse in the restrictive and stressful environment of prison. 
49	Ms Cidoni had read the judgment of the Court of Appeal and the report of 
Mr Simmons. She understood the findings reported in those documents were 'quite similar' to her findings. 
Clinical notes 
50	Dr Sheriff is a general practitioner. A copy of his clinical records concerning you was tendered. They cover the period between 6 August 2004 and 21 August 2024. 
51	In the very first entry you complained of chronic insomnia and were diagnosed as suffering from major depression. You were prescribed Antenex and Lexapro. Subsequently, there were occasional visits by you until 3 October 2008, when Dr Sheriff describes the reason for the visit was schizophrenia and prescribed for the first time the antipsychotic medicine, Seroquel. 
52	On 18 August 2014, Dr Sheriff records you as gone off Seroquel and ceases prescribing it. On 11 February 2017, despite the apparent absence of symptoms, Dr Sheriff prescribed Seroquel again. This continues through 2017 to 2018 with the increases in frequency and size of doses. 
53	How Dr Sheriff arrived at a diagnosis of schizophrenia is unknown, but it appears he has treated it through Seroquel for many years.   
Discussion 
54	Section 5(1) of the Sentencing Act 1991 sets out the purposes for which sentences may be imposed. Each of those purposes of sentencing is relevant to the sentencing of you. 
55	Through my sentences I must impose just punishment. I must deter you and other persons from committing offences of the same or a similar character. I must protect the community from you and I must manifest the denunciation of the type of conduct you have done. I must also establish conditions within which your rehabilitation may be facilitated.  
56	Section 5(2) of the Sentencing Act sets out matters to which I must have regard where they are relevant to your case. 
Maximum penalties 
57	The maximum penalties for the offences are: 
(a)	encouraging a child under 16 to engage in or be involved in sexual activity – 10 years' imprisonment. 
(b)	sexual penetration of a child under 16 – 15 years' imprisonment. This offence is a standard sentence offence. 
Standard sentencing
58	On 1 February 2018, the standard sentence scheme commenced. Only a few criminal offences are standard sentence offences for which standard sentences are prescribed.  The offence contained in the charge of sexual penetration of a child under 16 is such an offence.  The standard sentence for that offence is six years' imprisonment.   
59	What is the meaning of a standard sentence? First, it is the period of imprisonment specified for a particular offence.  Second, that period is the sentence taking into account only the objective factors affecting the relative seriousness of that offence and is in the middle of the range of seriousness. The objective factors affecting the relative seriousness of an offence are to be determined without reference to matters personal to you and wholly by reference to the nature of the offending.  Third, in sentencing you for this offence, I must take the standard sentence as one of the factors relevant to sentencing. 
60	In Brown v R, the Court of Appeal discussed the standard sentence scheme and said:
The key new requirement is that a judge when sentencing for a 'standard sentence offence' must take the standard sentence into account as one of the factors relevant to sentencing.  This requirement:
•	is to be treated as a 'legislative guideline', having the same function as the maximum penalty;
•	does not affect the established 'instinctive synthesis' approach to sentencing;
•	does not require or permit 'two-stage sentencing'; and
•	does not otherwise affect the matters which the court may, or must, take into account in sentencing.
Nature and gravity of the offences
61	Although a child under 16 cannot give consent to acts of sexual penetration, notional consent occurs in some charges of the offence, especially where the difference in age between the offender and victim is not large. In your case, there was never any notional consent. Your acts of penetration were plainly unwanted by the complainant and forced upon him. That they were unwanted was made clear in his rejection of your grooming acts. They were forcefully inflicted and occurred after you locked the bedroom door and closed the blinds. Both circumstances which caused distress to the complainant. Objectively, they are significant examples of the offence of sexual penetration of a child under 16 and, for the purposes of the standard sentence, above the middle of the range of seriousness.   
62	The offence in Charge 1 is of lesser significance. It occurred over a short period and very shortly before the offending in Charges 2 and 3. The fact your grooming acts were ineffectual makes no difference. 
Verdins 
63	You rely upon five of the six limbs or principles stated in the case of 
R v Verdins. These limbs deal with the way courts deal with an offender with impaired mental functioning. You do not rely upon limb 2 for you agree imprisonment is the only appropriate sentence, being a head sentence with a non-parole period. 
64	Limb 1 deals with the reduction of an offenders' moral culpability. If the condition reduced moral culpability, then the sentencing purposes of just punishment and denunciation may be affected. Limbs 3 and 4 deal with the sentencing purposes of general and specific deterrence respectively. Limbs 5 and 6 deal with the effect of a sentence on the offender and the deterioration of that person's mental health.   
Limb 1 
65	In paragraph 26 of R v Verdins, the Court gave six examples of circumstances where impaired mental functioning may reduce an offender's moral culpability:  
(a)	impairing the offender's ability to exercise appropriate judgment; 
(b)	impairing the offender's ability to make calm and rational choices, or to think clearly; 
(c)	making the offender disinhibited; 
(d)	impairing the offender's ability to appreciate the wrongfulness of the conduct; 
(e)	obscuring the intent to commit the offence; and
(f)	contributing (causally) to the commission of the offence. 
66	You would not discuss the circumstances of your offending with Ms Cidoni but did discuss your drug usage. From what you told her, she assumed you were using at the time of the offending or, at least, affected by the drugs. Ms Cidoni was cross-examined on this point. In paragraph 50 of her report, she noted you stated using methamphetamine in 2008 and heroin at the age of 41. You would mix these drugs and last used them before your remand. She noted daily use of these drugs over a long period and whether you used them on the day of offending, you would have been affected by them: '...that he was using pretty heavily and he was using every day'. 
67	Ms Cidoni assumed you were affected by drugs on the day of the offending and I consider her assumption was reasonably based. I accept her views about the effect of these drugs on you.        
68	Her opinions raise the combined effect of a mental disorder and drug taking. This is not an unusual situation. Her view is the effects of the drugs had a greater impact on the factors relevant to moral culpability but the effect of your disorder played a lesser, but significant part. That is as far as her evidence would take the matter. 
69	I accept your overall psychological condition impaired your ability to exercise appropriate judgment, to make calm and rational choices and disinhibiting you. Apart from these indirect impacts, it did not contribute to the commission of the offences. It did not impair your ability to appreciate the wrongfulness of your acts. The telling factor against that impairment is you telling the complainant not to tell anyone of what was happening. This is too stark a fact to allow even a degree of this impairment. It did not obscure your intent to commit the offences. 
70	I have sought to distinguish the effects of your psychological condition from those of your substance abuse. According to Ms Cidoni, the latter was more significant than the former. In terms of moral culpability, just punishment and denunciation, the effects of your schizophrenia, post-traumatic stress disorder and intellectual impairment moderate your sentence to a modest degree.
Limb 3
71	Your psychological state at the time of offending and presently acts in the same way to moderate your sentence to a lesser degree. This is not a case where the community would question my sentences because of your mental impairments. However, for those persons who would commit these or similar offences, fewer of them would identify with an offender who suffers from your psychological disorders, especially schizophrenia and post-traumatic stress disorder.     
Limb 4 
72	As to deterring you from committing these or similar offences in the future, I do not consider your psychological state operates to moderate my sentences. You have the capacity to understand the deterrent effect of my sentences. My sentences should cause you to seek treatment for your disorders and drug addiction. 
Limbs 5 and 6
73	In view of Ms Cidoni's views expressed in paragraphs 104 and 105 of her report in particular, I consider both limbs 5 and 6 are engaged. They, too, operate to moderate your sentences.  
Serious offender provisions
74	If I sentence you to imprisonment on Charges 1 and 2, then you are to be sentenced as a serious sex offender on Charge 3. In doing so, I must have regard to ss 6D and 6E of the Sentencing Act. Section 6D requires me to have regard to the protection of the community from you as the principal purpose for which the sentences on this charge is imposed. It also enables the imposition of disproportionate sentences, which the prosecution does not seek and that approach is inappropriate in your case. 
75	The offences in Charges 1 and 2 are sexual offences for the purposes of s6B of the Sentencing Act. Since I will sentence you to imprisonment on Charges 1 and 2, I must sentence you as a 'serious sexual offender' in relation to Charge 3. In order to give effect to the principal purpose of community protection, I must have regard to your risk of re-offending. I will do so under the heading of your prospects of rehabilitation.   
Prospects of rehabilitation 
76	Ms Cidoni assessed your risk of sexual re-offending as low-medium. In doing so, she saw protective factors in the support of your sons and your compliance with medical treatments. However, she did notice the possibility that you exited prison in a weakened state and thus raising the level of risk to a higher level.
77	My sentences of imprisonment will be lengthy. They must act to deter you from the same or similar offending in the future. Whether it is viewed as deterrence or rehabilitation, if you do not re-offend in that manner then the purpose has been achieved. 
78	I consider your prospects of rehabilitation are positive. Community protection remains but not as pressing as if you were a higher risk of such re-offending.   
Current sentencing practices 
79	Neither counsel referred to any sentencing decision on the question of current sentencing practices. 
Sentences
80	On Charge 1, a charge of encouraging a child under 16 to engage in or be involved in sexual activity, I sentence you to imprisonment for nine months.  
81	On Charge 2, a charge of sexual penetration of a child under 16, I sentence you to imprisonment for four years. 
82	On Charge 3, a second charge of sexual penetration of a child under 16, I sentence you to imprisonment for six years. 
83	The base sentence is the sentence on Charge 3. Two years of the sentence on Charge 2 is to be served cumulatively upon the base sentence. The total effective sentence is eight years' imprisonment. I will set a non-parole period of five years' imprisonment. I will declare your 111 days of pre-sentence as time served under my sentences excluding today.
84	I note in passing that in imposing that period of cumulation I am acutely conscious that the offending in Charges 1, 2 and 3 occurred in effect in the same incident.
85	Notwithstanding s 6E of the Sentencing Act, the totality principle operates to cause me to make the sentence on Charge 1 concurrent and the sentence on Charge 2 partly concurrent with the sentence on Charge 3.  
86	I have sentenced you as a serios sexual offender on Charge 3. I will cause that fact to be entered into the records of the Court.
87	The sentences for the charges of sexual penetration of a child under 16 are in one instance equal to, and in the other instance lower than, the standard sentence for the offence. I have endeavoured to explain the various factors behind the individual sentences, in particular, the considerations from R v Verdins have had a moderating effect.  
Sex Offenders Registration 
88	As Charge 1 is a class 2 offence under the Sex Offenders Registration Act 2004 while Charges 2 and 3 are class 1 offences. However, s 34(1A) of the Sex Offenders Registration Act 2004 provide that where the offences arise out of the same incident, they are treated as a single class 1 offence. The period of registration is life.
‑ ‑ ‑