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

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS		
		
v		
		
JOSHUA WILKINS (A PSEUDONYM)		

---

JUDGE:	HER HONOUR JUDGE HARPER	
WHERE HELD:	Shepparton	
DATE OF HEARING:	4 June 2025	
DATE OF SENTENCE:	18 June 2025	
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Wilkins (a pseudonym)	
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VCC 843 		

REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---

Subject:	CRIMINAL LAW
Catchwords: 	Persistent contravention of a family violence intervention order, sexual penetration of a child under 16, possess child abuse material
Legislation Cited:	Sentencing Act 1991, Sex Offenders Registration Act 2004
Cases Cited:	Mills v The Queen [1998] 4 VR 235, Clarkson v The Queen; EJA v The Queen [2011] VSCA 157, Bugmy v The Queen [2013] 249 CLR 571, R v Verdins [2007] VSCA 102, DPP v Mafrici [2020] VCC 296, DPP v Surkitt [2020] VCC 1279 and DPP v Calladine [2020] VCC 2014
Sentence:	Total effective sentence 18 months' imprisonment with non‑parole period 11 months

---

APPEARANCES:
	Counsel	Solicitors	
For the Director of Public Prosecutions	Mr D. O'Doherty	Ms A. Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions	
			
For the Accused	Ms D. Lardner	VLA Melbourne	

HER HONOUR:
1	Joshua Wilkins, you have pleaded guilty before me to one charge of persistent contravention of a family violence intervention order, one rolled-up charge of sexual penetration of a child under 16 years and one charge of possession of child abuse material.  
2	The maximum penalty for persistent contravention of a family violence intervention order is five years' imprisonment.  For sexual penetration of a child under 16 years, the maximum penalty is 15 years' imprisonment and for possession of child abuse material the maximum penalty is 10 years' imprisonment.  
3	I note that sexual penetration of a child under 16 years is a standard sentence offence with a standard sentence of six years.  I shall return to this in due course.
Circumstances of offending
4	The circumstances of your offending were outlined in the summary of prosecution opening for plea dated 3 June 2025.  I shall summarise those circumstances here.
5	By way of relevant background, you and your victim, Paige Moten, commenced a relationship in late 2021.  On 1 June 2022 the Wangaratta Children's Court made a family violence intervention order where the affected family member was Paige Moten and you were the respondent.  You were present at court when this order was made and were provided a copy of the order that day.
6	The conditions of the order prohibited you from:
(a)	committing family violence against the protected person.
(b)	intentionally damage any property of the protected person or threatening to do so;
(c)	attempting to locate, follow or keep the protected person under surveillance;
(d)	publishing on the internet, by email or other electronic communication, any material about the protected person;
(e)	contacting or communicating with the protected person;
(f)	approaching or remaining within 5 metres of the protected person;
(g)	going to or remaining within 200 metres of the protected person's place of residence or any other place where a protected person lives, works or attends school/childcare; and 
(h)	getting another person to do anything you must not do under the order.
7	The order expires on 31 May 2026.
8	Between 15 October 2023 and 11 November 2023 you and Paige communicated via electronic means on 27 occasions in contravention of the intervention order.  This conduct gives rise to Charge 1, persistent contravention of a family violence intervention order.
9	I accept that most of the contact was initiated by Paige, but you engaged with her and at no stage desisted from that communication.
10	On 7 November 2023 you and Paige met in person and engaged in various penetrative sexual acts.  These acts were filmed on Paige's iPhone.  There were seven videos, which ranged from 16 seconds to one minute and 33 seconds.  The videos depict your penile, digital and oral penetration of Paige's vagina and mouth.  This conduct gives rise to Charge 2, sexual penetration of a child under 16 years.
11	On 26 November 2023 Paige's mother Claudia Brient bought Paige a new phone.  Ms Brient gave the old phone to her partner's daughter, who returned it having located the videos of you and Paige.
12	On 29 November 2023 Ms Brient attended the Wangaratta police station, where she made an initial report and provided the police with the old phone.  Analysis of the phone was conducted on 30 November 2023, where seven videos were identified.
13	On 5 December 2023 police attended your address at the time and executed a search warrant.
14	You were arrested, three mobile phones were located and seized and you were conveyed to the Wangaratta police station for interview. 
15	Your iPhone was analysed and police located 74 category 2 child abuse material files.  This conduct gives rise to Charge 3, possession of child abuse material.  I note that all 74 items depict the victim in this matter.
Gravity of offending
16	Any sexual offence perpetrated against a child is serious, as reflected in the maximum penalty and standard sentence set by Parliament.  There is a presumption of harm to the children who are the victims of such offending.  
17	I note that you breached the family violence intervention order on 27 occasions in a 28-day period.  Although it was agreed by the parties that you did not initiate the contact on the majority of these occasions, you did not desist and knew full well that you were in breach of the order by virtue of it having been explained to you and you having been dealt with for previous breaches.  
18	Charge 2, the sexual offending, reflects four different modes of penetration committed within a 12-minute period.  The rolled-up nature of the charge is aggravating.  
19	The child abuse material you possessed was all of the victim with whom you were in a relationship of sorts; however, you must have been aware by virtue of your prior court appearance that possession of this material was illegal.  
20	While I did not receive a victim impact statement from Paige, I note the presumption of harm to victims of child sex offences, which extends to her.
Plea of guilty
21	Your plea of guilty was not an early one, coming as it did on the first day of trial; however, I accept that there is nevertheless significant utility in your plea.  You have saved the community the time and expense of running a trial, spared the witnesses the ordeal of giving evidence at trial and spared a jury the unenviable task of viewing the images and videos.  You have facilitated the administration of justice and you are entitled to a benefit for that.  
22	By your plea you have also demonstrated an acceptance of responsibility for your offending, which I take into account.  
Personal circumstances and psychological report
23	I turn now to your personal circumstances.
24	You are a 20-year-old Wurundjeri man, born in July 2004.  You have three siblings including an older biological brother and two younger half-sisters.  Sadly, your youngest sister passed away in January 2025. 
25	You grew up in the Wangaratta and Benalla region in the care of your mother; however, you were removed by Child Protection at the age of eight and placed in the care of your maternal grandmother.  You report that you did not witness your mother taking drugs but remember regularly seeing her intoxicated. 
26	You had little contact with your mother from eight years of age to the age of 18; however, you are now in contact with her and have rebuilt your relationship.  You have the support of your grandmother, your mother, your uncles and your current partner.  You are not in contact with your older brother, who has difficulties with substance abuse and has been known to physically attack you.
27	You left school in Year 9 and report difficulty learning and concentrating.  You were bullied in primary school and regularly got into fights.  After school you worked as a shopfitter building service stations.  You also worked briefly at the timber mill in Benalla. 
28	Your first use of cannabis was at the age of 16.  You have been a consistent user since.  You also commenced alcohol use at the age of 16.  Your alcohol usage increased when you were 18, but you have not used any other drugs.
29	You have a limited relationship history.  You had some relationships in high school which were not that serious.  You had a relationship for four months while working in New South Wales.  You were in a relationship with Paige Moten, the subject of these charges, from late 2021 to November 2022 but now maintain an age‑appropriate relationship with a supportive partner. 
30	You were diagnosed with ADHD in primary school and were prescribed medication.  In 2018 you witnessed the death of your school friend after he committed suicide by hanging.  You were the first on the scene and were the one to call emergency services. 
31	You were significantly distressed following what you had witnessed.  You attended counselling, but the sessions did not help.  You had suicidal ideations in 2021, but you never acted on your thoughts.  In 2023 you were diagnosed with generalised anxiety disorder and depression.  Although you were not diagnosed with PTSD, your test results noted your PTSD symptoms to be 'elevated'.
32	I received a now dated psychological assessment from forensic psychologist Ms Catherine Stipis dated 9 February 2023.  
33	In addition to the elevated PTSD symptoms, Ms Stipis opined that you were suffering from cannabis use and alcohol use disorders and adjustment disorder and noted that you reported a previous diagnosis of ADHD.  She recounted your difficult childhood experiences and found that:
These experiences have shaped [your] social, behavioural and psychological development and led to an early pattern of an inability to problem solve and regulate emotions and using substances to cope with stress and dysfunction.
Sentencing principles and considerations
34	Youth is clearly a matter of relevance in the sentencing exercise.  You are a young offender, now 20 years of age, and committed the offences when you were 19 years of age.  I accept that in applying the principles in Mills v The Queen the sentencing purpose of rehabilitation is to be given primacy.
35	There was a four-year age difference between you and Paige, a not insubstantial difference when one considers the relative immaturity of a 15-year-old.  While you were not in a position of trust or authority with respect to the victim and there appears to be no coercion or persuasion, as held in Clarkson v The Queen:
Even where the offender is youthful and the age difference relatively small, the sentencing court will be astute to observe the legislative policy that children are to be protected against the harms associated with premature sexual activity.
36	Ms Lardner, appearing for you, submitted that the principles in Bugmy v The Queen are applicable to you in both a general and a specific sense.  She relied on early Child Protection involvement in your family life, your early exposure to drug and alcohol abuse, your removal from your mother at the age of eight years, your housing instability, your later witnessing of your friend's suicide and your history of PTSD symptoms.
37	As held in Bugmy at [43], 
The experience of growing up in an environment surrounded by alcohol abuse and violence may leave its mark on a person throughout life.  Among other things, a background of that kind may compromise the person's capacity to mature and to learn from experience. 
38	It is now well established that the effect of social deprivation does not diminish over time and I note your age and the impact on your capacity to mature in these circumstances.  
39	I take your exposure to the negative factors listed in the paragraphs above into consideration and find that they render your moral culpability less than that of an offender whose formative years have not been impacted in this way in both a general and a specific sense. 
40	It was also submitted that limbs 5 and 6 of Verdins are enlivened by your personal circumstances.  This is complicated by the fact that I did not receive a current psychological or psychiatric assessment in relation to you and must instead rely on a report from 2023.
41	As I have stated, in 2023 you were diagnosed with elevated symptoms of PTSD, cannabis and alcohol use disorders and an adjustment disorder.  I accept that these conditions do not simply resolve over time and I give some weight to limbs 5 and 6 of Verdins that imprisonment would be harder for you than for someone without these conditions and that they may worsen in custody, particularly the adjustment disorder.
42	General deterrence is an important factor in the sentencing exercise.  The community interest in protecting children from sexual offending is high and those minded to engage in such behaviour must see that the courts will react by imposing significant consequences.  
43	Specific deterrence also has a role to play given the number of prior offences you have committed.  Your prior criminal history concerningly involves a large number of offences against this complainant.  You have appearances for contravening family violence intervention orders in place to protect her on no less than 12 occasions in the Magistrates' Court alone.  You also have a Children's Court prior appearance for knowingly possess child abuse material and persistent contravention of a family violence notice or order.  
44	You were also dealt with subsequent to your arrest on these matters for offences in New South Wales relating to possessing child abuse material, namely photographs of this complainant.  You spent 199 days on remand between April and October 2024 before being released on a community corrections order.  
45	You are not to be resentenced for any of these offences; however, they do inform specific deterrence and your prospects of rehabilitation.
46	Delay is a relevant consideration in that these offences took place between October and December 2023.  In part that delay was the result of your remand in New South Wales.  Nevertheless, this matter has now been hanging over your head for some time, no doubt causing anxiety as to when and how it will be finalised.  
47	Delay is also relevant where it allows you to demonstrate efforts at rehabilitation.  This is a complicated consideration in your case in that you have reoffended since the commission of these offences; however, I note you have not contacted Paige since March 2024.  
48	I consider community protection to have a somewhat reduced application in your case.  As long as you maintain age-appropriate relationships, the risk to the community is lessened.  
49	I consider your prospects of rehabilitation to be guarded, contrary to your counsel's submission that they are good.  On a positive note, you have not contacted Paige since March 2024.  On the other hand, while you now have prosocial relationships with your mother and girlfriend, you experience ongoing housing instability, you remain vulnerable to substance abuse and have untreated mental health needs.  Your ongoing breach of court orders is concerning and I note you were on bail at the time of this offending.  You are now in breach of the New South Wales community correction order and have pending community correction order breach proceedings in Victoria. 
50	I note that Charge 2, sexual penetration of a child under 16 years, is a standard sentence offence with a standard sentence of six years.  The standard sentence for an offence is a sentence that, taking into account only the objective factors affecting the relative seriousness of that offence, is in the middle range of seriousness.  I must take the standard sentence into account as one of the factors relevant to sentencing.  This requirement is to be treated as a legislative guidepost having the same function as the maximum penalty.  It does not affect the established instinctive synthesis to sentencing or require or permit two-stage sentencing.
51	The court must only have regard to sentences imposed in cases where the standard sentence regime applies.  I have taken the standard sentence for sexual penetration of a child under 16 years into account as one of the factors to consider in my instinctive synthesis of all the relevant factors in your case.  I have determined that a sentence falling below the standard sentence is justified in your case.
52	I note that Charge 2 on the indictment is also a rolled-up charge encompassing four acts.  
53	I apply the principle of totality, noting the time you spent in custody in New South Wales in 2024 and the fact that all the incidents rolled up in Charge 2 occurred within a 12-minute period.  
Submissions
54	Ms Lardner submitted that in all the circumstances of the case, with emphasis on your youth, background of disadvantage and prospects of rehabilitation, I should impose a CCO alone.  In the alternative she submitted that a Youth Justice Centre order could be imposed.  
55	Ms Lardner provided several 'comparable cases.'  The first case referred to was prior to the introduction of the standard sentence scheme, and so I disregard it as 'comparable.'  I do, however, take the cases of DPP v Mafrici, DPP v Surkitt and DPP v Calladine into account as a demonstration of current sentencing practices, bearing in mind that they are all sentences of this court.  
56	Mr O'Doherty for the prosecution submitted that the number of breaches in Charge 1, the seriousness of the offending in Charge 2 and the need to protect children generally mean I should impose a head sentence and a non-parole period. 
57	I had you assessed for a Youth Justice Centre order.  You were found unsuitable on the basis of persistent breaches of court orders, in particular the family violence intervention order involving the complainant, being in the upper age range for Youth Justice, having spent periods in adult custody and having poor prospects of rehabilitation.  You were not, the report found, particularly impressionable or likely to be subject to undesirable influences in adult prison.
58	I also had you assessed for a community correction order.  You were found unsuitable on the basis that you have disengaged from your last Victorian community correction order, you have disengaged from a New South Wales community correction order subsequent to this offending, you are not receptive to behavioural change and you have expressed that you do not believe engagement with a counsellor would be beneficial unless the court directs you to engage. 
59	I note you have in the past engaged with work hour and some of the conditions of the community corrections orders.  
60	Ultimately, given the seriousness of your offending together with your prior convictions and demonstrated incapacity to comply with all of the conditions of a community correction order, I have determined that a sentence of imprisonment must be imposed.  
61	Would you please stand.

Disposition
62	On Charge 1, persistent contravention of a family violence intervention order, you are sentenced to three months' imprisonment.
63	On Charge 2, a rolled-up charge of sexual penetration of a child under 16, you are sentenced to 14 months' imprisonment 
64	On Charge 3, possess child abuse material, you are sentenced to six months' imprisonment.  
65	I direct that the sentence on Charge 2 be the base sentence. 
66	I direct that one month of the sentence on Charge 1 and three months of the sentence on Charge 3 be served cumulatively on the sentence imposed on Charge 2 and on each other.  
67	That makes a total effective sentence of 18 months' imprisonment.
68	I direct that you serve a minimum non-parole period of 11 months before being eligible for release on parole.  
69	I declare that pursuant to s18 of the Sentencing Act 1991 you have served 23 days by way of pre-sentence detention. 
70	I declare that pursuant to the Sex Offenders Registration Act 2004, having committed one category 1 and one category 2 offence, you are to be placed on the register for life. 
71	I grant the forfeiture and disposal orders sought by the prosecution.
72	I declare that pursuant to s6AAA of the Sentencing Act 1991 had you not pleaded guilty the sentence I would have imposed would have been three years, three months' imprisonment with a non-parole period of two years and three months.  
73	Would you please sign the acknowledgement of registration.  Ms Lardner, you can assist Mr Wilkins with that.
74	MS LARDNER:  Yes, Your Honour.  Your Honour, I should also note that we are seeking advice on whether Mr Wilkins can apply for an exemption.
75	HER HONOUR:  Yes, that will come back at a later date.
76	MS LARDNER:  Yes.
77	HER HONOUR:  He has to sign that.  Thank you.  
78	MS LARDNER:  Thank you, Your Honour.
79	HER HONOUR:  Is there anything further, Mr O'Doherty?
80	MR O'DOHERTY:  No, Your Honour, not from our end.
81	HER HONOUR:  Ms Lardner?
82	MS LARDNER:  No, Your Honour.
83	HER HONOUR:  Thank you.  You can take Mr Wilkins out.  Thank you.  Thank you, we'll adjourn the court.
---