STATE OF TASMANIA v PGT 22 DECEMBER 2020
COMMENTS ON PASSING SENTENCE WOOD J
PGT has been found guilty of 16 counts on indictment: eight counts of rape, two counts of aggravated sexual assault and six counts of indecent assault. The crimes involve 10 separate incidents of sexual abuse, six victims, five of whom were children, and span three decades.
In the early 1980’s he sexually abused two children, siblings A and S. Their parents separated when A was 13 or 14, and their mother commenced a relationship with PGT. The defendant paid A extra attention and bought him treats. He commenced a course of conduct involving coming into his bedroom at night and touching his penis under the bed covers. This happened more than 10 times and is background to the charged conduct. Then the incident the subject of count 1 occurred. The family unit, four children including A and his sister and two other siblings, their mother and the defendant went on family holiday in a caravan in the period of 1 April 1980 to 30 August 1981. The complainant was between 13 and 15 years of age. The defendant indecently assault A at night in the caravan when A was in his bed. The rest of the family were in the caravan during the assault, most likely asleep. The sexual assault involved the defendant handling and touching the complainant’s penis.
The defendant raped S on two occasions. The first incident occurred between 1 April 1980 and 30 December 1980. When her parents separated, and her mother commenced a relationship with the defendant, she was about 12 years of age, in grade six. The defendant first raped her when she was approximately 12 years old. He had vaginal sexual intercourse with her, without her consent. It happened on a bed in her home. She remembers feeling scared. Afterwards he said to her that she had to go to the bathroom and try and find a piece of broken condom that had busted off. When she returned he started laughing, and asked her if she had fun playing with herself because it wasn’t there to start with.
The second occasion of rape happened on the family caravanning holiday in the period from 1 June 1981 to 30 June 1981 when she was 12. He had vaginal sexual intercourse with her, without her consent in her bunk bed in the caravan while her family was sleeping. She recalls it hurt.
There were other occasions of rape and sexual abuse that are not the subject of charges. She did not want these incidents to occur so she said to the defendant that she was going to tell her mother. He replied, “we’ll go and tell her together”. When the complainant told her mother, she did not react. Afterwards, the complainant left the house to live with her father. She told her partner when she was approximately 18, and later reported the matter to police.
Next in time is an occasion of sexual abuse involving R between approximately September 1988 and September 1989 in the late 1980’s, one a charge of indecent assault and the other aggravated sexual assault. Her mother is CT and the defendant is her father. Count 4 and count 5 relate to the first time she remembered him sexually assaulting her. Her mother was out. The defendant returned home after drinking. She had been in bed and had got up to go to the toilet. She remembered she was wearing a nightie with pink ribbon and a teddy bear on it. She was six years of age. The defendant told her to come into his bed so they could have a cuddle. He touched her chest and put his fingers inside her vagina. It made her feel terrible and she wanted to run away. She remembered him breathing and telling her that this is how he shows that he loves her more than he loves anybody else and that this was “our secret”.
Later her mother and the defendant separated and she was told that she had to live with her father. Her father was in a relationship with a young man in his early 20’s. She lived with the defendant and his partner and later, so did her half-sister T for periods of time.
This was not the only occasion he abused R. The jury heard contextual evidence that the defendant sexually assaulted her regularly, and she said it felt like it was at least once or twice a week when she was between the ages of 6-13. It involved digital penetration, touching of her breast and forcing her to touch his penis and move her hand up and down. When she was aged 13 years, she told him it was not going to happen anymore and he made no other attempts.
She informed her boyfriend when she was in grade 10 at High School.
The next criminal conduct in time related to T. When she was 12, T moved in to live with the defendant at an address with his partner and R. She and R shared a bedroom. There are two incidents that are the subject of charges concerning this victim. First the incident, giving rise to counts 6 and 7, count 6, an indecent assault by touching her breasts and vagina and count 7, an aggravated sexual assault by penetrating her vagina with one or more of his fingers. The complainant was approximately 13. He came into her bedroom and touched her breasts, mainly on the outside of her clothing. He touched her naked vagina and placed his fingers inside her vagina. An aggravating factor is that her sister R was in the room at the time.
In relation to this complainant, there is a further charge, count 8, rape. It occurred approximately one month after the earlier incident when the complainant was 13 years of age. Her sister R was staying at her mother’s house. He touched her breasts and vagina and inserted his penis into her vagina and had sex with her and ejaculated on her stomach. She recalls feeling “terrible, disgusted”. After raping the complainant he told her that she should have been his wife.
She complained to her mother that the defendant had touched her inappropriately. She returned to live with her mother for some months, perhaps a year. She moved back to live with the defendant and her sister. Her sister had begged her to return because “it was happening” to her. T was also being pressured by the defendant. The pressure involved a form of emotional blackmail.
When T was 13, a relationship developed between her and the defendant’s partner who was then 21. The defendant pressured her to return by saying that he had filmed them having sexual intercourse and that he had a videotape in his possession. Once the complainant returned to live in the house, he referred to the tape and, as the complainant said in her evidence, he used it as blackmail to stop her leaving and to keep her there, and the tape was used as a threat if she told anyone about what he had done. He said that he would disclose it and that his partner would go to gaol. He pressured her emotionally in other ways as well. He told her that if she left she would lose her relationship with R and would never be allowed to see her again. The complainant was an only child and wanted to grow up with her sister.
The two complainants looked for the video tape. They found a tape of themselves getting undressed and in the bathroom. They looked through the house and found hidden mirrors that had been placed in the walls, including the wall of their bedroom and the bathroom.
T reported the matter to police in 2011.
These two incidents occurred against a background of other sexual abuse of T. While she could not remember other incidents, her sister gave evidence of them. I found the sister’s evidence compelling and the defendant is to be sentenced on the basis that the two incidents were not isolated occasions.
The remaining counts concern two boys, brothers, the nephews of the defendant’s male partner. In relation to SE, there are six counts concerning four separate incidents, two counts of indecent assault and four counts of rape. The two boys were close to their uncle and would visit him. He lived with the defendant. SE started staying overnight when he was 11 years of age. The defendant and his partner used to race cars at the Speedway and SE had a role as the “clayboy”. The defendant commenced touching him inappropriately and making comments such as how cute he was. In approximately September 2001 when SE was approximately 11, he was having a bath at his uncle’s house. The defendant came into the bathroom, shut the door and sexually assaulted him. He put his hand on the complainant’s penis and spent about three – four minutes moving his hand up and down until the child ejaculated. The complainant described how it made him feel, it was disgusting, he felt violated, “it just felt so wrong”. He did not tell anyone because he felt ashamed and disgusted. After he got out of the bath, the defendant gave him some cigarettes. SE smoked cigarettes at that stage.
After that occasion, there were numerous instances of sexual abuse relied on as context evidence. Again, the defendant is not to be sentenced for these generalised occasions of sexual abuse, but he is to be sentenced on the basis that the charges relating to SE are not isolated occasions.
The next specific occasion described by this victim occurred approximately a week after the bath incident. It is an occasion of indecent assault when the defendant kissed the complainant. He heard taps on the wall coming from the defendant’s bedroom. He went into the defendant’s bedroom and saw him lying on the bed naked with an erection. The defendant told him to sit next to him. He began kissing the child up and down his neck and on his face. The complainant remembered the kissing being prickly. The defendant grabbed the complainant’s hand and put it on his penis. The complainant moved his hand up and down as he was kissed by the defendant. The defendant ejaculated. The moving of the hand as required by the defendant is not the subject of the charge but is relevant context for the indecent assault by kissing. The child did not consent and felt violated by the abuse.
At a subsequent time, approximately some weeks later, the defendant committed two acts of rape, an anal rape followed by oral sexual intercourse. The same complainant was still about 11 or 12 years of age. He was sleeping in the lounge room. The defendant pulled down the blanket and laid down beside him. The complainant recalls the defendant was rubbing Vaseline around his anus and then inserted his finger into his anus. The complainant said it hurt. The defendant moved the complainant around and inserted his penis into the complainant’s anus (count 11 anal rape). The tip of his penis was inserted, it hurt the complainant and because of the pain the complainant moved away. The defendant grabbed the complainant’s head and forced it down onto his penis. The defendant forcefully pushed his penis into the complainant’s mouth (oral rape count 12) and made the complainant give him oral intercourse, ramming his penis down the complainant’s throat, until he ejaculated into the child’s mouth.
There was a subsequent occasion when the defendant raped the complainant on two occasions, an act of oral sexual intercourse, followed by anal sexual intercourse. These are counts 13 and 14. The occasion was in about September 2001 when the complainant was 11 or 12 years of age. The complainant was in bed. The defendant pulled down his pants. The defendant commenced kissing his neck and chest and his stomach progressing towards his penis and then he put the complainant’s penis into his mouth and performed oral intercourse. The defendant then inserted his penis into the complainant’s anus and raped him for about 15 minutes. It was very painful. He withdrew his penis and ejaculated.
The complainant got up and had a shower because he felt disgusting. He recalls he was bleeding from his anus.
He did not tell anyone. He explained the reasons were that it felt wrong and he was ashamed and he did not want anyone to know. There were many other occasions of sexual abuse but not involving anal intercourse. These other occasions are context and demonstrate that the crimes involving SE are not isolated. After the occasions of sexual abuse the complainant was given treats, “smokes, money and got to drive his cars”.
The last occasion of sexual abuse happened when the complainant was about 14. Ultimately, he told his grandmother about the sexual abuse. That was after his uncle had passed away. He had not told anyone before then because he had not wanted to upset his uncle who was in a relationship with the defendant. He reported it to police in May 2018.
The final two counts concern a single incident relating to AJ. His evidence was that the incident occurred when he was about 15 or 16 but the evidence established that in fact he must have been 18 years of age. The complainant visited the defendant at the Penguin Caravan Park. The complainant was making a coffee and the defendant grabbed his buttocks and then started kissing his neck while positioned behind him. The defendant pulled the complainant’s tracksuit trousers down and while he had hold of the complainant inserted his penis into his anus, as he did, saying “come on, come on let me do it”. He offered to give the complainant some money. The complainant was able to break away from the defendant and run off. The jury found the defendant guilty of indecent assault by kissing and anal rape. There were other occasions involving sexual assault when the defendant had grabbed him on the buttocks and the penis. AJ confided in his grandmother and later made a statement to police.
The defendant was interviewed by police on three occasions as his conduct came to light. In the first interview in 2012, he was asked about the incidents involving S and he denied having sexual intercourse with her. In a second interview in 2016 he was asked about the incident involving A, count one. He denied that. He was also asked about the incidents involving R and T, and he denied those allegations.
There was a third interview after the allegations of AJ and SE came to light. He denied the allegations but admitted a sexual relationship with AJ when he was between 18 -20 years of age. He told police that it came about because AJ wanted money and cars which the defendant supplied. It is revealing that the defendant regarded this conduct of giving a young man money for sexual favours as unremarkable notwithstanding he had been in an uncle type of role since the child was young and regarded the child as a nephew. In a similar vein, he admitted to police he had had a casual sexual relationship with another young person once she was 18. She was his step-daughter. He is not charged with this conduct. Regardless of whether it is true, his admission reveals his deviant sexual attitudes.
The defendant’s conduct relating to the charges speaks for itself about his depravity and base attitudes. Evidence of his conduct peripheral to the charges, such as I have referred to, further illustrates his depravity.
The emotional harm caused to the six complainants has been severe. The sexual abuse subjected them to a traumatic and highly disturbing ordeal. In the case of each complainant it has caused lasting and profound harm. I have been provided with a victim impact statement from each complainant. These statements reveal the pervasive nature of the harm caused by the crimes, casting a terrible shadow over their childhood and youth, their family relationships and intimate relationships and parenting experiences. The examples provided by the complainants of how their daily lives have been damaged provides an important insight into the depth of the harm they have suffered. I thank them for providing that insight and enhancing the Courts’ understanding of the terrible impact of these crimes for victims generally.
By contrast with some other cases, the defendant cannot claim a discount for pleading guilty. Each of the complainants were required to give evidence. At this stage of the proceedings, the defendant still maintains his innocence and claims he was set up by the complainants and maintains his defence position at trial such as that there has been collusion between the complainants, fabrication of the allegations and their motive was financial greed. This position does not count against him. I point that while it was evident that for all complainants, giving evidence was highly stressful and difficult, and emotions such as shame and humiliation were evident, the complainants gave their evidence in a fair, conscientious and dignified fashion. The verdicts reveal that the jury accepted the evidence of each of them, and were satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that they were witnesses of the truth.
The defendant is now 63 years of age. I take into account his age at the time of offending and in particular, that with respect to counts 1 -3, he was still a relatively young man aged 22 -23.
He has relevant convictions. He was sentenced to a term of imprisonment as a young man in 1977 relating to obtaining goods by false pretences. In 1980, he was convicted of assault under the Criminal Code which attracted a modest fine. There were two other offences of dishonesty which attracted a term of imprisonment. Of significance is that on 9 May 2003, he was convicted in Tasmania of rape and indecent assault, and was sentenced to four years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of two years. The crime was committed in May 2001 and involved a 14 year girl and a breach of trust. I note that this offence was prior to count 9 and the following counts on the indictment (the evidence was that count 9 occurred in September 2001), and he was convicted of these crimes and indeed he had served his sentence prior to the rape of AE.
On 22 September 2020, he was convicted of common assault in the magistrates court and a fine was imposed.
He has a relevant prior convictions from New South Wales for crimes involving sexual abuse of two boys, brothers. These are prior convictions for his crimes in count 4 and subsequent. They involved the crime of “commit act of indecency with a male under 16 years” and two counts of “commit the crime of buggery”. He pleaded guilty and was sentenced in November 1984. After an appeal against sentence, he received a sentence of one year for commit act of indecency with a male under 16 years, and five years for each of the crimes of buggery. The defendant recalls spending a couple of years in prison in New South Wales. It appears that the terms of imprisonment were served concurrently. He was granted parole and returned to Tasmania while on parole.
There were two victims, one boy aged 14 and the other 16 years, and the crimes involved a breach of trust arising from a family association. I have been provided with a detailed statement of the facts without objection from defence counsel. However, I am cautious about the detail of the facts provided as they have not been linked to the specific charges, the subject of the sentences. However, it can be seen that the crimes involved hallmarks of similarity to the some of the crimes here, preying on children who lacked life experiences of this kind of deviant and corrupt behaviour, offering money, telling the victim he loved him, sexual abuse in presence of others and threats to humiliate his victims if they told anyone what had happened. It is plain that the defendant was then associating with an adult child abuser, and indeed they were carrying out crimes in tandem, the defendant interfered with one boy and the other abuser interfered with the other victim. There was an occasion when the defendant’s wife was present and aided an act of sexual abuse.
The defendant has multiple health problems including chronic back pain, chronic knee pain and is waiting for surgery for a knee replacement. He has diabetes and is at risk of complications arising from his diabetes, as all diabetics are and he suffers from chest pain due to osteo-arthritis. He is prescribed a raft of medications including medication for depression and his general practitioner notes this may worsen while in prison.
The defendant was the victim of sexual abuse at a High School in New South Wales and also at Ashley Youth Detention Centre. That is to be deplored. At the request of defence counsel I sought a report from a forensic psychologist in case there was a causal link with his offending before the Court today. There was a reference to a traumatic childhood including regular beatings by his father when growing up. I will refer to that report in a moment, but in essence there is no link with his offending which reduces his criminal culpability.
The defendant completed a sex offender course while in prison. Obviously, that has been unsuccessful.
In relation to the report I have mentioned, it is a report from Forensic Clinical Psychologist Mr Damien Minehan. It is noted that the defendant does not have an intellectual disability although his cognitive function is relatively low. The report notes that the defendant does not have a major psychotic mood or anxiety disorder. The primary diagnosis is “cluster B personality traits, particularly antisocial and borderline traits on a likely background of physical abuse as a child and abusive sexual experiences during adolescence. Additionally, the defendant has significant paraphilia and sexually deviant patterns of arousal. This has been an ongoing issue for most of his adult life. Additionally, there are multiple offence supportive attitudes, denial of offending, failure to take responsibility, entitlement to sexual activity. His offending behaviour has been chronic” and he has “exhibited little or no insight into the impact his offending has had on his victims.”
Mr Minehan goes on to note that it is his opinion that the defendant does not have any form of mental condition that enlivens any limb of the Verdins principles. He notes that the Court may wish to consider his likely traumatic experiences as a child and adolescent in sentencing but it is Mr Minehan’s belief that there is no condition arising from these experiences that would reduce his moral culpability, nor does he have an intellectual impairment to a level to affect the same.
In conclusion, he notes that the defendant requires intensive rehabilitation within a sex offender treatment program to address a wide range of deviant sexual preferences, offence supportive attitudes and issues with responsibility, denial and lack of victim empathy.
The seriousness of child sex offences and the factors relevant to sentence were considered in detail by the Court of Criminal Appeal in Director of Public Prosecutions v Harington [2017] TASCCA 4. I note the aggravating circumstances that must be taken into account in s 11A of the Sentencing Act which generally reflects the common law.
As mentioned, the defendant is not entitled to a discount for pleading guilty. He has shown no remorse at the time of offending or since. His behaviour demonstrated a callous lack of empathy for his victims. As I have said, he has not shown any remorse at the time of offending or any time since.
He has not demonstrated any insight in relation to the gravity of his crimes. His crimes speak of an attitude of brazen entitlement. As can be seen, he engaged in grooming, emotional manipulation including making disturbing comments about his love for his victims, he appealed to their selfless motives like loyalty to their siblings to effect his purpose and resorted to blackmail. His crimes were predatory and determined.
His conduct involves an appalling breach of trust. Two of his victims were his step-children, two of his victims were his natural children and two were the nephews of his long-term partner. His conduct demonstrates that he regarded the children as a sexual commodity. They were vulnerable with no defences against his base and deviant behaviour.
The defendant’s criminal culpability is very high. As he continued to offend, it was abundantly clear to him that he represented a grave danger to children, and his conduct in continuing to prey on them and create opportunities to abuse them adds progressively to his culpability.
A very heavy sentence is required. I note the defendant’s age and the prospect that he may spend the whole of his remaining life in prison, and I have taken that into account as a particularly harsh aspect of the punishment I am about to impose. However, that factor does not justify the imposition of an unduly lenient sentence.
The sentencing goals which are prominent in this case spring from the essential role that the Court has in its role of protecting children and other vulnerable victims from the commission of these crimes. These goals are protection of society, vindication of the victims and the harm they have suffered, denunciation, retribution and deterrence.
The crime involving A involving indecent assault would have attracted a sentence of at least 18 months. The crimes against S, two counts of rape, noting his age then, would attract a sentence of at least 7 years’ imprisonment if dealt with on their own. The crimes against R, indecent assault and aggravated sexual assault would warrant at least 4 years. The crimes involving T, indecent assault, aggravated sexual assault and the crime of rape, at least 8 years, the crimes involving SE, two incidents of indecent assault and two incidents each involving an oral and anal rape, a sentence of at least 9 years. The indecent assault and rape of AJ would warrant a sentence of at least 6 years.
The total aggregate sentence is to be moderated in light of the principles of proportionality and totality. However, I take into account that these principles also require that the sentence be heavy enough to reflect the entirety of his criminal conduct and the harm caused to each of the victims. As a further moderating factor, I also take into account that the harsh impact of the punishment increases exponentially, the longer the term of the sentence.
I will make provision for parole, although I am also conscious that presently due to factors such as the defendant’s entrenched attitudes, lack of remorse and lack of insight, he may not be eligible. However, there is still reason to hope that the effect upon him of the lengthy term of imprisonment and participation in intensive rehabilitation, if available to him in accordance with Mr Minehan’s recommendation, may be productive in terms of his reform.
PGT, you are convicted of each count. I make an order under the Community Protection (Offender Reporting) Act 2005 directing that the Registrar cause your name to be placed on the register and that you comply with the reporting obligations under that Act for the remainder of your life. I impose a global sentence. You are sentenced to imprisonment for 23 years from 27 October 2020. I order that you are not eligible to apply for parole until you have served 15 years of that sentence.
I wish only to add that while I regard this as a just sentence having carefully considered all matters, I do not regard this sentence as at the upper limit of my sentencing discretion for these crimes and this offender.