Background of the Charges
In December 2021, Brightstone Defence was approached by a client facing two extremely serious counts under section 66EA of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) – maintaining an unlawful sexual relationship with a child. Each charge carried a potential life sentence, and the prosecution alleged long-term patterns of offending against two separate complainants. Each indictment contained multiple alleged acts of abuse, said to span several years during the early 2000s.
The severity of the charges placed the client at immediate risk of a lengthy custodial sentence, with typical outcomes ranging from eight to fifteen years without parole. Compounding this risk was the presence of damaging police interview material and phone recordings obtained prior to Brightstone Defence's involvement in the matter.
Initial Challenges and Strategic Refocus
The client had initially been represented by a different legal practitioner. Unfortunately, flawed strategic decisions, including the client participating in a police interview, left the prosecution with substantial material that undermined his case.
Once engaged, the Brightstone Defence team undertook a comprehensive review of the brief of evidence. A new approach was developed, informed by our deep experience in sexual offence litigation. The strategy was clear: enter guilty pleas but contest critical aspects of the prosecution narrative – particularly the frequency, duration, and specific facts alleged against our client.
Disputing the Facts in a Contested Hearing
The matter proceeded to a seven-day contested fact-finding hearing, also known as a disputed facts hearing, a common feature in serious indictable matters where the court must determine the objective seriousness of the offending.
Our team successfully argued for bail to be maintained during this period. We also secured court orders suppressing media reporting and limiting the dissemination of sensitive materials.
Most critically, our team – led by an experienced Queen’s Counsel – delivered forensic cross-examination that systematically dismantled the more serious allegations made by the complainants. The court ultimately accepted 100 per cent of the factual submissions advanced by the defence.
Revised findings included:
- Complainant 1 was subject to two incidents of non-penetrative sexual touching within a single week when she was nine years old
- Complainant 2 experienced ten incidents of touching over a six-month period when he was eleven
This dramatically altered the gravity of the offences as originally alleged by the prosecution.
Sentencing: A Historic Outcome in Section 66EA Cases
After nearly three years of legal proceedings, the client was sentenced in the Parramatta District Court. The judge found the defence evidence compelling, and accepted the following key sentencing considerations:
- The client’s genuine remorse and insight into his conduct
- The significant weight of his otherwise good character
- Expert psychological evidence showing successful self-rehabilitation
- The extended delay since the offending and the absence of reoffending
- The influence of socio-cultural and personal factors during the period of the offending
- The Bugmy principles, which guide sentencing courts to consider systemic disadvantage
The result was remarkable: three years and six months of imprisonment, with a non-parole period of two years. This sentence is the lowest ever recorded in New South Wales under section 66EA for contested charges involving multiple complainants.
Upholding the Rule of Law While Protecting the Rights of the Accused
Brightstone Defence Criminal Lawyers firmly acknowledge the seriousness of all offences involving children. These matters demand careful legal attention, judicial sensitivity, and a principled approach to sentencing. While the court rightly imposed a custodial sentence, the case also demonstrates the importance of ensuring that criminal liability is accurately determined, and that sentencing reflects the actual facts of the offending – not exaggerated or unsupported allegations.
This case also reflects the value of engaging a skilled criminal defence team early in proceedings. A flawed early strategy had left our client in a vulnerable position. With careful review, preparation, and advocacy, Brightstone Defence achieved an outcome that balanced justice with fairness.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
- What is section 66EA of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)?
Section 66EA criminalises the maintenance of an unlawful sexual relationship with a child under 16. It is among the most serious child sexual assault charges in NSW, often carrying very lengthy prison sentences.
- Can I plead guilty but dispute the facts?
Yes. In NSW, an accused can plead guilty to an offence while disputing aspects of the prosecution’s version of events. This is resolved through a disputed facts hearing, where the judge determines the factual basis for sentencing.
- Why is it important to challenge the facts?
Sentencing outcomes depend heavily on the objective seriousness of the offence. Even when pleading guilty, successfully challenging exaggerated or incorrect allegations can result in significantly reduced sentences.
- What are Bugmy principles?
Named after the High Court case Bugmy v The Queen, these principles direct sentencing courts to consider the impact of systemic disadvantage, such as childhood trauma, cultural dislocation, or social deprivation, when determining sentence.
Need Urgent Advice on a Sexual Assault Charge?
If you or someone you care about is facing sexual assault allegations, it is vital to act quickly. These matters carry serious penalties, long-term reputational harm, and lasting personal consequences. Brightstone Defence Criminal Lawyers bring experience, strategic thinking, and discretion to every case. Contact us for a confidential consultation – we are here to protect your rights and deliver the strongest possible defence.
Disclaimer: The information above is general and for informational purposes only. Please seek advice from a qualified lawyer regarding your specific circumstances.
