District Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: R v Bamforth; R v Bamforth [2024] NSWDC 45 Hearing dates: 17 February 2023 (J Bamforth Arraigned) 22 February 2023 (P Bamforth Arraigned, P Bamforth examination-in-chief) 9 March 2023 (Sentence Hearing, P Bamforth cross-examination) 19 May 2023 (Sentence Hearing, expert cross-examined) 13 September 2023 (P Bamforth Mention, solicitor withdrew, offender indicated intention to withdraw pleas) 9 November 2023 (P Bamforth Mention, application to withdraw pleas not pressed) 24 November 2023 (P Bamforth Notice of Motion Hearing, seeking suppression and non-publication orders - refused) 28 February 2024 (Remarks) 29 February 2024 (Remarks continued) Date of orders: 29 February 2024 Decision date: 29 February 2024 Jurisdiction: Criminal Before: Wilson SC DCJ Decision: P Bamforth: 32-year head sentence, 22-year 4-month non-parole period. J Bamforth: 30-year head sentence, 19-year 6-month non-parole period. Catchwords: CRIME – Sentencing – Child sexual abuse by married couple – Parity – Totality – Child abuse material – Kidnap in company. Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 Drugs Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 Weapons Prohibition Act 1998 Cases Cited: Adam Jolly v R [2013] NSWCCA 76 Attorney General's Application under s 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 No 1 of 2002 (2002) 56 NSWLR 146 Baines v R [2016] NSWCCA 132 Benn v R [2023] NSWCCA 24 Burr v R [2020] NSWCCA 282 Cahyadi v R [2007] NSWCCA 1 Chamseddine v R [2017] NSWCCA 176 Corby v R [2010] NSWCCA 146 Dawson v R [2021] NSWCCA 53 Dickson v R (2017) 94 NSWLR 476 DPP (NSW) v Burton [2020] NSWCCA 54 EG v R [2015] NSWCCA 21 Einfeld v Regina [2010] NSWCCA 87 Georgopolous v R [2010] NSWCCA 246 Gillard v The Queen (2003) 219 CLR 1 Green v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 462 Hall v R [2021] NSWCCA 220 Huynh v The Queen [2013] HCA 6 Johnson v The Queen [2004] 78 ALJR 616 Jonson v R (2016) 263 A Crim R 268 KR v The Queen [2012] NSWCCA 32 Lloyd v R [2017] NSWCCA 303 Lowe v The Queen (1984) 154 CLR 606 Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357 Maxwell v R [2020] NSWCCA 94 McAuliffe v The Queen (1995) 183 CLR 108 Miller v The Queen (2016) 259 CLR 380 Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120 Postiglione v The Queen (1997) 189 CLR 295 R v ABS [2005] NSWCCA 255 R v BJW [2000] NSWCCA 60 R v CMB [2014] NSWCCA 5 R v El-Hayek [2004] NSWCCA 25 R v Fisher (unrep, 29/3/89, NSWCCA) R v Gavel [2014] NSWCCA 56 R v Goundar [2001] NSWCCA 198 R v JW [2010] NSWCCA 49 R v KNL [2005] NSWCCA 260 R v Lau [2022] NSWCCA 131 R v MAK [2006] NSWCCA 381 R v MJR (2002) 54 NSWLR 368 R v MMK [2006] NSWCCA 272 R v Oliver, Hartley and Baldwin [2003] 1 Cr App R 28 R v PGM (2008) 187 A Crim R 152 R v Simpson (2001) 53 NSWLR 704 R v Wheeler [2000] NSWCCA 34 R v Wright [2009] NSWCCA 3 RS v R [2013] NSWCCA 227 Ryan v R (2001) 206 CLR 267 Stocco, Gino v R; Stocco, Mark v R [2018] NSWCCA 77 The Queen v De Simoni (1981) 147 CLR 383 WG v R [2020] NSWCCA 155 WG v R (28 October 2018, unreported) Youkhana v R (2015) 249 A Crim R 424 Texts Cited: Criminal Sentencing Bench Book Principles of Sentencing 2nd ed, Heinemann, London, 1979 Category: Sentence Parties: Rex (Crown) Paul Robert BAMFORTH (Offender) Julia Ann BAMFORTH (Offender) Representation: Counsel: Mr O'Connor (Crown) Mr O'Sullivan (J Bamforth) Mr Juhasz (P Bamforth previous counsel) Mr Calokerinos (P Bamforth) Solicitors: Mr Allan (Crown) Mr Kelly (J Bamforth) Mr Phan (P Bamforth previous solicitor) Mr Hamowi (P Bamforth) File Number(s): 2021/00056259 2021/00055980 2021/00065786 2021/00056317 Publication restriction: Non-publication order re identity of complainant and any matter which may lead directly or indirectly to the identification of the complainant, including the names of relatives. Suppression order in respect of name of complainant and any other young person referred to in these remarks whose names will be anonymised. Non-publication and suppression order in respect of the neuropsychological report of Dr Pulman dated 27/01/2023 and the victim impact statement of the victim's mother. INDEX INTRODUCTION DELAY CHARGES FOR SENTENCE MAXIMUM PENALTIES STANDARD NON-PAROLE PERIOD CHARGES ON FORM 1 DOCUMENTS REPRESENTATIVE COUNTS SENTENCING FOR CHILD SEXUAL ASSAULT OFFENCES GENERALLY SENTENCING FOR CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE MATERIAL GENERALLY OBJECTIVE SERIOUNESS STATUTORY AGGRAVATING FACTORS (s21A(2)) AGREED FACTS AND FINDINGS REGARDING OBJECTIVE SERIOUSNESS JOINT CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE IMPACT ON VICTIM PAUL BAMFORTH'S SUBJECTIVE CASE JULIA BAMFORTH'S SUBJECTIVE CASE STATUTORY MITIGATING FACTORS (s21A(3)) PURPOSES OF SENTENCING S5 THRESHOLD TABLES OF INDICATIVE TERMS AND OBJECTIVE SERIOUSNESS PARITY GENERALLY TOTALITY, CONCURRENCY AND ACCUMULATION STANDARD NON-PAROLE PERIODS NOT ADOPTED SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES FOUND SENTENCE EXPLANATION OF SENTENCE TO OFFENDERS HIGH RISK OFFENDERS WARNING JUDGMENT INTRODUCTION 1. The offenders Paul Robert Bamforth and Julia Ann Bamforth appear today to be sentenced. As the facts will reveal, they were both responsible for the sexual abuse of a single child victim over a period of 5 years. The victim was aged 12-16 years. The male offender has wavered as to his acceptance of responsibility for the offending, twice indicating applications to withdraw the guilty pleas entered in the Local Court. Ultimately, neither application was pressed. Mrs Bamforth has maintained her guilty pleas from the time they were first entered in the Local Court. Paul Bamforth 1. Paul Bamforth is to be sentenced in relation to 46 counts contained on an indictment version 7.4. The indictment contains 65 counts, however upon the offender indicating that he would maintain the guilty pleas he entered in the Local Court, 19 counts were placed on Form 1 documents. There are also 2 related charges on a section 166 certificate. 2. The 46 charges for sentence can be summarised as follows: * 1 charge of possess child abuse material pursuant to s91H(2) Crimes Act 1900 (Count 1); * 1 charge of use child under 14 years to make child abuse material pursuant to s91G(1)(a) Crimes Act 1900 (Count 2); * 12 charges of aggravated sexual intercourse with a person aged 10-14 years pursuant to s66C(2) Crimes Act 1900 (Counts 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 19, and 21). In respect of each of the 12 charges, the relevant circumstance of aggravation is that the offending took place in company (s66C(5)(c)); * 4 charges of indecent assault of a person aged under 16 years pursuant to s61M(2) Crimes Act 1900 (Counts 6, 18, 20 and 27); * 1 charge of commit an indecent act on a child under 16 years which was filmed pursuant to s61O(2A) Crimes Act 1900 (Count 24); * 1 charge of use child aged 14-16 to make child abuse material pursuant to s91G(2)(a) Crimes Act 1900 (Count 22); * 10 charges of aggravated sexual intercourse with a person aged 14-16 years pursuant to s66C(4) Crimes Act 1900 (Counts 23, 26, 31, 34, 35, 37, 41, 44, 46, and 48). In respect of each of the 10 charges, the relevant circumstance of aggravation is that the offending took place in company (s66C(5)(c)); * 4 charges of intentionally sexually touch a child aged 10-16 years pursuant to s66DB(a) Crimes Act 1900 (Counts 29, 32, 43 and 49); * 11 charges of aggravated sexual assault of a victim with a cognitive impairment pursuant to s61J(1) Crimes Act 1900 (Counts 51, 53, 54, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 63, and 64); * 1 charge of specially aggravated take and detain pursuant to s86(3) Crimes Act 1900 (Count 65). This offence differs from the offence of kidnapping simpliciter in that the offender was in the company of other persons and actual bodily harm was occasioned to the victim. 1. Four of the nineteen charges on Form 1 documents are charges of intentionally sexually touch a person in circumstances of aggravation (Counts 50, 52, 55, and 62), the relevant circumstance of aggravation being that at the time of the offence the victim had a cognitive impairment. 2. On the section 166 certificate there are two related charges: * possess prohibited drug (3 tubes of Androforte (testosterone) pursuant to s10(1) Drugs Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985; * possess or use prohibited weapon without permit (Zombie sword) pursuant to s 34(1) Weapons Prohibition Act 1998. Julia Bamforth 1. Julia Bamforth is to be sentenced in relation to 46 counts contained on indictment version 24.9. The indictment contains 67 counts, however upon the offender indicating that she would maintain the guilty pleas she entered in the Local Court, 21 counts were placed on Form 1 documents. There are also 4 related charges on a section 166 certificate. 2. The 46 charges for sentence can be summarised as follows: * 1 charge of possess child abuse material pursuant to s91H(2) Crimes Act 1900 (Count 1); * 1 charge of use child under 14 years to make child abuse material pursuant to s91G(1)(a) Crimes Act 1900 (Count 2); * 13 charges of aggravated sexual intercourse with a person aged 10-14 years pursuant to s66C(2) Crimes Act 1900 (Counts 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 20, and 23). With the exception of count 7, the relevant circumstance of aggravation is that the offending took place in company (s66C(5)(c)). In relation to count 7, the circumstance of aggravation relied upon in the indictment is that the victim had a cognitive impairment (s66C(5)(f)); * 4 charges of indecent assault of a person aged under 16 years pursuant to s61M(2) Crimes Act 1900 (Counts 5, 19, 22 and 29); * 1 charge of commit an indecent act on a child under 16 years which was filmed pursuant to s61O(2A) Crimes Act 1900 (Count 26); * 1 charge of use child aged 14-16 years to make child abuse material pursuant to s91G(2)(a) Crimes Act 1900 (Count 24); * 11 charges of aggravated sexual intercourse with a person aged 14-16 years pursuant to s66C(4) Crimes Act 1900 (Counts 25, 28, 31, 34, 37, 38, 40, 44, 47, 48, and 51). With the exception of count 37, the relevant circumstance of aggravation is that the offending took place in company (s66C(5)(c)). In relation to count 37, the circumstance of aggravation relied upon in the indictment is that the victim had a cognitive impairment (s66C(5)(f)); * 3 charges of intentionally sexually touch a child aged 10-16 years pursuant to s66DB(a) Crimes Act 1900 (Counts 32, 46 and 52); and * 11 charges of aggravated sexual assault of a victim with a cognitive impairment pursuant to s61J(1) Crimes Act 1900 (Counts 54, 56, 57, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 66, and 67). 1. Four of the 21 charges on Form 1 documents are charges of intentionally sexually touch a person in circumstances of aggravation (Counts 53, 55, 58, and 65), the relevant circumstance of aggravation being that at the time of the offence the victim had a cognitive impairment. 2. On the section 166 certificate there are four related charges: * possess prohibited drug (2.07 grams Methylamphetamine [ice]) pursuant to s10(1) Drug Misues and Trafficking Act 1985; * possess or use a prohibited weapon without permit -T2 (Zombie Sword) pursuant to s7(1) Weapons Prohibition Act 1998; * possess or use a prohibited weapon without permit -T2 (Taser) pursuant to s7(1) Weapons Prohibition Act 1998; * possess or use a prohibited weapon without permit -T2 (Folding knife with knuckle guard) pursuant to s7(1) Weapons Prohibition Act 1998. 1. A further 7 charges on a s166 certificate have been placed on Form 1 documents attaching to the above section 166 charges. DELAY 1. Providing these remarks on sentence has regrettably been delayed. The reasons for the delay include the sheer number of charges in respect of which the offenders are to be sentenced, Mr Bamforth's indication to the Court on two occasions of his intention to withdraw his pleas, the change of legal representation by Mr Bamforth, and issues relating to the availability of both the Court and the legal representatives of the offenders. 2. Both offenders have been in custody awaiting sentence. Given the nature of the charges, I accept that the time in custody has been, at least, challenging for both. In relation to Mrs Bamforth, her circumstances were exacerbated following a diagnosis of Acute Lymphocytic Leukemia in September 2023. Plainly, her medical condition has made and may continue to make her time in custody more onerous than it would otherwise be, and that itself justifies a finding of special circumstances. CHARGES FOR SENTENCE 1. The maximum penalties, standard non-parole periods and findings as to the objective seriousness for reasons given in these remarks are set out in two Tables which are attached to and form part of these remarks. The Tables also set out the charges placed on the Form 1 documents as they attach to the primary charge for sentence. MAXIMUM PENALTIES 1. The maximum penalties and the standard non-parole periods are guideposts for sentencing Judges as to the seriousness with which the community through parliament views offending of this type. There is no doubt that this offending is extremely serious and calls for stern punishment. 2. In Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357 at [30]–[31], Gleeson CJ, Gummow, Hayne and Callinan JJ said: "Legislatures do not enact maximum available sentences as mere formalities. Judges need sentencing yardsticks. It is well accepted that the maximum sentence available may in some cases be a matter of great relevance … It follows that careful attention to maximum penalties will almost always be required, first because the legislature has legislated for them; secondly, because they invite comparison between the worst possible case and the case before the court at the time; and thirdly, because in that regard they do provide, taken and balanced with all of the other relevant factors, a yardstick." STANDARD NON-PAROLE PERIOD 1. The standard non-parole period is a matter to be taken into account as part of the determination of sentence. The legislation in Part 4 Division 1A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act specifies that the standard non-parole period applies to an offence found within the middle of the range of objective seriousness for such an offence, taking into account only objective factors, and without bringing to account any matters that are unique to the offender or the class of offenders. 2. Ultimately though, the standard non-parole period is but a factor to be taken into account in the sentencing exercise, together with the objective and subjective matters. This process of instinctive synthesis, as described by McHugh J in Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357 at [51], mandates that a sentencing judge: "identifies all the factors that are relevant to the sentence, discusses their significance and then makes a value judgment as to what is the appropriate sentence given all the factors of the case". 1. In a single judgment, all justices of the High Court in Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120 held at [17]: "It remained, and remains, essential to recognise, however, that the fixing of a non-parole period is but one part of the larger task of passing an appropriate sentence upon the particular offender. Fixing the appropriate non-parole period is not to be treated as if it were the necessary starting point or the only important end-point in framing a sentence to which Div 1A applies." 1. Even though an offence might be found to be within the middle of the range of objective seriousness, it does not follow that the standard non-parole period will apply, nor that there shall be a percentage calculation performed where the offence might be found lower on the scale of seriousness. 2. The process is not arithmetical but more intuitive, however the law requires that I determine where on the scale of objective seriousness the offence does fall. The precise positioning of the offence along the scale is a matter of judgment and is not easy to identify. While I am not compelled to impose a standard non-parole period, s 54B(3) of the CSP Act requires a sentencing judge to make a record of reasons for setting a non-parole period that departs from the standard non-parole period, as well as identifying the factors taken into account when doing so. 3. For reasons provided later in these remarks, I do not intend to impose a standard non-parole period in respect of any charges for sentence. CHARGES ON FORM 1 DOCUMENTS 1. There are 15 Form 1 documents signed by Mr Bamforth and 19 by Mrs Bamforth. 2. By signing the certificates to those documents, I confirm that I have taken those charges into account in sentencing for the principal charges to which they attach. Charges on Form 1 documents are to be taken into account with a view to increasing the penalty that would otherwise be appropriate for the principal charges. The court does so by giving greater weight to two elements which are always material in the sentencing process. The first is the need for personal deterrence. The second is the community's entitlement to exact retribution for serious offences: Attorney General's Application under s 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 No 1 of 2002 (2002) 56 NSWLR 146 at [42]. 3. The existence of these additional offences may demonstrate the greater need for personal deterrence and retribution in respect of the offence charged. This does not mean the Court is imposing a separate penalty for the Form 1 offences. Rather, as part of the instinctive synthesis approach to sentencing explained by McHugh J in Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357 at [51]-[54], it takes these matters into account as required by the statute in determining the appropriate penalty for the offence for which the offender is convicted and sentenced. 4. In this particular case the offences on the Form 1 documents are of some considerable significance as most of them are either equivalent to or at least similar to the offences to which they attach in terms of seriousness. REPRESENTATIVE COUNTS 1. There are a number of representative counts for sentence. The facts for these counts reference further offending that occurred on the same day, either in the same or additional videos, which provide context to the offending and highlight the repeated and continuous nature of the conduct. 2. I am mindful of the authorities relating to uncharged acts, including Baines v R [2016] NSWCCA 132, where at [5] it was said: "It would, of course, be wrong in sentencing an offender for a specific offence to increase the penalty on account of other misconduct, whether separately charged or not. However, it is not an error to assess the seriousness of the specific offence by reference to surrounding circumstances, including other offending which is established beyond reasonable doubt." 1. The position in Baines references and confirms the earlier position in Einfeld v Regina [2010] NSWCCA 87 where Basten JA (with whom Hulme and Latham JJ agreed) said at [146]: "… a course of unlawful conduct may well give rise to a number of possible charges. If the prosecution proceeds on one count only, it does not follow that the surrounding conduct cannot be taken into account in sentencing. The surrounding conduct cannot give rise to a more serious offence, but it can demonstrate the degree of seriousness with which the charged offence should be viewed." 1. I have applied these principles when considering the representative counts. Namely, those counts attract some greater seriousness given that they occurred in the context of uncharged acts. That is not to say that the offender is being sentenced for uncharged acts. SENTENCING FOR CHILD SEXUAL ASSAULT OFFENCES GENERALLY 1. The following has been extracted from the Criminal Sentencing Bench Book (CSBB) at [17-400]. 2. The abhorrence with which the community regards the sexual molestation of young children and the emphasis attached to general deterrence in sentencing offenders is reflected in the judgment in R v BJW [2000] NSWCCA 60 at [20], where Sheller JA stated: "The maximum penalties the legislature has set for [child sexual assault] offences reflect community abhorrence of and concern about adult sexual abuse of children. General deterrence is of great importance in sentencing such offenders and especially so when the offender is in a position of trust to the victim. See the remarks of Kirby ACJ in R v Skinner (1994) 72 A Crim R 151 at 154." 1. The case of R v Fisher (unrep, 29/3/89, NSWCCA) at [6] is also frequently cited: "This court has said time and time again that sexual assaults upon young children, especially by those who stand in a position of trust to them, must be severely punished, and that those who engage in this evil conduct must go to gaol for a long period of time, not only to punish them, but also in an endeavour to deter others who might have similar inclinations … This court must serve notice upon judges who impose weakly merciful sentences in some cases of sexual assault upon children, that heavy custodial sentences are essential if the courts are to play their proper role in protecting young people from sexual attacks by adults … Tampering with children of tender years is a matter of grave concern to the community: R v Evans (unrep, 24/3/88, NSWCCA)." 1. The courts have recognised a change in community attitudes to child sexual assault. In R v MJR (2002) 54 NSWLR 368 at [57], Mason J expressed the view that there has been a pattern of increasing sentences for child sexual assault and that this: "… has come about in response to greater understanding about the long-term effects of child sexual abuse and incest; as well as by a considered judicial response to changing community attitudes to these crimes." 1. In R v ABS [2005] NSWCCA 255 at [26], Buddin J, with whom Brownie AJA and Latham J agreed, said: "Offences involving acts of significant sexual exploitation against children are almost without exception met with salutary penalties. Moreover, the legislature has in recent years provided for increased penalties in respect of many such offences. It is an area in which the need to protect children from exploitation and to deter others from acting in a similar fashion assume particular significance." 1. These legal principles have continued to evolve over the past 20 years since that judgment. 2. In Ryan v R (2001) 206 CLR 267 Kirby J stated at [118]: "A fundamental purpose of the criminal law, and of the sentencing of convicted offenders, is to denounce publicly the unlawful conduct of an offender. This objective requires that a sentence should also communicate society's condemnation of the particular offender's conduct. The sentence represents 'a symbolic, collective statement that the offender's conduct should be punished for encroaching on our society's basic code of values as enshrined within our substantive criminal law'. In the case of offences against children, which involve derogations from the fundamental human rights of immature, dependent and vulnerable persons, punishment has an obvious purpose of reinforcing the standards which society expects of its members." 1. In R v Gavel [2014] NSWCCA 56 at [110]: "This Court has observed that child sex offences have profound and deleterious effects upon victims for many years, if not the whole of their lives: R v CMB [2014] NSWCCA 5 at [92]. Sexual abuse of children will inevitably give rise to psychological damage: SW v R [2013] NSWCCA 255 at [52]. In R v G [2008] UKHL 37; [2009] 1 AC 92, Baroness Hale of Richmond (at [49]) referred to the "long term and serious harm, both physical and psychological, which premature sexual activity can do". The absolute prohibition on sexual activity with a child is intended to protect children from the physical and psychological harm taken to be caused by premature sexual activity: Clarkson v R [2011] VSCA 157; 32 VR 361 at [3], [26]-[39]." 1. In EG v R [2015] NSWCCA 21 at [42] it was said: "General deterrence, denunciation and the protection of the community are principles of sentencing which are relevant to cases involving child sexual abuse. The concern of the courts is to send a message to those who would sexually abuse children intentionally and repeatedly that their actions will not be tolerated and that they will receive significant punishment." 1. In Maxwell v R [2020] NSWCCA 94 at [112]: "The commission of one offence of this type is grave enough for a young victim, let alone the destructive effect of multiple offending such as this upon the victim's childhood years." 1. And in R v Lau [2022] NSWCCA 131 at [178] and [82]: "…a message must be sent to those who offend against children intentionally and repeatedly that their actions will not be tolerated, and that they will receive significant punishment." "Although the time over which the individual instances of offending took place may not have been an entirely irrelevant consideration, it was of limited significance. It has been observed by this Court on numerous occasions that offending of this nature is capable of having profound, long-term, and generally deleterious effects upon victims, both physically and psychologically." 1. I note that s25AA of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 dictates that for child sexual offences the offender must be sentenced in accordance with the sentencing patterns and practices at the time of sentencing, not at the time of the offences. SENTENCING FOR CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE MATERIAL GENERALLY 1. R v Oliver, Hartley and Baldwin [2003] 1 Cr App R 28 at [20]: "There are specific factors which are capable of aggravating the seriousness of a particular offence. We identify these as follows: (i) If the images have been shown or distributed to a child. (ii) If there are a large number of images. It is impossible to specify precision as to numbers. Sentencers must make their own assessment of whether the numbers are small or large. Regard must be had to the principles presently applying by virtue of R v Canavan, Kidd and Shaw [1998] 1 Cr App R 79. (iii) The way in which a collection of images is organised on a computer may indicate a more or less sophisticated approach on the part of the offender to trading, or a higher level of personal interest in the material. An offence will be less serious if images have been viewed but not stored. (iv) Images posted on a public area of the internet, or distributed in a way making it more likely they will be found accidentally by computer users not looking for pornographic material, will aggravate the seriousness of the offence. (v) The offence will be aggravated if the offender was responsible for the original production of the images, particularly if the child or children involved were members of the offender's own family, or were drawn from particularly vulnerable groups, such as those who have left or have been taken from their home or normal environment, whether for the purposes of exploitation or otherwise, or if the offender has abused a position of trust, as in the case of a teacher, friend of the family, social worker, or youth group leader. (vi) The age of the children involved may be an aggravating feature. In many cases it will be difficult to quantity (sic) the effect of age by reference to the impact on the child. But in some cases that impact may be apparent. For example, assaults on babies or very young children attract particular repugnance and may, by the conduct depicted in the image, indicate the likelihood of physical injury to the private parts of the victim. Some conduct may manifestly (that is to say, apparently from the image) have induced fear or distress in the victim, and some conduct which might not cause fear or distress to an adolescent child, might cause fear or distress to a child of, say, 6 or 7." (emphasis added as observations apposite here). OBJECTIVE SERIOUNESS 1. As I proceed through the agreed facts, I propose to annotate those facts with my findings as to the objective seriousness in respect of each charge. The findings will be italicised and readily distinguishable from the facts. Those findings are also set out in the two Tables. 2. In considering objective seriousness in the context of these two offenders, I am mindful of two important considerations. The first are the general legal principles applicable to offending of this type. The second matter is to have close regard to the offenders' respective roles in the criminal enterprise. Assessment of objective seriousness in child sexual offences generally 1. The following factors are often relevant to the assessment of gravity in relation to child sexual offending. To the extent that any of these factors apply in the present matters, I have had regard to them in determining the seriousness of the offending, except where the factor is an element of the offence: 1. the nature of the sexual offence, noting that there is no strict hierarchy of sexual acts in terms of their seriousness and that some forms of sexual activity may be regarded as more serious than others (R v PGM (2008) 187 A Crim R 152 at [26], per Fullerton J). The nature of the sexual act should not be considered in isolation and the objective seriousness is not necessarily less because the nature of the sexual act was oral intercourse (Adam Jolly v R [2013] NSWCCA 76); 2. the age of the child with within the age range covered by the relevant statutory provision, "the younger the child the more serious the offence" (R v KNL [2005] NSWCCA 260; 154 A Crim R 268 at [42]); 3. the age difference between offender and victim (Corby v R [2010] NSWCCA 146 at [77]). Mr Bamforth was 31 years 3 months older than the victim. Mrs Bamforth was 30 years 8 months older than the victim. These both represent a considerable age disparity; 4. any humiliation or degradation accompanying the offending. Although the offending may have caused the victim some humiliation or embarrassment, there is no clear evidence of that and I have not taken this factor into account in relation to the sexual offending; 5. whether there was any degree of intimidation by the offender(s) of the victim. There is no evidence of this in this case; 6. whether there was any threat or offer made by the offender to the victim. The only evidence of anything like an offer being made to the victim was the supply to him of illicit substances including marijuana, methamphetamine and MDMA. I note that the absence of physical violence, force or threats does not serve to mitigate child sexual offending (Burr v R [2020] NSWCCA 282 at [174]-[175]); 7. the duration of the offending. It is a long-standing principle that the fact that instances of child sexual offending are relatively short in duration does not reduce objective seriousness (Chamseddine v R [2017] NSWCCA 176 at [52]-[55]); 8. whether the offending was repeated or took place over a period of time, noting that repeated sexual offending over a period of years against a child will have a destructive effect upon a victim's childhood (Maxwell v R [2020] NSWCCA 94 at [112]-[113]). Further, where there has been a pattern of repeat offending, an offender will be deprived of a claim for leniency that might have been available if the offending was spontaneous and isolated (RS v R [2013] NSWCCA 227 at [47]). The charged offending in this instance took place over a prolonged period of time from 2016 through to early 2021, when the victim was aged 12-16 years; 9. where the offending took place, in this case the home of the offenders. This is a statutory aggravating factor, addressed below; 10. any relationship between the offender and the victim. Here the victim may best be described as a family friend. His father was close friends with at least the male offender and the victim appears to have been part of the same friendship group as the offenders' own son; 11. whether the offender was in a position of trust vis-à-vis the victim. This is a statutory aggravating factor, addressed below; 12. whether the victim was under the authority of the offender. This is a statutory aggravating factor, addressed below; 13. whether the sexual assault occurred in company. Where this is a statutory aggravating factor or an element of the offence it will not be taken into account in assessing objective seriousness; 14. whether the victim had a cognitive impairment. In some instances this is an element of the offence and in those cases it is not taken into account in assessing seriousness, otherwise it is a statutory aggravating factor, addressed below. Assessment of Objective Seriousness in Child Abuse Material Offences Generally 1. The starting point are the specific factors referred to in Oliver, Hartley and Baldwin, supra. 2. Also relevant is the seriousness of the sexual offending captured by the recordings and the extent of the offender's involvement with it. In this particular case, it is significant that the child abuse material charges cover an expansive period, rather than a specific, isolated occurrence. There is a well-established pattern of conduct. 3. For both offenders, count 1 is a charge of possessing child abuse material being videos and literature. The offending period was from 12 May 2016 to 26 February 2021. 4. Count 2 is a charge of producing child abuse material (namely videos) for a child under the age of 14 years. The offence period is 12 May 2016 to 28 March 2018. 5. For Mr Bamforth, count 22 relates to the production of child abuse material (namely videos) using a child of or above the age of 14 years. The offence period is 29 March 2018 to 28 March 2020. 6. For Mrs Bamforth, the same charge appears at count 24. 7. Upon forensic examination of Mr Bamforth's mobile phone, police detected 697 notes, consisting of approximately 300 notes described as stories written by both Paul and/or Julia Bamforth. The stories range in length and the specific sexual details they go into vary. Some of the stories captured are from 2016 and contain in excess of 2500 words. The details of these stories will be addressed later in these remarks. 8. The facts reveal that there were 61 video files containing child abuse material from 12 May 2016 to 25 March 2020. 9. The period of time over which the material was produced, the number of recordings and the number of stories constituting child abuse material bear directly upon the objective seriousness of the offending. Caution to be exercised 1. Some of these objective factors are elements of the offences. Care will be taken not to elevate the seriousness of the offending where a factor is an element of the charged act or offend the principle laid down in The Queen v De Simoni (1981) 147 CLR 383. Submissions regarding objective seriousness 1. Before setting out the agreed facts and making findings as to objective seriousness, I note that I have had regard to the parties' submissions in relation to that matter. I note the Crowns submissions regarding objective seriousness are set out in respect of each count in Exhibit D. 2. In respect of Mr Bamforth, the following submission was made (MFI 3): "The offending occurred over a period of approximately 5 years. There is no evidence of the use of physical force upon the child to perform the sexual acts. It is submitted that the offender's role in the offending is lesser than that of the co-offender. That this (sic) should be reflected in the objective seriousness of the offending of this offender. It is submitted that the objective seriousness of the offending falls slightly below the mid-range." 1. In relation to the s86(3) offence the following submission was made on behalf of Mr Bamforth: "The child can be seen being punched, kicked, and manhandled by other young persons, one of which (sic) is the offender's son. Some of the physical attacks upon the child are in the presence of the offender. The offender is seen in the footage chastising and pointing at the child, while he was sitting on a couch. There is no evidence that the offender struck the child but he was present while other young persons were hitting the child. It is submitted that this offending falls below the mid-range but is above the low range of objective seriousness." 1. I cannot accept this submission. The facts demonstrate that Mr Bamforth was largely in control of the situation, on at least one occasion kicked the victim with his right leg to the face and attempted to stab the victim in the legs with a screwdriver. In any event, the principles relating to joint criminal enterprise make Mr Bamforth criminally responsible for the conduct of all others involved. 2. On behalf of Mrs Bamforth the following submission was made regarding objective seriousness: "the Agreed Facts reveal objectively very serious offending & would fall above mid-range". 1. At the Sentence Hearing on 17 February 2023, counsel for Mrs Bamforth conceded that for the offences which the Crown submitted were in the high range of objective seriousness the offending could be characterised as well above the mid-range but falling short of the worst category. 2. I have adopted the Crown's approach of making findings of objective seriousness in relation to each of the charges. Neither offender has done this. In making such findings, I have borne in mind the submissions made for the offenders. STATUTORY AGGRAVATING FACTORS (s21A(2)) 1. Before turning to the facts, in the course of making findings about objective seriousness I refer to relevant objective statutory aggravating factors. In respect of such factors, I make the following findings to which I will have regard in assessing objective seriousness. I intend to apply these findings without repeating them throughout the remarks. I will refer to the applicable statutory aggravating objective factors which is a reference back to these findings if the factor is enlivened by the facts surrounding the offending. (cb) the offence involved the offender causing the victim to take, inhale or be affected by a narcotic drug, alcohol or any other intoxicating substance 1. The victim's statement referred to in the facts, refers to the fact that Mr Bamfoth would take him to their room, give him a pipe, Mrs Bamforth would get undressed and "then it would start from there" and his recollection that, "I used to get free pot, free ice, free MDMA off him, for, to do that… to fuck, root his wife." Based on the victim's statement I find the offending took place in an environment where the offenders had caused or permitted the victim to take an intoxicating substance, namely pot, ice and/or MDMA. I find that it is an aggravating factor in relation to all of the offending under s21A(2)(cb). (d) the offender has a record of previous convictions (particularly if the offender is being sentenced for a serious personal violence offence and has a record of previous convictions for serious personal violence offences) 1. Both offenders have a criminal history involving a variety of offences, none of which involve like offending. In the circumstances, I decline to find their criminal history an aggravating factor, but it does disentitle to them to any leniency which might otherwise flow to an offender without a history of convictions. (e) the offence was committed in company 1. Almost all of the offences were committed in the company of the co-offender. This is an aggravating factor I have taken into account only in those instances where "in company" is not an element of the offence. (eb) the offence was committed in the home of the victim or any other person 1. All the offences were committed by the offenders in their home, a location where, given the amount of time the victim spent there and the friendship between the victim's father and the offenders, the victim was entitled to feel safe and secure. Relevantly, the Court in Jonson v R (2016) 263 A Crim R 268 at [40] recognised that "the aggravating factor is not limited to the home of the victim but extends to the home of any other person." On that basis, I have considered the offending occurring within the offender's home an aggravating factor. I note that counsel for Mrs Bamforth did not challenge this submission and counsel for Mr Bamforth was silent as to the matter. The predatory behaviour changed what should have been a house of security for the victim into a house of horror. (g) the injury, emotional harm, loss or damage caused by the offence was substantial 1. Whilst the emotional harm and damage caused to the victim is both clear and substantial, I accept the Crown's submission that it would be "impossible and artificial to attempt to make findings of fact in relation to what harm each individual offence caused". On that basis, I have examined this factor through the lens of section 3A(g) and when considering the appropriate aggregate sentences, rather than considering the factor under s21A(2) as an aggravating factor. (k) the offender abused a position of trust or authority in relation to the victim 1. I am mindful of the distinction between a position of trust and a position of authority as discussed in DPP (NSW) v Burton [2020] NSWCCA 54 at [31]: "A position of trust is not a precise term, but may be understood as covering relationships involving an obligation of care and protection, as compared with relationships involving authority over another. Thus, parents, child minders, health workers and other similar relationships may constitute positions of trust." 1. The age of this victim and his relationship to the offenders warrants a finding that this is an aggravating factor. The offenders were trusted adults to the victim from when he was a young child, a position characterised by the offender's friendship with the victim's father and the victim frequently visiting the offender's house to see their son. The relationship between the victim and the offenders is probably best described in a statement by the victim's father dated 1 April 2021 (Exhibit C): "From a young age (the victim) became friends with Paul's son ZB. They are similar ages and pretty much grew up together as mates. We moved to Wyoming which was close to Paul and Julia's house and (the victim) would go there once or twice a week. I was working during the days, sometimes seven days a week and (the victim) would often go to the house to spend time with ZB. Sometimes he would stay there overnight." 1. I have had regard to the offenders' abuse of their position of trust as an aggravating factor to all offences except those where having the care of a child is an element of the offence (s91H(2) and s91H(2)(a)). (l) the victim was vulnerable 1. The offending was further aggravated by the fact that the victim was vulnerable. The expert evidence established that the victim suffered a disability, including Autism Level 2, an IQ in the extremely low range, and a mild to moderate intellectual disability. I will in these remarks outline the knowledge the offenders' had about the victim's vulnerability. One example is that they referred to him as an array of names including "the retard". The vulnerability of the victim will be taken into account in assessing objective seriousness for all offences except those where the cognitive impairment of the victim is an element of the offence. AGREED FACTS AND FINDINGS REGARDING OBJECTIVE SERIOUSNESS Merged Facts 1. Initially, and perhaps customarily, there were 2 separate sets of agreed facts, one for each offender. In most regards they were identical. I undertook the task of combining the 2 documents before seeking the agreement of the legal representatives for the parties that the agreed merged facts were entirely consistent with the statement of agreed facts signed by the respective clients. I note that Mr Bamforth has today signed the agreed merged facts, and I expect that prior to the sentence being pronounced, Mrs Bamforth will do the same. I note that her health conditions has made signing the document difficult. I note that a declaration at the end of the document by the legal representatives for the offenders confirms both the accuracy of the facts stated in the document and their respective client's adoption of same. A copy of the merged facts signed by the legal representatives for the offenders adopting the document has been tendered as an exhibit in both matters. Caution to be exercised 1. In sentencing the offenders, I have had regard to the facts pertaining to them separately. Unless the facts are common, I have not taken into account the facts agreed by one offender when sentencing the other offender. 2. The offenders are criminally responsible in respect of each of the alleged offences on a joint criminal enterprise basis, save for: 1. the offender Paul Bamforth is solely criminally responsible in respect of sequence H78550740/11 (Count 65), as principal; and 2. the offender Julia Bamforth is solely criminally responsible in respect of sequences H78439722/57 (Count 7), H78439722/61 (Count 10) & H78439722/102 (Count 31), as principal. 1. In addition, both offenders are to be sentenced separately for the s166 related offences. Background to offending 1. The offenders in these matters are Paul BAMFORTH and Julia BAMFORTH. 2. The victim in this matter is young person, ZR ('the victim'), born 29 March 2004. The victim has been diagnosed with ADHD and autism. 3. The offenders in this matter are married and resided on the Central Coast. Also living at the premises were the son of the offenders, ZB and also the mother of one of the offenders. The offending seemingly took place with ZB and the mother being present in the home on most occasions although there is no evidence concerning that question and no suggestion that either the son or the mother were aware of what was occurring. 4. On 26 February 2021, a search warrant was executed at their home. In the case against PAUL BAMFORTH, a number of items were seized, as follows: 1. 1 x zombie sword in bedroom 1 (X0005050501) (s.166 Related matter - H80993016/1 – use prohibited weapon contrary to prohibition order). Having regard to the nature of the weapon, and the types of weapons covered by the offence provision, I find the objective seriousness falls just above the mid-range; 2. 3 x tubes of AndroForte (a testosterone) in bedroom 1 (XD000186405) (s.166 Related matter - H80993016/2 – Possess prohibited drug). Having regard to the quantity and type of drug,I find the objective seriousness falls at the low range. 1. In the case against JULIA BAMFORTH the following was seized: 1. a clear bottle containing clear liquid in the wardrobe of bedroom 1 (XD000186410); 2. a black taser in a safe (X0004185526) (s.166 Related matter – H81236284/6 – Possess prohibited weapon). Having regard to the nature of the weapon, and the types of weapons covered by the offence provision, I find the objective seriousness falls just below mid-range; 3. 2 x knuckle dusters (taser) in the wardrobe of bedroom 1 (X0004185527) (Form 1 matter – H81236284/8 – Possess prohibited weapon) (Form 1 matter – H81236284/9 – Possess prohibited weapon); 4. a flick knife in the wardrobe of bedroom 1 (X0004185528) (Form 1 matter – H81236284/10 – Possess prohibited weapon); 5. a box of assorted lasers in the wardrobe of bedroom 1 (X0004185529); 6. 1 x folding knife with knuckle guard in the wardrobe of bedroom 1 (X0004185530) (s.166 Related matter – H81236284/11 – Possess prohibited weapon). Having regard to the nature of the weapon, and the types of weapons covered by the offence provision, I find the objective seriousness falls just below the mid-range; 7. 3 x vials of assorted steroids in the wardrobe of bedroom 1 (XD000186421) (Form 1 matter – H81236284/4 – Possess prohibited drug); 8. 1 x zombie sword in bedroom 1 (X0005050501) (s.166 Related matter – H81236284/5 – Possess prohibited weapon). Having regard to the nature of the weapon, and the types of weapons covered by the offence provision, I find the objective seriousness falls at the low range; 9. 2 x Swann CCTV hard drives in bedroom 1 (X0004050502); 10. 1 x Apple iPhone mobile phone in bedroom 1 (X0004050503); 11. 2g of white powder in a resealable bag in bedroom 1 being Methylmethamphetamine (XD000186402) (Form 1 matter – H81236284/2 – Possess prohibited drug); 12. 2 x small containers containing white crystal in bedroom 1 (XD000186403); 13. 1 x skittle box containing USB/laser pointer in bedroom 1 (X0004050506); 14. 3 x tubes of androforte (a testosterone) in bedroom 1 (XD000186405); 15. 2 x blue tablets in bedroom 1 (XD000186406) & 1 x blue tablet in bedroom 1 (XD000186404) being Methyl methamphetamine (MDMA) (Form 1 matter – H81236284/3 – Possess prohibited drug); 16. 1 x resealable bag containing 2.07g white crystal in bedroom 1 being Methyl-amphetamine (ICE) (XD000186407) (s.166 Related matter – H81236284/1 – Possess prohibited drug). Having regard to the quantity and type of drug, I find the objective seriousness just below the mid-range; 17. 1 x tick list in bedroom 1 (X0004050507); 18. $715 Australian currency in bedroom 1 (XD000186408); 19. 1 x taser in bedroom 1 (X0004185523) (Form 1 matter – H81236284/7 – Possess prohibited weapon); 20. 1 x swisse vitamin container containing 16 white capsules in bedroom 1 (XD000186409); and 21. 1 x green laser pointer in bedroom 1 (X0004185524) 1. Photographs of the seized items were tendered as Exhibit B. 2. After the offenders' arrest, a neighbour, AS, was at the house cleaning up. During the clean AS located seven hard drives, the first five were in a shoe cupboard underneath rubbish, together in a bag. At this stage AS had heard about the charges and was concerned, so she put them aside. She located two more taped to the bottom of the bedside table, and again put them aside. 3. AS asked a friend to check on the contents of the hard drives, and following this, decided to take them to police. 4. A review of some of the electronic devices, including one belonging to Paul BAMFORTH contained child abuse material, showing Paul and Julia BAMFORTH engaged in sexual acts with a young child, estimated to be between 10 and 13 years of age. 5. As a result, Strike Force BLOOMSBURY was formed. 6. The victim first met Paul and Julia BAMFORTH through the victim's father. The victim's father was friends with Paul BAMFORTH. The victim was a young child when he first met the co-offenders. 7. The victim would go to the co-offenders' house and said it was, "made out to see ZB" (the offenders' son) but every time, "it was always to fuck his wife, but I didn't want to, but I had to." ZB would be home, but the victim did not tell him, saying, "if I did, he would bash me." 8. The victim recalls that they would give him, "ice to fuck his wife." The victim says, "I used to get free pot, free ice, free MDMA off him, for, to do that… to fuck, root his wife." 9. The victim says "he'd feed me up on the M, which makes you really horny." The victim said then Paul BAMFORTH would take him into his room, give him a pipe, and then would get Julia BAMFORTH to get undressed and, "then it would start from there." Complaint 1. When the victim was around 14 or 15, he disclosed to his father that Paul BAMFORTH had asked the victim to "fuck" Julia BAMFORTH, and the victim begged his father not to say anything. The victim's father immediately confronted the offender Paul BAMFORTH, who denied it, and said, "what do you think I am?" and "How long have we been mates for?" It was around this time that the victim's father discovered Paul BAMFORTH had been giving the victim 'ice'. 2. The victim was interviewed where a large number of disclosures were made. The victim disclosed that there had been ongoing sexual abuse by the co-offenders from the time he was 7 years old. This included penile-vaginal intercourse with Julia BAMFORTH, Julia BAMFORTH performing oral sex on the victim and Julia BAMFORTH masturbating the victim. 3. The victim further disclosed that he had been forced to perform oral sex on Paul BAMFORTH and that Paul BAMFORTH had performed oral sex on the victim. 4. The victim disclosed that he was supplied with prohibited drugs by the co-offenders from 7 years of age, in the form of pot, ice and MDMA. 5. The victim's father recalls observing Paul BAMFORTH, on one occasion, watching pornography that involved acts of bestiality. The victim's father recalls that the co-offenders were always watching pornography. 6. The victim's father also recalls that several children would stay at the co-offenders' residence, particularly children who were vulnerable. He believes one of these children was LG, and other children called, "Harry" and "Max". 7. There are numerous text messages between the co-offenders discussing offending against the victim. In one such text, Julia BAMFORTH commented, "making me feel so dirty like a pedo". The texts capture the planning by the co-offenders to offend against the victim and how it created sexual gratification for the co-offenders. They also reveal the extreme depravity of both offenders. 8. The analysis of the phones of the co-offenders revealed several text message exchanges. During these exchanges it is clear that the co-offenders were aware of the cognitive impairment of the victim. 9. The co-offenders refer to the victim as the "retard" throughout these exchanges. An example of the exchanges is extracted below: PAUL BAMFORTH: "his a (sic) ugly little cry baby retard the (sic) you flirted so much with" JULIA BAMFORTH: "I want your cock and you want to fuck this just to tease the retard" JULIA BAMFORTH: "now sexy I still love our threesomes we had with (the victim) but it's time now for younger blood and even logan is too old and even though he is another retard he isn't a true 10-year-old that wants my old horny cunt" PAUL BAMFORTH: "yes I'll still double cock it with you sexy and the retardo" JULIA BAMFORTH: "being in the pool was another time I touched the retard's cock" JULIA BAMFORTH: "Yes I do want to fall pregnant to that ugly little retard so we can molest the child or children" PAUL BAMFORTH: "And I remember all the things we used to do with retard boy" PAUL BAMFORTH: "So next time your mouth will be sucking his foreskin cock and I will join in after I watch you eat his dick because the retard is so dumb he doesn't care if it's a girl or boy on the end of his prick" The victim turned 12 years old on 29 March 2016 RE PAUL BAMFORTH: Count 1, H78550740 /127 – S 91H(2) Crimes Act 1900, Possess child abuse material-T1, 12 May 2016 to 26 February 2021 – LPC: 78660 Count 2, H78550740 /53 – S 91G(1)(a) Crimes Act 1900, Use child under 14 years to make child abuse material, 12 May 2016 to 28 March 2018 – LPC: 73036 RE JULIA BAMFORTH: Count 1, H78439722 /140 – S 91H(2) Crimes Act 1900, Possess child abuse material-T1, 12 May 2016 to 26 February 2021 – LPC: 78660 Count 2, H78439722 /48 – S 91G(1)(a) Crimes Act 1900, Use child under 14 years to make child abuse material, 12 May 2016 to 28 March 2018 – LPC: 73036 1. In respect of Count 1 for each offender the crown relies on the 61 videos described in these facts as well as the 300 debauched stories described in these later in these facts. 2. I have had regard to the Crown's submission that the objective seriousness falls towards the upper end of the mid-range of objective seriousness. 3. For Mr Bamforth, in respect of count 1 I find the objective seriousness just above the mid-range having regard to the following factors: 1. the period of time over which the material was possessed, almost 5 years; 2. the age of the victim during this period, 12 to 16 years; 3. the nature of the sexual offending depicted; 4. the fact that the material involved a real child, namely the victim; 5. the relationship between the victim and the offenders; 6. the number of stories and videos; 7. the fact that the child abuse material was created, sorted and managed by Mr Bamforth; 8. any applicable statutory aggravating objective factors, identified above (s21A(2)(cb),(eb),(k),(l)). 1. For Mrs Bamforth, in respect of count 1, the second last factor referred to above does not apply and for that reason, I find the objective seriousness of her offending falls at the mid-range. 2. In respect of Count 2 for each offender the crown relies on the 26 videos described in these facts up until the victim was 14 years of age. 3. I have had regard to the Crown's submission that the objective seriousness falls towards the upper end of the mid-range of objective seriousness. 4. I find the objective seriousness in respect of count 2 for both offenders falls just above the mid-range having regard to the following factors: 1. the age of the victim, 12 to 13 years; 2. the nature of the sexual acts the subject of the video files; 3. the number of videos; 4. the period of the offending, almost 2 years; 5. the fact that the material was stored across a number of devices; 6. any applicable statutory aggravating objective factors, identified above (s21A(2)(cb),(e),(eb),(k),(l)). 12/05/2016 RE PAUL BAMFORTH: Count 3, H78550740 /51 – S 61M(2) Crimes Act 1900, Indecent assault person under 16 years of age – LPC: 67803 RE JULIA BAMFORTH: Count 3, H78439722 /47 – S 61M(2) Crimes Act 1900, Indecent assault person under 16 years of age-T1 – LPC: 67803 1. A video file was retrieved from a silver 'Passport HDD' (exhibit X0002226975) named "IMG_0341.MOV". This file is dated 12 May 2016. 2. The video depicts JULIA BAMFORTH, PAUL BAMFORTH and THE VICTIM seated on the lounge watching television. PAUL BAMFORTH films JULIA BAMFORTH as she masturbates THE VICTIM. 3. THE VICTIM was 12 years old at the date of the recording. 4. I have had regard to the Crown's submission that the objective seriousness falls towards the lower end of the high range of objective seriousness. 5. For both offenders I find the objective seriousness falls just above the mid-range having regard to the following factors: 1. the respective roles of the offenders, with Mrs Bamforth masturbating the victim and Mr Bamforth filming; 2. the age of the victim; 3. the age differential; 4. the age of the victim relative to the offence provision, being 12 years old, 4 years below the provision's ceiling; 5. the nature of the sexual offending, masturbation; 6. any applicable statutory aggravating objective factors, identified above (s21A(2)(cb),(e),(eb),(k),(l)). 12/08/2016 RE PAUL BAMFORTH: Count 4, H78550740 /54 – S 66C(2) Crimes Act 1900, Aggravated sexual intercourse person >=10 & <14 years-SI – LPC: 51429 RE JULIA BAMFORTH: Count 4, H78439722 /49 – S 66C(2) Crimes Act 1900, Aggravated sexual intercourse person >=10 & <14 years-SI – LPC: 51429 1. A video file was retrieved from a 'HP Pavillion Laptop' (exhibit X0003986111) named "IMG_4730.MOV". This file is dated 12 August 2016. 2. The video depicts PAUL BAMFORTH instructing a naked JULIA BAMFORTH to perform oral sex upon THE VICTIM who is sleeping in another room. JULIA BAMFORTH (naked) enters the room and pulls down the shorts of THE VICTIM (who is still sleeping) and performs oral sex on THE VICTIM. 3. THE VICTIM was 12 years old at the date of the recording. 4. I have had regard to the Crown's submission that the objective seriousness falls towards the lower end of the high range of objective seriousness. 5. For both offenders I find the objective seriousness just above the mid-range having regard to the following factors: 1. the respective roles of the offenders, with Mr Bamforth instructing Mrs Bamforth to perform the act; 2. the age of the victim; 3. the age differential; 4. the age of the victim relative to the offence provision, being 12 years old, at about the halfway point; 5. the nature of the sexual offending, fellatio; 6. the fact that the victim was asleep and therefore in a vulnerable state at the commencement of the offending; 7. any applicable statutory aggravating objective factors, identified above (s21A(2)(cb),(eb),(k),(l)). 13/08/2016 RE PAUL BAMFORTH: Count 6, H78550740 /35 – S 61M(2) Crimes Act 1900, Indecent assault person under 16 years of age-T1 – LPC: 67803 Count 5, H78550740 /36 – S 66C(2) Crimes Act 1900, Aggravated sexual intercourse person >=10 & <14 years – LPC: 51429 RE JULIA BAMFORTH: Count 5, H78439722 /52 – S 61M(2) Crimes Act 1900, Indecent assault person under 16 years of age-T1 – LPC: 67803 Count 6, H78439722 /56 – S 66C(2) Crimes Act 1900, Aggravated sexual intercourse person >=10 & <14 years – 51429 Video 1 1. A video file was retrieved from the 'iPhone 11 Pro Max' (exhibit X0004050503) of Paul BAMFORTH. This file is dated 13 August 2016 at 03.24am. The victim was 12 years old at the date of the recording. 2. The video depicts JULIA BAMFORTH and PAUL BAMFORTH engaged in sexual intercourse on a bed. JULIA BAMFORTH is naked and straddling PAUL BAMFORTH. PAUL BAMFORTH appears to be recording on his mobile phone. 3. PAUL BAMFORTH says, "Look who's next to us" and the video pans to the victim laying immediately next to the co-offenders on the bed. The face of the victim is clearly depicted, the victim is fully clothed at this stage wearing a black t-shirt with blue shorts. This video ends. Video 2 1. A further video file located on the same phone, with the same date continues from this point. JULIA BAMFORTH is astride PAUL BAMFORTH and PAUL BAMFORTH says, "That's my wife's tits", the video focuses on the breasts of JULIA BAMFORTH and pans up to her face. A small Scooby-doo tattoo can be seen on the right breast of JULIA BAMFORTH. 2. The victim is still lying down on the bed. His shirt is now pulled up and his shorts are pulled down exposing his erect penis. JULIA BAMFORTH begins to masturbate the victim while continuing sexual intercourse with PAUL BAMFORTH. This is the charged act of indecent assault. 3. The video focuses on the victim and PAUL BAMFORTH says, "Would you like a mouth around that?". The victim replies. "Yep". PAUL BAMFORTH says, "You should put your mouth around both of us". The video remains on the erect penis of the victim and the co-offenders can be heard kissing. 4. PAUL BAMFORTH says, "you love this stuff, one cock in your mouth, then another cock in your mouth, does it turn you on? You love it don't ya?". JULIA BAMFORTH says, "I love anything dirty". PAUL BAMFORTH says, "Tell me baby, thrill me, put your mouth around it and suck us, come suck both of us". 5. JULIA BAMFORTH begins to perform oral sex on PAUL BAMFORTH who says, "Hop in the middle of us babe where you're comfy". The video then focuses on JULIA BAMFORTH performing oral sex on PAUL BAMFORTH. PAUL BAMFORTH then says, "Pull (the victim) off while you suck it". JULIA BAMFORTH then begins to masturbate the victim. 6. The victim does not say anything during the videos other than as noted above, the victim lays with his arms across his stomach and appears to be prepubescent as confirmed by the date of the video. Video 3 1. A further video file located on the same phone with the same date depicts the victim wearing the same clothing. JULIA BAMFORTH is in a purple headband being filmed by PAUL BAMFORTH. JULIA BAMFORTH says, "I'm going to suck (the victim's) cock". 2. JULIA BAMFORTH walks from her bedroom to where the victim is sleeping. JULIA BAMFORTH pulls down the shorts of the victim exposing his penis and performs oral sex on the victim. The victim is clearly prepubescent with no pubic hair on or around his genitals. Video 4 1. A further video file is located on the same phone with the same date depicts JULIA BAMFORTH wearing the same purple headband and again being filmed by PAUL BAMFORTH. JULIA BAMFORTH walks into the bathroom where the victim is showering. The victim says, "What do I wash my hair with?". 2. JULIA BAMFORTH opens the shower screen door. As JULIA BAMFORTH bends down PAUL BAMFORTH videos JULIA BAMFORTH's genitals and touches them. 3. JULIA BAMFORTH kneels and performs oral sex on the victim. The victim is clearly prepubescent with no pubic hair on or around his genitals. This is the second charged act, aggravated sexual intercourse. This is the charged act, count 5 for Mr Bamforth, count 6 for Mrs Bamforth. Video 5 1. A video file was retrieved from a 'HP Pavillion Laptop' (exhibit X0003986111) named "CH02-2016-08-13-03-26-11.AVI". This file is from internal CCTV and is date and time stamped. This file is dated 13 August 2016. The video is 9 minutes 43 seconds in duration. 2. The video depicts JULIA BAMFORTH having penile vaginal sexual intercourse with PAUL BAMFORTH, while JULIA BAMFORTH is masturbating the victim. PAUL BAMFORTH is clearly depicted filming with a mobile phone. 3. The victim was 12 years old at the date of the recording. Video 6 1. A further video file was retrieved from a 'HP Pavillion Laptop' (exhibit X0003986111) named "CH02-2016-08-13-03-13-04.AVI". This file is from internal CCTV and is date and time stamped. This file is dated 13 August 2016. The video is 9 minutes 51 seconds in duration. 2. The video depicts PAUL BAMFORTH and JULIA BAMFORTH engaging in sexual intercourse when THE VICTIM enters the room. PAUL BAMFORTH moves pillows so THE VICTIM can lay on the bed next to them. THE VICTIM is lying next to PAUL BAMFORTH and JULIA BAMFORTH when PAUL BAMFORTH and JULIA BAMFORTH appear to speak with THE VICTIM and THE VICTIM starts to touch JULIA BAMFORTH's breast area. After a short time, JULIA BAMFORTH starts to fondle the genital area of THE VICTIM through his clothes before THE VICTIM pulls his pants off and JULIA BAMFORTH starts to masturbate THE VICTIM. 3. The victim was 12 years old at the date of the recording. Video 7 1. A further video file was retrieved from a 'HP Pavillion Laptop' (exhibit X0003986111) named "CH02-2016-08-13-03-35-25.AVI". This file is from internal CCTV and is date and time stamped. This file is dated 13 August 2016. The video is 5 minutes 10 seconds in duration. 2. The video depicts PAUL BAMFORTH having sexual intercourse with JULIA BAMFORTH while filming JULIA BAMFORTH performing fellatio on THE VICTIM on a bed in their bedroom on a mobile phone before PAUL BAMFORTH, JULIA BAMFORTH and THE VICTIM leave the room. 3. The victim was 12 years old at the date of the recording. Video 8 1. A further video file was retrieved from a 'HP Pavillion Laptop' (exhibit X0003986111) named "CH02-2016-08-13.AVI". This file is from internal CCTV and is date and time stamped. This file is dated 13 August 2016. The video is 9 minutes 43 seconds in duration. 2. The video depicts Julia BAMFORTH having sexual intercourse with Paul BAMFORTH while Julia BAMFORTH is masturbating the victim. Paul BAMFORTH is depicted filming the incident on a mobile phone. 3. The victim was 12 years old at the date of the recording. 4. I have had regard to the Crown's submission in respect of count 5 for Mr Bamforth and count 6 for Mrs Bamforth that the objective seriousness falls at the high range of objective seriousness. 5. For both offenders I find the objective seriousness falls well above the mid-range having regard to the following factors: 1. the respective roles of the offenders, with Mrs Bamforth performing oral sex on the victim whilst in the shower and Mr Bamforth filming and touching Mrs Bamforth's genitals; 2. the age of the victim; 3. the age differential; 4. the age of the victim relative to the offence provision, being 12 years old, just below the halfway point; 5. the nature of the sexual offending, fellatio; 6. the fact that the victim was in the shower at the time of the offending, that is a confined space; 7. that it is a representative count, with the Crown relying upon other uncharged acts as context; 8. any applicable statutory aggravating objective factors, identified above (s21A(2)(cb),(eb),(k),(l)). 1. I have had regard to the Crown's submission in respect of count 6 for Mr Bamforth and count 5 for Mrs Bamforth that the objective seriousness falls at the high range of objective seriousness. 2. For both offenders I find the objective seriousness falls well above the mid-range having regard to the following factors: 1. the respective roles of the offenders, with Mrs Bamforth masturbating the victim while engaging in sexual intercourse with Mr Bamforth. Mr Bamforth was recording the offending and encouraging and instructing Mrs Bamforth to masturbate the victim; 2. the age of the victim; 3. the age differential; 4. the age of the victim relative to the offence provision, being 12 years old, just below the halfway point; 5. the nature of the sexual offending, masturbation; 6. that it is a representative count, with the Crown relying upon other uncharged acts as context; 7. any applicable statutory aggravating objective factors, identified above (s21A(2)(cb),(e),(eb),(k),(l)). 17/12/2016 RE JULIA BAMFORTH ONLY: Count 7, H78439722 /57 – S 66C(2) Crimes Act 1900, Aggravated sexual intercourse person >=10 & <14 years – 51429 1. A video file was retrieved from a silver 'Passport HDD' (exhibit X0002226975) named "IMG_8039.MOV". This file is dated 17 December 2016. 2. The CCTV video depicts the victim laying on the lounge. Julia BAMFORTH enters from another room, approaches the victim, and pulls his pants down and performs oral sex on him. 3. The victim was 12 years old at the date of the recording. 4. I have had regard to the Crown's submission that the objective seriousness falls towards the lower end of the high range of objective seriousness. 5. I find the objective seriousness falls just above the mid-range having regard to the following factors: 1. the age of the victim relative to the offence provision, being 12 years old, just below the halfway point; 2. the age of the victim; 3. the age differential; 4. the nature of the sexual offending, fellatio; 5. any applicable statutory aggravating objective factors, identified above (s21A(2)(cb),(eb),(k),(l)). 11/02/2017 RE PAUL BAMFORTH: Count 7, H78550740 /59 – S 66C(2) Crimes Act 1900, Aggravated sexual intercourse person >=10 & <14 years – LPC: 51429 RE JULIA BAMFORTH: Count 8, H78439722 /59 – S 66C(2) Crimes Act 1900, Aggravated sexual intercourse person >=10 & <14 years – LPC: 51429 1. A video file was retrieved from a 'Toshiba Laptop' (exhibit X0003986114) named "IMG_9069" contained within a folder named 'My little cock lover'. This video is recorded by Paul BAMFORTH. This file is dated 11 February 2017. The video is 1 minute 11 seconds in duration. 2. The video depicts Julia BAMFORTH performing fellatio on the victim. 3. The victim was 12 years old at the date of the recording. 4. I have had regard to the Crown's submission that the objective seriousness falls towards the lower end of the high range of objective seriousness. 5. For Mr Bamforth I find the objective seriousness falls just above the mid-range having regard to the following factors: 1. the respective roles of the offenders, with Mrs Bamforth performing oral sex on the victim with Mr Bamforth filming; 2. the age of the victim; 3. the age differential; 4. the age of the victim relative to the offence provision, being 12 years old, just below the halfway point; 5. the nature of the sexual offending, fellatio; 6. the duration of the offending as indicated by the length of the recording, 1 minute 11 seconds; 7. the fact that the file was placed in a folder named 'My little cock lover', demonstrating some sorting of the child abuse material after its filming; 8. any applicable statutory aggravating objective factors, identified above (s21A(2)(cb),(eb),(k),(l)). 1. For Mrs Bamforth the second last factor referred to above does not apply, however, I also find the objective seriousness of her offending falls just above the mid-range, given her direct physical contact with the victim. The victim turned 13 years old on 29 March 2017 25/04/2017 RE PAUL BAMFORTH: Count 8, H78550740 /44 – S 66C(2) Crimes Act 1900, Aggravated sexual intercourse person >=10 & <14 years – LPC: 51429 RE JULIA BAMFORTH: Count 9, H78439722 /65 – S 66C(2) Crimes Act 1900, Aggravated sexual intercourse person >=10 & <14 years – LPC: 51429 1. A video file was retrieved from a 'Toshiba Laptop' (exhibit X0003986114) named "IMG_9025.MOV". This exhibit was located at the residence of the co-offenders. The file is dated 25 April 2017 at 08.07pm. The video is 1 minute 23 seconds in duration. 2. Paul BAMFORTH is filming Julia BAMFORTH performing oral sex on the victim as Paul BAMFORTH and Julia BAMFORTH are having penile-vaginal intercourse. 3. The victim appears to be prepubescent and has a condom on his penis. Paul BAMFORTH says, "is that the best for Julia?". Julia BAMFORTH says, "fuck me harder" as she continues performing oral sex on the victim. 4. Julia BAMFORTH then says, "I love watching yas fuck me". Then, as she continues to perform oral sex on the victim she states, "how dirty hot". Paul BAMFORTH states, "just get it and enjoy it then". 5. The victim was 13 years old at the date of the recording. 6. I have had regard to the Crown's submission that the objective seriousness falls towards the lower end of the high range of objective seriousness. 7. For both offenders I find the objective seriousness falls just above the mid-range having regard to the following factors: 1. the respective roles of the offenders, with Mrs Bamforth performing oral sex on the victim while having sexual intercourse with Mr Bamforth who is filming and giving instructions. Both offenders verbally expressed their enjoyment of the offending; 2. the age of the victim; 3. the age differential; 4. the age of the victim relative to the offence provision, being 13 years old, just above the halfway point; 5. the nature of the sexual offending, fellatio; 6. the duration of the offending as indicated by the length of the recording, 1 minute 23 seconds; 7. any applicable statutory aggravating objective factors, identified above (s21A(2)(cb),(eb),(k),(l)). 26/04/2017 RE JULIA BAMFORTH ONLY: Count 10, H78439722 /61 – S 61M(2) Crimes Act 1900, Indecent assault person under 16 years of age-T1 – LPC: 67803 1. A video file was retrieved from a silver 'Passport HDD' (exhibit X0002226975) named "IMG_8025.MOV". This file is dated 26 April 2017. 2. The CCTV video depicts Julia BAMFORTH and the victim in the loungeroom alone. The victim exposes his penis and Julia BAMFORTH touches the victim's penis. 3. The victim was 13 years old at the date of the recording. 4. I have had regard to the Crown's submission that the objective seriousness falls at the mid-range of objective seriousness. 5. I find the objective seriousness falls just below the mid-range having regard to the following factors: 1. the age of the victim relative to the offence provision, being 13 years old, just above the halfway point; 2. the age of the victim; 3. the age differential; 4. the nature of the sexual offending, sexual touching; 5. any applicable statutory aggravating objective factors, identified above (s21A(2)(cb),(eb),(k),(l)). 14/05/2017 RE PAUL BAMFORTH: Count 9, H78550740 /61 – S 66C(2) Crimes Act 1900, Aggravated sexual intercourse person >=10 & <14 years – LPC: 51429 RE JULIA BAMFORTH: Count 11, H78439722 /63 – S 66C(2) Crimes Act 1900, Aggravated sexual intercourse person >=10 & <14 years – LPC: 51429 1. A video file was retrieved from an 'Unbranded HDD' (exhibit X0002226972) named "IMG_4197.AVI". The file is dated 14 May 2017. 2. The video depicts Paul BAMFORTH filming and instructing Julia BAMFORTH as she performs fellatio on the victim while Paul BAMFORTH has sexual intercourse with her. 3. The victim was 13 years old at the date of the recording. 4. I have had regard to the Crown's submission that the objective seriousness falls towards the lower end of the high range of objective seriousness. 5. For both offenders I find the objective seriousness falls just above the mid-range having regard to the following factors: 1. the respective roles of the offenders, with Mrs Bamforth performing oral sex on the victim while having sexual intercourse with Mr Bamforth who is filming and directing; 2. the age of the victim; 3. the age differential; 4. the age of the victim relative to the offence provision, being 13 years old, just above the halfway point; 5. the nature of the sexual offending, fellatio; 6. any applicable statutory aggravating objective factors, identified above (s21A(2)(cb),(eb),(k),(l)). 12/06/2017 RE PAUL BAMFORTH: Count 10, H78550740 /46 – S 66C(2) Crimes Act 1900, Aggravated sexual intercourse person >=10 & <14 years – LPC: 51429 RE JULIA BAMFORTH: Count 12, H78439722 /41 – S 66C(2) Crimes Act 1900, Aggravated sexual intercourse person >=10 & <14 years – 51429 1. A video file was retrieved from a 'Toshiba Laptop' (exhibit X0003986114) named "IMG_8066.MOV". This exhibit was located at the residence of the co-offenders. The file is dated 12 June 2017 at 08.52pm. The video is 47 seconds in duration. 2. Paul BAMFORTH filmed Julia BAMFORTH in a room, with the victim laying on a mattress with his penis exposed. Julia BAMFORTH approached the victim and took hold of his penis and performed oral sex on the victim for 15 seconds. 3. Paul BAMFORTH directed Julia BAMFORTH, he said, "face me". Julia BAMFORTH removed her mouth from the victim's penis and turned around and said, "oh it's stiff". She then said, "I don't think I can do it". Paul BAMFORTH said, "what?", "Yeah you can". 4. Julia BAMFORTH squatted down toward the victim's erect penis and Paul BAMFORTH continued to record. Paul BAMFORTH said, "pull it out" (referring to the victim's penis) and "pull the pants down more". 5. Julia BAMFORTH squatted down on to the victim's penis and Paul BAMFORTH moved the camera close in on her vagina to capture the penetration. This is the charged act. 6. The victim was 13 years old at the date of the recording. 7. I have had regard to the Crown's submission that the objective seriousness falls at the high range of objective seriousness. 8. For both offenders I find the objective seriousness falls well above the mid-range having regard to the following factors: 1. the respective roles of the offenders, with Mrs Bamforth engaging in sexual intercourse with the victim and Mr Bamforth filming and directing; 2. the age of the victim; 3. the age differential; 4. the age of the victim relative to the offence provision, being 13 years old, just above the halfway point; 5. the nature of the sexual offending, penile/vaginal intercourse; 6. the duration of the offending as indicated by the length of the recording, 47 seconds; 7. that it is a representative count, with the Crown relying upon other uncharged acts as context; 8. any applicable statutory aggravating objective factors, identified above (s21A(2)(cb),(eb),(k),(l)). 05/10/2017 RE PAUL BAMFORTH: Count 11, H78550740 /67 – S 66C(2) Crimes Act 1900, Aggravated sexual intercourse person >=10 & <14 years – LPC: 51429 JULIA BAMFORTH: Count 13, H78439722 /71 – S 66C(2) Crimes Act 1900, Aggravated sexual intercourse person >=10 & <14 years – LPC: 51429 1. A video file was retrieved from a 'Toshiba Laptop' (exhibit X0003986114) named "IMG_7279" contained within folder named 'My little cock lover'. This video is recorded by Paul BAMFORTH on a mobile phone. This file is dated October 2017. The video is 4 minutes 6 seconds in duration. 2. The video depicts Julia BAMFORTH entering a room, where the victim was laying on a mattress on the floor. Julia BAMFORTH started to perform oral sex on the victim before having penile-vaginal intercourse with him. The penile-vaginal intercourse is the charged act. 3. The victim was 13 years old at the date of the recording. 4. I have had regard to the Crown's submission that the objective seriousness falls at the high range of objective seriousness. 5. For Mr Bamforth I find the objective seriousness falls well above the mid-range having regard to the following factors: 1. the respective roles of the offenders, with Mrs Bamforth engaging in sexual intercourse with the victim and Mr Bamforth filming; 2. the age of the victim; 3. the age differential; 4. the age of the victim relative to the offence provision, being 13 years old, just above the halfway point; 5. the nature of the sexual offending, penile-vaginal intercourse; 6. the duration of the offending as indicated by the length of the recording, 4 minutes 6 seconds; 7. that it is a representative count, with the Crown relying upon other uncharged acts as context; 8. the fact that the file was sorted by Mr Bamforth and placed in a folder named 'My little cock lover'; 9. any applicable statutory aggravating objective factors, identified above (s21A(2)(cb),(eb),(k),(l)). 1. For Mrs Bamforth the second last factor referred to above does not apply, however, I also find the objective seriousness of her offending falls well above the mid-range, given her direct physical contact with the victim. 11/10/2017 RE PAUL BAMFORTH: Count 12, H78550740 /71 – S 66C(2) Crimes Act 1900, Aggravated sexual intercourse person >=10 & <14 years – LPC: 51429 RE JULIA BAMFORTH: Count 14, H78439722 /76 – S 66C(2) Crimes Act 1900, Aggravated sexual intercourse person >=10 & <14 years – LPC: 51429 1. A video file was retrieved from a silver 'Passport HDD' (exhibit X0002226975) named "IMG_0339.MOV". This file is dated 11 October 2017. The video is 4 minutes 22 seconds in duration. 2. The video depicts Julia BAMFORTH performing oral sex on the victim, while receiving oral sex from Paul BAMFORTH who was filming. 3. The victim was 13 years old at the date of the recording. 4. I have had regard to the Crown's submission that the objective seriousness falls towards the lower end of the high range of objective seriousness. 5. For both offenders I find the objective seriousness falls just above the mid-range having regard to the following factors: 1. the respective roles of the offenders, with Mrs Bamforth performing oral sex on the victim while receiving oral sex from Mr Bamforth who is filming; 2. the age of the victim; 3. the age differential; 4. the age of the victim relative to the offence provision, being 13 years old, just above the halfway point; 5. the nature of the sexual offending, fellatio; 6. the duration of the offending as indicated by the length of the recording, 4 minutes 22 seconds; 7. any applicable statutory aggravating objective factors, identified above (s21A(2)(cb),(eb),(k),(l)). 01/11/2017 RE PAUL BAMFORTH: Count 13, H78550740 /73 – S 61O(2A) Crimes Act 1900, Commit indecent act on <16 years - filmed – LPC: 67807 Count 14, H78550740 /74 – S 66C(2) Crimes Act 1900, Aggravated sexual intercourse person >=10 & <14 years – LPC: 51429 RE JULIA BAMFORTH: Count 15, H78439722 /78 – S 61O(2A) Crimes Act 1900, Commit indecent act on <16 years - filmed – LPC: 67807 Count 16, H78439722 /79 – S 66C(2) Crimes Act 1900, Aggravated sexual intercourse person >=10 & <14 years – LPC: 51429 Video 1 1. A video file was retrieved from a silver 'Passport HDD' (exhibit X0002226975) named "oMG_0337.MOV". This file is dated November 2017. The video is 19 seconds in duration. 2. The video depicts Julia BAMFORTH performing oral sex on Paul BAMFORTH (who is filming), while the victim is masturbating Julia BAMFORTH (the charged act). 3. The victim was 13 years old at the date of the recording. 4. I have had regard to the Crown's submission in respect of count 13 for Mr Bamforth and count 15 for Mrs Bamforth that the objective seriousness falls towards the upper end of the mid-range of objective seriousness. 5. For both offenders I find the objective seriousness falls at the mid-range having regard to the following factors: 1. the respective roles of the offenders, with Mrs Bamforth being masturbated by the victim while she is performing oral sex on Mr Bamforth who is filming; 2. the age of the victim; 3. the age differential; 4. the age of the victim relative to the offence provision, being 13 years old, 3 years below the provision's ceiling; 5. the nature of the sexual offending, masturbation; 6. the duration of the offending as indicated by the length of the recording, 19 seconds; 7. any applicable statutory aggravating objective factors, identified above (s21A(2)(cb),(e),(eb),(k),(l)). Video 2 1. A further video file was retrieved from a 'Toshiba Laptop' (exhibit X0003986114) named "IMG_7602" contained within folder named 'My little cock lover'. This video is recorded by Paul BAMFORTH. This file is dated 01 November 2017. The video is 5 minutes 12 seconds in duration. 2. The video depicts Julia BAMFORTH engaged in penile-vaginal intercourse and performing oral sex on the victim. The penile-vaginal intercourse is the charged act of aggravated sexual intercourse. 3. Julia BAMFORTH is also engaged in penile vaginal intercourse with Paul BAMFORTH while performing oral sex on the victim. 4. The victim was 13 years old at the date of the recording. 5. I have had regard to the Crown's submission in respect of count 14 for Mr Bamforth and count 16 for Mrs Bamforth that the objective seriousness falls at the high range of objective seriousness. 6. For Mr Bamforth I find the objective seriousness falls well above the mid-range having regard to the following factors: 1. the respective roles of the offenders, with Mrs Bamforth engaging in sexual intercourse with the victim and Mr Bamforth filming; 2. the age of the victim; 3. the age differential; 4. the age of the victim relative to the offence provision, being 13 years old, just above the halfway point; 5. the nature of the sexual offending, sexual intercourse; 6. the duration of the offending as indicated by the length of the recording, 5 minutes 12 seconds; 7. that it is a representative count, with the Crown relying upon other uncharged acts as context; 8. the fact that the file was placed in a folder named 'My little cock lover'; 9. any applicable statutory aggravating objective factors, identified above (s21A(2)(cb),(eb),(k),(l)). 1. For Mrs Bamforth the second last factor referred to above does not apply, however, I also find the objective seriousness of her offending falls well above the mid-range, given her direct physical contact with the victim. 02/11/2017 RE PAUL BAMFORTH: Count 15, H78550740 /77 – S 66C(2) Crimes Act 1900, Aggravated sexual intercourse person >=10 & <14 years – LPC: 51429 RE JULIA BAMFORTH: Count 17, H78439722 /82 – S 66C(2) Crimes Act 1900, Aggravated sexual intercourse person >=10 & <14 years – LPC: 51429 1. A video file was retrieved from a silver 'Passport HDD' (exhibit X0002226975) named "IMG_0332.MOV". This file is dated 02 November 2017. The video is 1 minute 59 seconds in duration. 2. The video depicts Paul BAMFORTH (filming) having penile-vaginal intercourse with Julia BAMFORTH while she is performing oral sex upon the victim. This is the charged act. Paul BAMFORTH said, "did you cum?", Julia BAMFORTH replied "no", Paul BAMFORTH said "did (the victim) cum?", Julia BAMFORTH replied, "no". 3. The victim was 13 years old at the date of the recording. 4. I have had regard to the Crown's submission that the objective seriousness falls towards the lower end of the high range of objective seriousness. 5. For both offenders I find the objective seriousness falls just above the mid-range having regard to the following factors: 1. the respective roles of the offenders, with Mrs Bamforth performing oral sex on the victim while having sexual intercourse with Mr Bamforth who is filming; 2. the age of the victim; 3. the age differential; 4. the age of the victim relative to the offence provision, being 13 years old, just above the mid-way point; 5. the nature of the sexual offending, fellatio; 6. the duration of the offending as indicated by the length of the recording, 1 minute 59 seconds; 7. any applicable statutory aggravating objective factors, identified above (s21A(2)(cb),(eb),(k),(l)). 23/12/2017 RE PAUL BAMFORTH: Count 16, H78550740 /79 – S 61M(2) Crimes Act 1900, Indecent assault person under 16 years of age-T1 – 67803 RE JULIA BAMFORTH: Count 18, H78439722 /84 – S 61M(2) Crimes Act 1900, Indecent assault person under 16 years of age-T1 – 67803 1. A video file was retrieved from a silver ''Toshiba Laptop' (exhibit X0003986114) named "oMG_0333.MOV" contained within folder named 'My little cock lover'. This file is dated 23 December 2017. The video is 56 seconds in duration. 2. The video depicts Paul BAMFORTH filming Julia BAMFORTH masturbating the victim. 3. The victim was 13 years old at the date of the recording. 4. I have had regard to the Crown's submission that the objective seriousness falls at the mid-range of objective seriousness. 5. For Mr Bamforth I find the objective seriousness falls at the mid-range having regard to the following factors: 1. the respective roles of the offenders, with Mrs Bamforth masturbating the victim and Mr Bamforth filming; 2. the age of the victim; 3. the age differential; 4. the age of the victim relative to the offence provision, being 13 years old, 3 years below the provision's ceiling; 5. the nature of the sexual offending, masturbation; 6. the duration of the offending as indicated by the length of the recording, 56 seconds; 7. the fact that the file was sorted and placed in a folder named 'My little cock lover'; 8. any applicable statutory aggravating objective factors, identified above (s21A(2)(cb),(e),(eb),(k),(l)). 1. For Mrs Bamforth the second last factor referred to above does not apply, however, I also find the objective seriousness of her offending falls at the mid-range, given her direct physical contact with the victim. 24/12/2017 RE PAUL BAMFORTH: Count 17, H78550740 /81 – S 61O(2A) Crimes Act 1900, Commit indecent act on < 16 years - filmed – LPC: 67807 Count 18, H78550740 /82 – S 61M(2) Crimes Act 1900, Indecent assault person under 16 years of age-T1 – LPC: 67803 Count 19, H78550740 /84 – S 66C(2) Crimes Act 1900, Aggravated sexual intercourse person >=10 & <14 years – LPC: 51429 RE JULIA BAMFORTH: Count 21, H78439722 /90 – S 61O(2A) Crimes Act 1900, Commit indecent act on < 16 years - filmed – LPC: 67807 Count 19, H78439722 /87 – S 61M(2) Crimes Act 1900, Indecent assault person under 16 years of age-T1 – LPC: 67803 Count 20, H78439722 /89 – S 66C(2) Crimes Act 1900, Aggravated sexual intercourse person >=10 & <14 years – LPC: 51429 Video 1 1. A video file was retrieved from a silver 'Passport HDD' (exhibit X0002226975) named "IMG_0336.MOV" contained within folder named 'My little cock lover'. This file is dated 24 December 2017. The video is 13 seconds in duration. 2. The video depicts Paul BAMFORTH filming the victim laying on a mattress on the floor. Julia BAMFORTH masturbated and told the victim that she can't wait to have intercourse with him. This is the charged act of commit indecent act. Paul BAMFORTH said, "did you hear that?". The victim replied, "yeah". 3. The victim was 13 years old at the date of the recording. 4. I have had regard to the Crown's submission in respect of count 17 for Mr Bamforth and count 21 for Mrs Bamforth that the objective seriousness falls towards the lower end of the mid-range of objective seriousness. 5. For Mr Bamforth I find the objective seriousness falls well below the mid-range having regard to the following factors: 1. the respective roles of the offenders, with Mrs Bamforth masturbating in the victim's presence and Mr Bamforth filming; 2. the age of the victim; 3. the age differential; 4. the age of the victim relative to the offence provision, being 13 years old, 3 years below the provision's ceiling; 5. the nature of the sexual offending, masturbation; 6. the duration of the offending as indicated by the length of the recording, 13 seconds; 7. the fact that the file was placed in a folder named 'My little cock lover'; 8. any applicable statutory aggravating objective factors, identified above (s21A(2)(cb),(e),(eb),(k),(l)). 1. For Mrs Bamforth the second last factor referred to above does not apply, however, I also find the objective seriousness of her offending falls well below the mid-range, given her direct physical contact with the victim. Video 2 1. A further video file was retrieved from a silver 'Passport HDD' (exhibit X0002226975) named "IMG_0333.MOV". This file is dated 24 December 2017. The video is 56 seconds in duration. 2. The video depicts Paul BAMFORTH filming Julia BAMFORTH masturbating the victim. This is the charged act of indecent assault. Paul BAMFORTH asked, "why aren't you coming?". The victim replied, "I don't know". Julia BAMFORTH pointed to the tip of the victim's penis and said, "he has a little cum there". Paul BAMFORTH said, "ok (the victim) hop out". 3. The victim was 13 years old at the date of the recording. 4. I have had regard to the Crown's submission in respect of count 18 for Mr Bamforth and count 19 for Mrs Bamforth that the objective seriousness falls at the mid-range of objective seriousness. 5. For both offenders I find the objective seriousness falls at the mid-range having regard to the following factors: 1. the respective roles of the offenders, with Mrs Bamforth masturbating the victim and Mr Bamforth filming and discussing the offending; 2. the age of the victim; 3. the age differential; 4. the age of the victim relative to the offence provision, being 13 years old, 3 years below the provision's ceiling; 5. the nature of the sexual offending, masturbation; 6. the duration of the offending as indicated by the length of the recording, 56 seconds; 7. any applicable statutory aggravating objective factors, identified above (s21A(2)(cb),(e),(eb),(k),(l)). Video 3 1. A further video file was retrieved from a silver 'Passport HDD' (exhibit X0002226975) named "IMG_0340.MOV". This file is dated 24 December 2017. The video is 2 minutes 4 seconds in duration. 2. The video depicts Paul BAMFORTH instructing Julia BAMFORTH to perform oral sex on the victim. As Julia BAMFORTH performed oral sex on the victim, Paul BAMFORTH asked the victim questions about how it felt. This is the charged act of aggravated sexual intercourse. Paul BAMFORTH then instructed the victim to masturbate which he did. Both Paul BAMFORTH and Julia BAMFORTH directed the victim to stop masturbating before he ejaculates. 3. The victim was 13 years old at the date of the recording. 4. I have had regard to the Crown's submission in respect of count 19 for Mr Bamforth and count 20 for Mrs Bamforth that the objective seriousness falls towards the lower end of the high range of objective seriousness. 5. For both offenders I find the objective seriousness falls just above the mid-range having regard to the following factors: 1. the respective roles of the offenders, with Mrs Bamforth performing oral sex on the victim and Mr Bamforth filming and instructing Mrs Bamforth and the victim; 2. the age of the victim; 3. the age differential; 4. the age of the victim relative to the offence provision, being 13 years old, just above the halfway point; 5. the nature of the sexual offending, fellatio; 6. the duration of the offending as indicated by the length of the recording, 2 minutes 4 seconds; 7. any applicable statutory aggravating objective factors, identified above (s21A(2)(cb),(eb),(k),(l)). 13/01/2018 RE PAUL BAMFORTH: Count 20, H78550740 /86 – S 61M(2) Crimes Act 1900, Indecent assault person under 16 years of age-T1 – LPC: 67803 Count 21, H78550740 /89 – S 66C(2) Crimes Act 1900, Aggravated sexual intercourse person >=10 & <14 years – LPC: 51429 RE JULIA BAMFORTH: Count 22, H78439722 /91 – S 61M(2) Crimes Act 1900, Indecent assault person under 16 years of age-T1 – LPC: 67803 Count 23, H78439722 /94 – S 66C(2) Crimes Act 1900, Aggravated sexual intercourse person >=10 & <14 years – LPC: 51429 Video 1 1. A video file was retrieved from a 'Toshiba Laptop' (exhibit X0003986114) named "13.AVI" contained within folder named 'my little cock lover'. This video is recorded by Paul BAMFORTH. This file is dated 13 January 2018. The video is 3 minutes 5 seconds in duration. 2. The video depicts Julia BAMFORTH masturbating the victim. This is the charged act of indecent assault, counts 20 and 22 respectively. Paul BAMFORTH was encouraging Julia BAMFORTH to masturbate the victim and asked the victim if he was enjoying it. 3. Paul BAMFORTH described to the victim how to sexually gratify Julia BAMFORTH and showed the victim how to find the clitoris. 4. The victim was 13 years old at the date of the recording. Video 2 1. A further video file was retrieved from a silver 'Passport HDD' (exhibit X0002226975) named "PK.AVI". This file is dated 13 January 2018. The video is 23 seconds in duration. 2. The video depicts Julia BAMFORTH masturbating herself and the victim at the same time while Paul BAMFORTH was filming. 3. The victim was 13 years old at the date of the recording. Video 3 1. A further video file was retrieved from a 'HP Pavillion Laptop' (exhibit X0003986111) named "SUCK OFF.AVI". The video is recorded by Paul BAMFORTH on a mobile phone. This file is dated 13 January 2018. The video is 2 minutes 11 seconds in duration. 2. The video depicts Julia BAMFORTH and PAUL BAMFORTH engaging in penile-vaginal intercourse, while Julia BAMFORTH was performing oral sex on the victim. This is the charged act. 3. The victim was 13 years old at the date of the recording. Video 4 1. A further video file was retrieved from a 'HP Pavillion Laptop' (exhibit X0003986111) named "aa.MOV". The video is a compilation of a number of videos recorded by Paul BAMFORTH using an application called 'Kite Video'. This file is dated 13 January 2018. The video is 23 minutes in duration. 2. The compilation depicts various videos in the slideshow showing Paul BAMFORTH, Julia BAMFORTH and the victim involved in different sexual acts. 3. The time stamp of the file shows the victim was under 14 years of age at the time the compilation was made. 4. I have had regard to the Crown's submission in respect of count 20 for Mr Bamforth and count 22 for Mrs Bamforth that the objective seriousness falls towards the upper end of the mid-range of objective seriousness. 5. For Mr Bamforth I find the objective seriousness falls just above the mid-range having regard to the following factors: 1. the respective roles of the offenders, with Mrs Bamforth masturbating the victim and Mr Bamforth filming and discussing the offending; 2. the age of the victim; 3. the age differential; 4. the age of the victim relative to the offence provision, being 13 years old, 3 years below the provision's ceiling; 5. the nature of the sexual offending, masturbation; 6. the duration of the offending as indicated by the length of the recording, 3 minutes 5 seconds; 7. that it is a representative count, with the Crown relying upon other uncharged acts as context; 8. the fact that the file was a compilation and it was placed in a folder named 'My little cock lover'; 9. any applicable statutory aggravating objective factors, identified above (s21A(2)(cb),(e),(eb),(k),(l)). 1. For Mrs Bamforth the second last factor referred to above does not apply, however, I also find the objective seriousness of her offending falls just above the mid-range, given her direct physical contact with the victim. 2. I have had regard to the Crown's submission in respect of count 21 for Mr Bamforth and count 23 for Mrs Bamforth that the objective seriousness falls towards the lower end of the high range of objective seriousness. 3. For Mr Bamforth I find the objective seriousness falls just above the mid-range having regard to the following factors: 1. the respective roles of the offenders, with Mrs Bamforth performing oral sex on the victim while engaging in sexual intercourse with Mr Bamforth who is filming; 2. the age of the victim; 3. the age differential; 4. the age of the victim relative to the offence provision, being 13 years old, just above the halfway point; 5. the nature of the sexual offending, fellatio; 6. the duration of the offending as indicated by the length of the recording, 2 minutes 11 seconds; 7. the fact that the file was sorted and named 'SUCK OFF.AVI"; 8. any applicable statutory aggravating objective factors, identified above (s21A(2)(cb),(eb),(k),(l)). 1. For Mrs Bamforth the second last factor referred to above does not apply, however, I also find the objective seriousness of her offending falls just above the mid-range, given her direct physical contact with the victim. The victim turned 14 years old on 29 March 2018 RE PAUL BAMFORTH: Count 22, H78550740 /43 – S 91G(2)(a) Crimes Act 1900, Use child over 14 years to make child abuse material - SI, 29 March 2018 to 28 March 2020 – LPC: 73037 RE JULIA BAMFORTH: Count 24, H78439722 /96 – S 91G(2)(a) Crimes Act 1900, Use child over 14 years to make child abuse material - SI, 29 March 2018 to 28 March 2020 – LPC: 73037 1. In respect of Count 22 for Paul Bamforth and Count 24 for Julia Bamforth the crown relies on the 35 videos described in these facts up until the victim was 16 years of age. 2. I have had regard to the Crown's submission that the objective seriousness falls towards the upper end of the mid-range of objective seriousness. 3. For both offenders I find the objective seriousness to fall just above the mid-range having regard to the following factors: 1. the victim's age (14-15 years); 2. the nature of the sexual acts the subject of the video files; 3. the number of videos; 4. the period of the offending, 2 years; 5. the fact that the material was stored across a number of devices; 6. any applicable statutory aggravating objective factors, identified above (s21A(2)(cb),(e),(eb),(k),(l)). 24/05/2018 RE PAUL BAMFORTH: Count 23, H78550740 /151 – S 66C(4) Crimes Act 1900, Aggravated sexual intercourse person >=14 & <16 years – LPC: 51431 RE JULIA BAMFORTH: Count 25, H78439722 /108 – S 66C(4) Crimes Act 1900, Aggravated sexual intercourse person >=14 & <16 years – LPC: 51431 1. A video file was retrieved from the 'iPhone 11 Pro Max' (exhibit X0004050503) of Paul BAMFORTH named "IMG_4237.MOV". This file is dated 24 May 2018. The video is 3 seconds in duration. 2. The video (filmed by PAUL BAMFORTH) depicts Julia BAMFORTH performing oral sex on the victim. 3. The victim was 14 years old at the date of the recording. 4. I have had regard to the Crown's submission that the objective seriousness falls towards the lower end of the high range of objective seriousness. 5. For both offenders I find the objective seriousness falls just above the mid-range having regard to the following factors: 1. the respective roles of the offenders, with Mrs Bamforth performing oral sex on the victim and Mr Bamforth filming; 2. the age of the victim; 3. the age differential; 4. the age of the victim relative to the offence provision, being 13 years old, just above the halfway point; 5. the nature of the sexual offending, fellatio; 6. the duration of the offending as indicated by the length of the recording, 3 seconds; 7. any applicable statutory aggravating objective factors, identified above (s21A(2)(cb),(eb),(k),(l)). 03/11/2018 RE PAUL BAMFORTH: Count 24, H78550740 /91 – S 61O(2A) Crimes Act 1900, Commit indecent act on <16 years - filmed – LPC: 67807 RE JULIA BAMFORTH: Count 26, H78439722 /97 – S 61O(2A) Crimes Act 1900, Commit indecent act on <16 years - filmed – LPC: 67807 1. A video file was retrieved from a silver 'Passport HDD' (exhibit X0002226975) named "oMG_4995.MOV". This file is dated 03 November 2018. The video is 40 seconds in duration. 2. The video depicts the victim masturbating Julia BAMFORTH while being filmed by Paul BAMFORTH. Paul BAMFORTH zoomed in on the victim's penis and instructed him to masturbate which he did. 3. The victim was 14 years old at the date of the recording. 4. I have had regard to the Crown's submission that the objective seriousness falls towards the lower end of the mid-range of objective seriousness. 5. For both offenders I find the objective seriousness falls just below the mid-range having regard to the following factors: 1. the respective roles of the offenders, with the victim masturbating Mrs Bamforth and Mr Bamforth filming and instructing the victim; 2. the age of the victim; 3. the age differential; 4. the age of the victim relative to the offence provision, being 14 years old, 2 years below the provision's ceiling; 5. the nature of the sexual offending, masturbation by the victim; 6. the duration of the offending as indicated by the length of the recording, 40 seconds; 7. any applicable statutory aggravating objective factors, identified above (s21A(2)(cb),(e),(eb),(k),(l)). 05/11/2018 RE PAUL BAMFORTH: Count 25, H78550740 /93 – S 61O(2A) Crimes Act 1900, Commit indecent act on <16 years - filmed – LPC: 67807 RE JULIA BAMFORTH: Count 27, H78439722 /99 – S 61O(2A) Crimes Act 1900, Commit indecent act on <16 years - filmed – LPC: 67807 1. A video file was retrieved from a silver 'Passport HDD' (exhibit X0002226975) named "IMG_4995.MOV". This file is dated 05 November 2018. The video is 40 seconds in duration. 2. The video depicts Paul BAMFORTH instructing the victim to masturbate Julia BAMFORTH and himself at the same time while he is filming. 3. The victim was 14 years old at the date of the recording. 4. I have had regard to the Crown's submission that the objective seriousness falls towards the lower end of the mid-range of objective seriousness. 5. For both offenders I find the objective seriousness falls just below the mid-range having regard to the following factors: 1. the respective roles of the offenders, with the victim masturbating Mrs Bamforth and Mr Bamforth simultaneously, while Mr Bamforth is filming and instructing the victim; 2. the age of the victim; 3. the age differential; 4. the age of the victim relative to the offence provision, being 14 years old, 2 years below the provision's ceiling; 5. the nature of the sexual offending, masturbation by the victim; 6. the duration of the offending as indicated by the length of the recording, 40 seconds; 7. any applicable statutory aggravating objective factors, identified above (s21A(2)(cb),(e),(eb),(k),(l)). 08/11/2018 RE PAUL BAMFORTH: Count 26, H78550740 /152 – S 66C(4) Crimes Act 1900, Aggravated sexual intercourse person >=14 & <16 years – LPC: 51431 Count 27, H78550740 /133 – S 61M(2) Crimes Act 1900, Indecent assault person under 16 years of age-T1 – LPC: 67803 RE JULIA BAMFORTH: Count 28, H78439722 /158 – S 66C(4) Crimes Act 1900, Aggravated sexual intercourse person >=14 & <16 years – LPC: 51431 Count 29, H78439722 /138 – S 61M(2) Crimes Act 1900, Indecent assault person under 16 years of age-T1 – LPC: 67803 Video 1 1. A video file was retrieved from a 'HP Pavillion Laptop' (exhibit X0003986111) named "IMG_1548". 2. The video is recorded by Paul BAMFORTH using a mobile phone. This file is dated 08 November 2018. The video is 2 minutes 47 seconds in duration. 3. The video depicts PAUL BAMFORTH and JULIA BAMFORTH masturbating the victim. Julia BAMFORTH then performed oral sex on the victim. 4. Julia BAMFORTH and PAUL BAMFORTH then engaged in penile-vaginal intercourse while Julia BAMFORTH masturbated the victim. This is the charged act of indecent assault. The victim was being incited by Paul BAMFORTH as to what to do. 5. The victim was 14 years old at the date of the recording. 6. I have had regard to the Crown's submission in respect of count 27 for Mr Bamforth and count 29 for Mrs Bamforth that the objective seriousness falls at the high range of objective seriousness. 7. For both offenders I find the objective seriousness falls just above the mid-range having regard to the following factors: 1. the respective roles of the offenders, with Mrs Bamforth masturbating the victim while engaging in sexual intercourse with Mr Bamforth who is filming and directing; 2. the age of the victim; 3. the age differential; 4. the age of the victim relative to the offence provision, being 14 years old, at the bottom end; 5. the nature of the sexual offending, sexual intercourse; 6. the duration of the offending as indicated by the length of the recording, 2 minutes 47 seconds; 7. that it is a representative count, with the Crown relying upon other uncharged acts as context; 8. any applicable statutory aggravating objective factors, identified above (s21A(2)(cb),(e),(eb),(k),(l)). Video 2 1. A video file was retrieved from a 'HP Pavillion Laptop' (exhibit X0003986111) named "IMG_1552". The video is recorded by Paul BAMFORTH using a mobile phone. This file is dated 08 November 2018. The video is 3 minutes 15 seconds in duration. 2. The video depicts Paul BAMFORTH and JULIA BAMFORTH masturbating the victim. Julia BAMFORTH then performed oral sex on the victim. This is the charged act of aggravated sexual intercourse. Julia BAMFORTH then had penile vaginal intercourse with Paul BAMFORTH and was masturbating the victim at the same time while being encouraged by Paul BAMFORTH as to what to do. 3. The victim was 14 years old at the date of the recording. 4. I have had regard to the Crown's submission in respect of count 26 for Mr Bamforth and count 28 for Mrs Bamforth that the objective seriousness falls at the high range of objective seriousness. 5. For both offenders I find the objective seriousness falls well above the mid-range having regard to the following factors: 1. the respective roles of the offenders, with Mrs Bamforth performing oral sex on the victim and Mr Bamforth filming and encouraging the offending; 2. the age of the victim; 3. the age differential; 4. the age of the victim relative to the offence provision, being 14 years old, 3 years below the provision's ceiling; 5. the nature of the sexual offending, fellatio; 6. the duration of the offending as indicated by the length of the recording, 3 minutes 15 seconds; 7. that it is a representative count, with the Crown relying upon other uncharged acts as context; 8. any applicable statutory aggravating objective factors, identified above (s21A(2)(cb),(eb),(k),(l)). 19/01/2019 RE PAUL BAMFORTH: Count 28, H78550740 /94 – S 66DB(a) Crimes Act 1900, Intentionally sexually touch child >= 10 yrs & < 16 yrs-T1 – LPC: 93710 RE JULIA BAMFORTH: Count 30, H78439722 /100 – S 66DB(a) Crimes Act 1900, Intentionally sexually touch child >= 10 yrs & < 16 yrs-T1 – LPC: 93710 1. A video file was retrieved from a silver 'Passport HDD' (exhibit X0002226975) named "oMG_6865.MOV". This file is dated 19 January 2019. The video is 19 seconds in duration. 2. The video depicts Julia BAMFORTH masturbating the victim while Paul BAMFORTH was filming. 3. The victim was 14 years old at the date of the recording. 4. I have had regard to the Crown's submission that the objective seriousness falls towards the lower end of the mid-range of objective seriousness. 5. For both offenders I find the objective seriousness falls just below the mid-range having regard to the following factors: 1. the respective roles of the offenders, with Mrs Bamforth masturbating the victim and Mr Bamforth filming; 2. the age of the victim; 3. the age differential; 4. the age of the victim relative to the offence provision, being 14 years old, towards the top end; 5. the nature of the sexual offending, masturbation; 6. the duration of the offending as indicated by the length of the recording, 19 seconds; 7. any applicable statutory aggravating objective factors, identified above (s21A(2)(cb),(e),(eb),(k),(l)). 01/02/2019 RE JULIA BAMFORTH ONLY: Count 31, H78439722 /102 – S 66C(4) Crimes Act 1900, Aggravated - sexual intercourse child >=14 & <16 years – LPC: 93697 1. A video file was retrieved from a 'HP Pavillion Laptop' (exhibit X0003986111) named "IMG_7260.MOV". This file is dated 01 February 2019. The video is 1 minute 27 seconds in duration. 2. The video depicts Julia BAMFORTH performing oral sex on the victim. 3. The victim was 14 years old at the date of the recording. 4. I have had regard to the Crown's submission that the objective seriousness falls towards the lower end of the high range of objective seriousness. 5. I find the objective seriousness falls just above the mid-range having regard to the following factors: 1. the age of the victim relative to the offence provision, being 14 years old, at the bottom end; 2. the age of the victim; 3. the age differential; 4. the nature of the sexual offending, fellatio; 5. the duration of the offending as indicated by the length of the recording, 1 minute 27 seconds; 6. any applicable statutory aggravating objective factors, identified above (s21A(2)(cb),(eb),(k),(l)). 05/02/2019 RE PAUL BAMFORTH: Count 29, H78550740 /118 – S 66DB(a) Crimes Act 1900, Intentionally sexually touch child >= 10 yrs & < 16 yrs-T1 – LPC: 93710 RE JULIA BAMFORTH: Count 32, H78439722 /131 – S 66DB(a) Crimes Act 1900, Intentionally sexually touch child >= 10 yrs & < 16 yrs-T1 – LPC: 93710 1. A video file was retrieved from a 'HP Pavillion Laptop' (exhibit X0003986111) named "IMG_2700.MP4". This file is dated 05 February 2019. The video is 3 minutes 48 seconds in duration. 2. The video depicts Julia BAMFORTH performing oral sex on Paul BAMFORTH while watching a video compilation of both offenders performing sexual acts on the victim at various ages. 3. One video in this compilation depicts the victim being masturbated by Julia BAMFORTH while she was engaged in penile-vaginal intercourse with Paul BAMFORTH which was recorded on the internal CCTV of the offender's residence and is not otherwise charged. This is the charged act. 4. The victim was 14 years old at the date of the recording. 5. I have had regard to the Crown's submission that the objective seriousness falls towards the lower end of the mid-range of objective seriousness. 6. For Mr Bamforth I find the objective seriousness falls just below the mid-range having regard to the following factors: 1. the respective roles of the offenders, with Mrs Bamforth masturbating the victim while engaging in sexual intercourse with Mr Bamforth; 2. the age of the victim; 3. the age differential; 4. the age of the victim relative to the offence provision, being 14 years old, towards the top end; 5. the nature of the sexual offending, masturbation; 6. the fact that the video is a compilation which has been edited; 7. any applicable statutory aggravating objective factors, identified above (s21A(2)(cb),(e),(eb),(k),(l)). 1. For Mrs Bamforth the second last factor referred to above does not apply, however, I also find the objective seriousness of her offending falls just below the mid-range, given her direct physical contact with the victim. 06/02/2019 RE PAUL BAMFORTH: Count 30, H78550740 /96 – S 66DB(a) Crimes Act 1900, Intentionally sexually touch child >= 10 yrs & < 16 yrs-T1 – LPC: 93710 RE JULIA BAMFORTH: Count 33, H78439722 /104 – S 66DB(a) Crimes Act 1900, Intentionally sexually touch child >= 10 yrs & < 16 yrs-T1 – LPC: 93710 1. A video file was retrieved from a silver 'Passport HDD' (exhibit X0002226975) named "IMG_7406.MOV". The video is recorded on a mobile phone by Paul BAMFORTH. This file is dated 06 February 2019. The video is 25 seconds in duration. 2. The video depicts Julia BAMFORTH performing oral sex on Paul BAMFORTH, while masturbating the victim at the same time. 3. The victim was 14 years old at the date of the recording. 4. I have had regard to the Crown's submission that the objective seriousness falls towards the lower end of the mid-range of objective seriousness. 5. For both offenders I find the objective seriousness falls just below the mid-range having regard to the following factors: 1. the respective roles of the offenders, with Mrs Bamforth masturbating the victim while performing oral sex on Mr Bamforth who is filming; 2. the age of the victim; 3. the age differential; 4. the age of the victim relative to the offence provision, being 14 years old, towards the top end; 5. the nature of the sexual offending, masturbation; 6. the duration of the offending as indicated by the length of the recording, 25 seconds; 7. any applicable statutory aggravating objective factors, identified above (s21A(2)(cb),(e),(eb),(k),(l)). 07/02/2019 RE PAUL BAMFORTH: Count 31, H78550740 /98 – S 66C(4) Crimes Act 1900, Aggravated - sexual intercourse child >=14 & <16 years-SI – LPC: 93697 RE JULIA BAMFORTH: Count 34, H78439722 /106 – S 66C(4) Crimes Act 1900, Aggravated - sexual intercourse child >=14 & <16 years-SI – LPC: 93697 1. A video file was retrieved from a 'HP Pavillion Laptop' (exhibit X0003986111) named "IMG_7409.MOV". 2. The video is recorded by PAUL BAMFORTH on a mobile phone. This file is dated 07 February 2019. The video is 1 minute 4 seconds in duration. 3. The video depicts Julia BAMFORTH performing oral sex on Paul BAMFORTH and the victim. Julia BAMFORTH was holding the penises of both the victim and Paul BAMFORTH and alternately performing oral sex on each of them. 4. The victim was 14 years old at the date of the recording. 5. I have had regard to the Crown's submission that the objective seriousness falls towards the lower end of the high range of objective seriousness. 6. For both offenders I find the objective seriousness falls just above the mid-range having regard to the following factors: 1. the respective roles of the offenders, with Mrs Bamforth alternating between performing oral sex on the victim and Mr Bamforth who is filming; 2. the age of the victim; 3. the age differential; 4. the age of the victim relative to the offence provision, being 14 years old, at the bottom end; 5. the nature of the sexual offending, fellatio; 6. the duration of the offending as indicated by the length of the recording, 1 minute 4 seconds; 7. any applicable statutory aggravating objective factors, identified above (s21A(2)(cb),(eb),(k),(l)). The victim turned 15 years old on 29 March 2019 29/03/2019 RE PAUL BAMFORTH: Count 32, H78550740 /123 – S 66DB(a) Crimes Act 1900, Intentionally sexually touch child >= 10 yrs & < 16 yrs-T1 – LPC: 93710 RE JULIA BAMFORTH: Count 35, H78439722 /10 – S 66DB(a) Crimes Act 1900, Intentionally sexually touch child >= 10 yrs & < 16 yrs-T1 – LPC: 93710 1. A video file was retrieved from the 'iPhone 11 Pro Max' (exhibit X0004050503) of Paul BAMFORTH. This file is dated 29 March 2019, the victim's 15th birthday. 2. The video depicts the victim, Julia BAMFORTH and Paul BAMFORTH naked on a bed, the genitals of each are exposed and the offenders are touching each other's genitals. Paul BAMFORTH was rubbing the vagina of Julia BAMFORTH while she was masturbating the victim. 3. I have had regard to the Crown's submission that the objective seriousness falls towards the lower end of the mid-range of objective seriousness. 4. For both offenders I find the objective seriousness falls just below the mid-range having regard to the following factors: 1. the respective roles of the offenders, with Mrs Bamforth masturbating both the victim and Mr Bamforth who is simultaneously masturbating Mrs Bamforth and filming; 2. the age of the victim; 3. the age differential; 4. the age of the victim relative to the offence provision, being 15 years old, at the top end; 5. the nature of the sexual offending, masturbation; 6. any applicable statutory aggravating objective factors, identified above (s21A(2)(cb),(e),(eb),(k),(l)). 17/04/2019 RE PAUL BAMFORTH: Count 33, H78550740 /100 – S 66DB(a) Crimes Act 1900, Intentionally sexually touch child >= 10 yrs & < 16 yrs-T1 – LPC: 93710 Count 34, H78550740 /101 – S 66C(4) Crimes Act 1900, Aggravated - sexual intercourse child >=14 & <16 years-SI – LPC: 93697 RE JULIA BAMFORTH: Count 36, H78439722 /109 – S 66DB(a) Crimes Act 1900, Intentionally sexually touch child >= 10 yrs & < 16 yrs-T1 – LPC: 93710 Count 37, H78439722 /110 – S 66C(4) Crimes Act 1900, Aggravated - sexual intercourse child >=14 & <16 years-SI – LPC: 93697 Video 1 1. A video file was retrieved from a silver 'Passport HDD' (exhibit X0002226975) named "IMG_2458.MOV". This file is dated 17 April 2019. The video is 3 minutes 11 seconds in duration. 2. The CCTV video depicts Paul BAMFORTH and Julia BAMFORTH engaged in penile-vaginal intercourse on the bed. The victim walked towards them, and Julia BAMFORTH started to masturbate the victim. 3. Paul BAMFORTH is clearly observed to be filming on his mobile phone. 4. The victim was 15 years old at the date of the recording. 5. I have had regard to the Crown's submission in respect of count 33 for Mr Bamforth and count 36 for Mrs Bamforth that the objective seriousness falls towards the lower end of the mid-range of objective seriousness. 6. For both offenders I find the objective seriousness falls just below the mid-range having regard to the following factors: 1. the respective roles of the offenders, with Mrs Bamforth masturbating the victim while engaged in sexual intercourse with Mr Bamforth who is filming; 2. the age of the victim; 3. the age differential; 4. the age of the victim relative to the offence provision, being 15 years old, at the top end; 5. the nature of the sexual offending, masturbation; 6. the duration of the offending as indicated by the length of the recording, 3 minutes 11 seconds; 7. any applicable statutory aggravating objective factors, identified above (s21A(2)(cb),(e),(eb),(k),(l)). Video 2 1. A further video file was retrieved from a silver 'Passport HDD' (exhibit X0002226975) named "IMG_2459.MOV". This file is dated 17 April 2019. The video is 3 minutes 10 seconds in duration. 2. The CCTV video is a continuation of file "IMG_2458.MOV" and depicts Julia BAMFORTH continuing to masturbate the victim, then performing oral sex on the victim. The oral sex is the charged act. 3. Paul BAMFORTH is seen to be filming the entire incident on a mobile phone. 4. The victim was 15 years old at the date of the recording. 5. I have had regard to the Crown's submission in respect of count 34 for Mr Bamforth and count 37 for Mrs Bamforth that the objective seriousness falls towards the lower end of the high range of objective seriousness. 6. For both offenders I find the objective seriousness falls just above the mid-range having regard to the following factors: 1. the respective roles of the offenders, with Mrs Bamforth performing oral sex on the victim and Mr Bamforth filming; 2. the age of the victim; 3. the age differential; 4. the age of the victim relative to the offence provision, being 15 years old, at the top end; 5. the nature of the sexual offending, masturbation; 6. the duration of the offending as indicated by the length of the recording, 3 minutes 10 seconds; 7. any applicable statutory aggravating objective factors, identified above (s21A(2)(cb),(eb),(k),(l)). 02/05/2019 RE PAUL BAMFORTH: Count 35, H78550740 /103 – S 66C(4) Crimes Act 1900, Aggravated - sexual intercourse child >=14 & <16 years-SI – LPC: 93697 Count 36, H78550740 /106 – S 66DB(a) Crimes Act 1900, Intentionally sexually touch child >= 10 yrs & < 16 yrs-T1 – LPC: 93710 RE JULIA BAMFORTH: Count 38, H78439722 /112 – S 66C(4) Crimes Act 1900, Aggravated - sexual intercourse child >=14 & <16 years-SI – LPC: 93697 Count 39, H78439722 /115 – S 66DB(a) Crimes Act 1900, Intentionally sexually touch child >= 10 yrs & < 16 yrs-T1 – LPC: 93710 Video 1 1. A video file was retrieved from a silver 'Passport HDD' (exhibit X0002226975) named "IMG_0309.MP4". This file is dated 02 May 2019. The video is 10 seconds in duration. 2. The video depicts Julia BAMFORTH performing oral sex on the victim while being filmed by Paul BAMFORTH. This is the charged act of aggravated sexual intercourse. 3. Julia BAMFORTH then performed oral sex on Paul BAMFORTH while she masturbated the victim. 4. The victim was 15 years old at the date of the recording. 5. I have had regard to the Crown's submission in respect of count 35 for Mr Bamforth and count 38 for Mrs Bamforth that the objective seriousness falls at the high range of objective seriousness. 6. For both offenders I find the objective seriousness falls well above the mid-range having regard to the following factors: 1. the respective roles of the offenders, with Mrs Bamforth performing oral sex on the victim and Mr Bamforth filming; 2. the age of the victim; 3. the age differential; 4. the age of the victim relative to the offence provision, being 15 years old, at the top end; 5. the nature of the sexual offending, fellatio; 6. the duration of the offending as indicated by the length of the recording, 10 seconds; 7. that it is a representative count, with the Crown relying upon other uncharged acts as context; 8. any applicable statutory aggravating objective factors, identified above (s21A(2)(cb),(eb),(k),(l)). Video 2 1. A further video file was retrieved from a silver 'Passport HDD' (exhibit X0002226975) named "IMG_0310.MP4". This file is dated 02 May 2019. The video is 56 seconds in duration. 2. The video depicts Paul BAMFORTH filming Julia BAMFORTH while she performs oral sex on the victim. Paul BAMFORTH was encouraging Julia BAMFORTH as to what to do. This act is an uncharged act. 3. The victim was 15 years old at the date of the recording. Video 3 1. A further video file was retrieved from a silver 'Passport HDD' (exhibit X0002226975) named "IMG_0306.MP4". This file is dated 02 May 2019. The video is 1 minute 21 seconds in duration. 2. The video depicts Paul BAMFORTH filming Julia BAMFORTH who is masturbating the victim while Paul BAMFORTH is encouraging the victim to have sexual intercourse with Julia BAMFORTH. This is the charged act of intentionally sexually touch. 3. The victim was 15 years old at the date of the recording. 4. I have had regard to the Crown's submission in respect of count 36 for Mr Bamforth and count 39 for Mrs Bamforth that the objective seriousness falls towards the lower end of the mid-range of objective seriousness. 5. For both offenders I find the objective seriousness falls just below the mid-range having regard to the following factors: 1. the respective roles of the offenders, with Mrs Bamforth masturbating the victim and Mr Bamforth who is encouraging sexual intercourse and filming the offending; 2. the age of the victim; 3. the age differential; 4. the age of the victim relative to the offence provision, being 15 years old, at the top end; 5. the nature of the sexual offending, masturbation; 6. the duration of the offending as indicated by the length of the recording, 1 minute 21 seconds; 7. any applicable statutory aggravating objective factors, identified above (s21A(2)(cb),(e),(eb),(k),(l)). 04/05/2019 RE PAUL BAMFORTH: Count 37, H78550740 /107 – S 66C(4) Crimes Act 1900, Aggravated - sexual intercourse child >=14 & <16 years-SI – LPC: 93697 RE JULIA BAMFORTH: Count 40, H78439722 /116 – S 66C(4) Crimes Act 1900, Aggravated - sexual intercourse child >=14 & <16 years-SI – LPC: 93697 1. A video file was retrieved from a silver 'Passport HDD' (exhibit X0002226975) named "oMG_0309.MP4". This file is dated 04 May 2019. The video is 10 seconds in duration. 2. The video depicts Julia BAMFORTH engaged in penile-vaginal intercourse with Paul BAMFORTH, while she is performing oral sex on the victim who is standing next to them. Paul BAMFORTH is filming the incident. 3. The victim was 15 years old at the date of the recording. 4. I have had regard to the Crown's submission that the objective seriousness falls towards the lower end of the high range of objective seriousness. 5. For both offenders I find the objective seriousness falls just above the mid-range having regard to the following factors: 1. the respective roles of the offenders, with Mrs Bamforth performing oral sex on the victim while engaged in sexual intercourse with Mr Bamforth who is filming; 2. the age of the victim; 3. the age differential; 4. the age of the victim relative to the offence provision, being 15 years old, at the top end; 5. the nature of the sexual offending, fellatio; 6. the duration of the offending as indicated by the length of the recording, 10 seconds; 7. any applicable statutory aggravating objective factors, identified above (s21A(2)(cb),(eb),(k),(l)). 24/05/2019 RE PAUL BAMFORTH: Count 38, H78550740 /41 – S 66DB(a) Crimes Act 1900, Intentionally sexually touch child >= 10 yrs & < 16 yrs-T1 – LPC: 93710 RE JULIA BAMFORTH: Count 41, H78439722 /39 – S 66DB(a) Crimes Act 1900, Intentionally sexually touch child >= 10 yrs & < 16 yrs-T1 – LPC: 93710 1. A video file was retrieved from a silver 'Passport HDD' (exhibit X0002226975) named "oMG_0343.MOV". This file is dated 24 May 2019. The video is 25 seconds in duration. 2. The video depicts Julia BAMFORTH masturbating the victim while performing oral sex on Paul BAMFORTH who is filming the incident on his mobile phone. 3. The victim was 15 years old at the date of the recording. 4. I have had regard to the Crown's submission that the objective seriousness falls towards the lower end of the mid-range of objective seriousness. 5. For both offenders I find the objective seriousness falls just below the mid-range having regard to the following factors: 1. the respective roles of the offenders, with Mrs Bamforth masturbating the victim while performing oral sex on Mr Bamforth who is filming; 2. the age of the victim; 3. the age differential; 4. the age of the victim relative to the offence provision, being 15 years old, at the top end; 5. the nature of the sexual offending, masturbation; 6. the duration of the offending as indicated by the length of the recording, 25 seconds; 7. any applicable statutory aggravating objective factors, identified above (s21A(2)(cb),(e),(eb),(k),(l)). 25/05/2019 RE PAUL BAMFORTH: Count 39, H78550740 /109 – S 66DB(a) Crimes Act 1900, Intentionally sexually touch child >= 10 yrs & < 16 yrs-T1 – LPC: 93710 RE JULIA BAMFORTH: Count 42, H78439722 /118 – S 66DB(a) Crimes Act 1900, Intentionally sexually touch child >= 10 yrs & < 16 yrs-T1 – LPC: 93710 1. A video file was retrieved from a silver 'Passport HDD' (exhibit X0002226975) named "IMG_3149.MP4". This file is dated 25 May 2019 and appears to be internal CCTV footage. The video is 25 seconds in duration. 2. The video depicts Paul BAMFORTH recording Julia BAMFORTH who is performing oral sex on him while masturbating the victim. 3. The victim was 15 years old at the date of the recording. 4. I have had regard to the Crown's submission that the objective seriousness falls towards the lower end of the mid-range of objective seriousness. 5. For both offenders I find the objective seriousness falls just below the mid-range having regard to the following factors: 1. the respective roles of the offenders, with Mrs Bamforth masturbating the victim while performing oral sex on Mr Bamforth who is filming; 2. the age of the victim; 3. the age differential; 4. the age of the victim relative to the offence provision, being 15 years old, at the top end; 5. the nature of the sexual offending, masturbation; 6. the duration of the offending as indicated by the length of the recording, 25 seconds; 7. any applicable statutory aggravating objective factors, identified above (s21A(2)(cb),(e),(eb),(k),(l)). 02/06/2019 RE PAUL BAMFORTH: Count 40, H78550740 /112 – S 66DB(a) Crimes Act 1900, Intentionally sexually touch child >= 10 yrs & < 16 yrs-T1 – LPC: 93710 RE JULIA BAMFORTH: Count 43, H78439722 /121 – S 66DB(a) Crimes Act 1900, Intentionally sexually touch child >= 10 yrs & < 16 yrs-T1 – LPC: 93710 1. A video file was retrieved from a silver 'Passport HDD' (exhibit X0002226975) named "IMG_0323.MOV". This file is dated 02 June 2019. The video is 4 minutes 13 seconds in duration. 2. The video depicts Paul BAMFORTH filming Julia BAMFORTH while she masturbates the victim. He was instructing her, not to orgasm, to change her focus on to the victim. Paul BAMFORTH was narrating and asking her about how she felt. He instructed her to perform oral sex on the victim which was not captured on video. 3. The victim was 15 years old at the date of the recording. 4. I have had regard to the Crown's submission that the objective seriousness falls towards the lower end of the mid-range of objective seriousness. 5. For both offenders I find the objective seriousness falls just below the mid-range having regard to the following factors: 1. the respective roles of the offenders, with Mrs Bamforth masturbating the victim and Mr Bamforth who is encouraging and instructing Mrs Bamforth while filming; 2. the age of the victim; 3. the age differential; 4. the age of the victim relative to the offence provision, being 15 years old, at the top end; 5. the nature of the sexual offending, masturbation; 6. the duration of the offending as indicated by the length of the recording, 4 minutes 13 seconds; 7. any applicable statutory aggravating objective factors, identified above (s21A(2)(cb),(e),(eb),(k),(l)). 02/07/2019 RE PAUL BAMFORTH: Count 41, H78550740 /111 – S 66C(4) Crimes Act 1900, Aggravated - sexual intercourse child >=14 & <16 years-SI – LPC: 93697 RE JULIA BAMFORTH: Count 44, H78439722 /120 – S 66C(4) Crimes Act 1900, Aggravated - sexual intercourse child >=14 & <16 years-SI – LPC: 93697 1. A video file was retrieved from a 'HP Pavillion Laptop' (exhibit X0003986111) named "IMG_3581-video.MOV". The video is internal CCTV footage. This file is dated 02 July 2019. The video is 2 minutes 24 seconds in duration. 2. The video depicts JULIA BAMFORTH and PAUL BAMFORTH having sexual intercourse while Julia BAMFORTH performs oral sex on the victim. 3. The victim was 15 years old at the date of the recording. 4. I have had regard to the Crown's submission that the objective seriousness falls towards the lower end of the high range of objective seriousness. 5. For both offenders I find the objective seriousness falls just above the mid-range having regard to the following factors: 1. the respective roles of the offenders, with Mrs Bamforth performing oral sex on the victim while having sexual intercourse with Mr Bamforth who is filming; 2. the age of the victim; 3. the age differential; 4. the age of the victim relative to the offence provision, being 15 years old, at the top end; 5. the nature of the sexual offending, fellatio; 6. the duration of the offending as indicated by the length of the recording, 2 minutes 24 seconds; 7. any applicable statutory aggravating objective factors, identified above (s21A(2)(cb),(eb),(k),(l)). 13/11/2019 - UNCHARGED 1. A video file was retrieved from a silver 'Passport HDD' (exhibit X0002226975) named "IMG_2541.MOV". This file is dated 13 November 2019. The video is 7 minutes 56 seconds in duration. 2. The video depicts Julia BAMFORTH asleep on a bed and Paul BAMFORTH and the victim are smoking what appears to be a prohibited drug. Paul BAMFORTH pulled the covers off Julia BAMFORTH and started to explain to the victim how to masturbate her. He then has the victim pull his pants down and expose his penis, at the end of the bed, and he takes photos of the victim on his mobile phone. 3. The victim was 15 years old at the date of the recording. 14/11/2019 RE PAUL BAMFORTH: Count 42, H78550740 /115 – S 66DB(a) Crimes Act 1900, Intentionally sexually touch child >= 10 yrs & < 16 yrs-T1 – LPC: 93710 RE JULIA BAMFORTH: Count 45, H78439722 /124 – S 66DB(a) Crimes Act 1900, Intentionally sexually touch child >= 10 yrs & < 16 yrs-T1 – LPC: 93710 Video 1 1. A video file was retrieved from a silver 'Passport HDD' (exhibit X0002226975) named "IMG_0311.MP4". This file is dated 14 November 2019. The video is 25 seconds in duration. 2. The video depicts Julia BAMFORTH performing oral sex on Paul BAMFORTH (who is filming at the time) while masturbating the victim. This is the charged act. 3. The victim was 15 years old at the date of the recording. Video 2 1. A further video file was retrieved from a silver 'Passport HDD' (exhibit X0002226975) named "IMG_0305.MP4". This file is dated 14 November 2019. The video is 40 seconds in duration. 2. The video depicts the victim masturbating while being filmed by Paul BAMFORTH. 3. The victim was 15 years old at the date of the recording. 4. I have had regard to the Crown's submission that the objective seriousness falls at the mid-range of objective seriousness. 5. For both offenders I find the objective seriousness falls just below the mid-range having regard to the following factors: 1. the respective roles of the offenders, with Mrs Bamforth masturbating the victim while performing oral sex on Mr Bamforth who is filming; 2. the age of the victim; 3. the age differential; 4. the age of the victim relative to the offence provision, being 15 years old, at the top end; 5. the nature of the sexual offending, masturbation; 6. the duration of the offending as indicated by the length of the recording, 25 seconds; 7. that it is a representative count, with the Crown relying upon other uncharged acts as context; 8. any applicable statutory aggravating objective factors, identified above (s21A(2)(cb),(e),(eb),(k),(l)). 01/03/2020 RE PAUL BAMFORTH: Count 43, H78550740 /39 – S 66DB(a) Crimes Act 1900, Intentionally sexually touch child >= 10 yrs & < 16 yrs-T1 – LPC: 93710 RE JULIA BAMFORTH: Count 46, H78439722 /11 – S 66DB(a) Crimes Act 1900, Intentionally sexually touch child >= 10 yrs & < 16 yrs-T1 – LPC: 93710 Video 1 1. A video file was retrieved from the 'iPhone 11 Pro Max' (exhibit X0004050503) of Paul BAMFORTH named "2020_03_04_00_34_16_108000_1_Channel 1.avi". This file is dated 01 March 2020 at 01.22pm. The duration of the video is 4 minutes. 2. The video depicts the victim, Paul BAMFORTH and Julia BAMFORTH sitting on a bed. Julia BAMFORTH has her shirt lifted exposing her breasts. She begins to masturbate the penis of Paul BAMFORTH before walking around to the other side of the bed and lifts her shirt again and the victim touches her breasts. 3. The victim was 15 years old at the date of the recording. Video 2 1. A further video file was retrieved from the 'iPhone 11 Pro Max' (exhibit X0004050503) of Paul BAMFORTH named "2020_03_04_00_38_26_089000_1_Channel 01.avi". This file is dated 01 March 2020 at 01.26pm. The duration of the video is 51 seconds. 2. The video depicts the victim, Paul BAMFORTH and Julia BAMFORTH sitting on a bed. Julia BAMFORTH began to masturbate the penis of Paul BAMFORTH and the victim began to masturbate himself. 3. The victim was 15 years old at the date of the recording. Video 3 1. A further video file was retrieved from the 'iPhone 11 Pro Max' (exhibit X0004050503) of Paul BAMFORTH named "2020_03_05_14_27_44_150000_1_Channel 01.avi". This file is dated 01 March 2020 at 04.33pm. The duration of the video is 1 minute 45 seconds. 2. The video depicts the victim, Julia BAMFORTH and Paul BAMFORTH. Julia BAMFORTH is shirtless and her breasts are exposed, she is masturbating the penises of Paul BAMFORTH and the victim. The victim put his penis back into his pants and Julia BAMFORTH continued to rub the penis of the victim on the outside of his pants while still masturbating the penis of Paul BAMFORTH. 3. The victim was 15 years old at the date of the recording. Video 4 1. A further video file was retrieved from the 'iPhone 11 Pro Max' (exhibit X0004050503) of Paul BAMFORTH named "2020_03_05_14_27_44_150000_1_Channel 01.avi". This file is dated 01 March 2020 at 04.37pm. The duration of the video is 4 minutes 22 seconds. 2. The video depicts the victim, Paul BAMFORTH and Julia BAMFORTH sitting on a bed. Julia BAMFORTH is shirtless, her breasts are exposed, she is masturbating Paul BAMFORTH and the victim, this continues for a period of three minutes. She then masturbates Paul BAMFORTH for the balance of the video. 3. The victim was 15 years old at the date of the recording. Video 5 1. A further video file was retrieved from the 'iPhone 11 Pro Max' (exhibit X0004050503) of Paul BAMFORTH named "2020_03_05_14_27_44_150000_1_Channel 01.avi". This file is dated 01 March 2020. 2. The video depicts Paul BAMFORTH smoking a substance from what appears to be an 'Ice Pipe' in front of the victim. Paul BAMFORTH, Julia BAMFORTH and the victim are lying in a bed and Julia BAMFORTH is masturbating Paul BAMFORTH and the victim simultaneously. This is the charged act. Her breasts and genitals are exposed and Paul BAMFORTH is touching her genitals while appearing to be filming on his mobile phone. 3. The victim was 15 years old at the date of the recording. Video 6 1. A further video file was retrieved from a 'HP Pavillion Laptop' (exhibit X0003986111) named "IMG_6311.MOV". This file is dated 01 March 2020. The video is 40 seconds in duration. 2. The video depicts Paul BAMFORTH filming Julia BAMFORTH who is masturbating both PAUL BAMFORTH and the victim. 3. The victim was 15 years old at the date of the recording. 4. I have had regard to the Crown's submission that the objective seriousness falls towards the upper end of the mid-range of objective seriousness. 5. For both offenders I find the objective seriousness falls at the mid-range having regard to the following factors: 1. the respective roles of the offenders, with Mrs Bamforth masturbating the victim while simultaneously masturbating Mr Bamforth who is filming; 2. the age of the victim; 3. the age differential; 4. the age of the victim relative to the offence provision, being 15 years old, at the top end; 5. the nature of the sexual offending, masturbation; 6. the fact that Mr Bamforth is smoking a substance form an ice pipe in front of the victim at the time of the offending; 7. that it is a representative count, with the Crown relying upon other uncharged acts as context; 8. any applicable statutory aggravating objective factors, identified above (s21A(2)(cb),(e),(eb),(k),(l)). 18/03/2020 RE PAUL BAMFORTH: Count 44, H78550740 /120 – S 66C(4) Crimes Act 1900, Aggravated - sexual intercourse child >=14 & <16 years-SI – LPC: 93697 RE JULIA BAMFORTH: Count 47, H78439722 /128 – S 66C(4) Crimes Act 1900, Aggravated - sexual intercourse child >=14 & <16 years-SI – LPC: 93697 1. A video file was retrieved from a 'HP Pavillion Laptop' (exhibit X0003986111) named "IMG_6525.MOV". This file is dated 18 March 2020. The video is 22 seconds in duration. 2. The video depicts the victim having penile-vaginal sexual intercourse with Julia BAMFORTH while being filmed by Paul BAMFORTH. 3. The victim was 15 years old at the date of the recording. 4. I have had regard to the Crown's submission that the objective seriousness falls towards the lower end of the high range of objective seriousness. 5. For both offenders I find the objective seriousness falls just above the mid-range having regard to the following factors: 1. the respective roles of the offenders, with Mrs Bamforth having sexual intercourse with the victim and Mr Bamfoth filming; 2. the age of the victim; 3. the age differential; 4. the age of the victim relative to the offence provision, being 15 years old, at the top end; 5. the nature of the sexual offending, sexual intercourse; 6. the duration of the offending as indicated by the length of the recording, 22 seconds; 7. any applicable statutory aggravating objective factors, identified above (s21A(2)(cb),(eb),(k),(l)). 19/03/2020 RE PAUL BAMFORTH: Count 45, H78550740 /8 – S 66DB(a) Crimes Act 1900, Intentionally sexually touch child >= 10 yrs & < 16 yrs-T1 – LPC: 93710 Count 46, H78550740 /42 – S 66C(4) Crimes Act 1900, Aggravated - sexual intercourse child >=14 & <16 years-SI – LPC: 93697 RE JULIA BAMFORTH: Count 49, H78439722 /12 – S 66DB(a) Crimes Act 1900, Intentionally sexually touch child >= 10 yrs & < 16 yrs-T1 – LPC: 93710 Count 48, H78439722 /05 – S 66C(4) Crimes Act 1900, Aggravated - sexual intercourse child >=14 & <16 years-SI – LPC: 93697 Video 1 1. A video file was retrieved from the 'iPhone 11 Pro Max' (exhibit X0004050503) of Paul BAMFORTH named "2020_03_20_22_11_10_109000_1_Channel 01.avi.". This file is dated 19 March 2020. The duration of this video is 7 minutes 53 seconds. 2. The video depicts Julia BAMFORTH and Paul BAMFORTH on a bed with the victim and both can be seen smoking from what appears to be an "Ice pipe" commonly used to smoke Methylamphetamine. Julia BAMFORTH handed the pipe to Paul BAMFORTH who in turn handed it to the victim. The victim is seen to ingest the substance. 3. The victim was 15 years old at the date of the recording. Video 2 1. A further continuation video was retrieved from the 'iPhone 11 Pro Max' (exhibit X0004050503) of Paul BAMFORTH named "2020_03_21_05_49_49_39_547000_1_Channel 01.avi". This file is dated 19 March 2020. 2. The video depicts Julia BAMFORTH performing oral sex on the victim while Paul BAMFORTH is masturbating the victim. Paul BAMFORTH then commenced penile-vaginal intercourse with Julia BAMFORTH in the presence of the victim while Julia BAMFORTH masturbated the victim. 3. There is a tattoo image located on the body of Julia BAMFORTH of what appears to be Julia BAMFORTH performing an act of oral sex on the victim with the words "Slut I do love you when you suck and fuck (the victim)". 4. The victim was 15 years old at the date of the recording. 5. I have had regard to the Crown's submission in respect of count 46 for Mr Bamforth and count 48 for Mrs Bamforth that the objective seriousness falls towards the lower end of the high range of objective seriousness. 6. For both offenders I find the objective seriousness falls just above the mid-range having regard to the following factors: 1. the respective roles of the offenders, with Mrs Bamforth performing oral sex on the victim while Mr Bamforth is masturbating the victim; 2. the age of the victim; 3. the age differential; 4. the age of the victim relative to the offence provision, being 15 years old, at the top end; 5. the nature of the sexual offending, fellatio; 6. the fact that a tattoo of prior sexual offending can be seen on Mrs Bamforth; 7. any applicable statutory aggravating objective factors, identified above (s21A(2)(cb),(e),(eb),(k),(l)). Video 3 1. A further video file was retrieved from a 'HP Pavillion Laptop' (exhibit X0003986111) named "IMG_6243.MOV". This file is dated 19 March 2020. The video is 4 minutes 44 seconds in duration. 2. The video depicts Paul BAMFORTH and Julia BAMFORTH having penile-vaginal intercourse while Julia BAMFORTH is masturbating the victim. 3. The victim was 15 years old at the date of the recording. 4. I have had regard to the Crown's submission in respect of count 45 for Mr Bamforth and count 49 for Mrs Bamforth that the objective seriousness falls towards the lower end of the mid-range of objective seriousness. 5. For both offenders I find the objective seriousness falls just below the mid-range having regard to the following factors: 1. the respective roles of the offenders, with Mrs Bamforth masturbating the victim while having sexual intercourse with Mr Bamforth; 2. the age of the victim; 3. the age differential; 4. the age of the victim relative to the offence provision, being 15 years old, at the top end; 5. the nature of the sexual offending, masturbation; 6. the duration of the offending as indicated by the length of the recording, 4 minutes 44 seconds; 7. any applicable statutory aggravating objective factors, identified above (s21A(2)(cb),(eb),(k),(l)). 23/03/2020 RE PAUL BAMFORTH: Count 47, H78550740 /124 – S 66DB(a) Crimes Act 1900, Intentionally sexually touch child >= 10 yrs & < 16 yrs-T1 – LPC: 93710 RE JULIA BAMFORTH: Count 50, H78439722 /132 – S 66DB(a) Crimes Act 1900, Intentionally sexually touch child >= 10 yrs & < 16 yrs-T1 – LPC: 93710 1. A video file was retrieved from a 'HP Pavillion Laptop' (exhibit X0003986111) named "IMG_0147.MOV". This file is dated 23 March 2020. The video is 7 minutes 38 seconds in duration. 2. The video depicts Julia BAMFORTH, Paul BAMFORTH and the victim laying on a bed. Julia BAMFORTH starts to masturbate both the victim and Paul BAMFORTH. The victim began masturbating Julia BAMFORTH while PAUL BAMFORTH also started to masturbate her. For the duration of the video, Julia BAMFORTH was masturbating both the victim and Paul BAMFORTH. 3. The victim was 15 years old at the date of the recording. 4. I have had regard to the Crown's submission that the objective seriousness falls towards the lower end of the mid-range of objective seriousness. 5. For both offenders I find the objective seriousness falls just below the mid-range having regard to the following factors: 1. the respective roles of the offenders, with Mrs Bamforth masturbating both the victim and Mr Bamforth; 2. the age of the victim; 3. the age differential; 4. the age of the victim relative to the offence provision, being 15 years old, at the top end; 5. the nature of the sexual offending, masturbation; 6. the duration of the offending as indicated by the length of the recording, 7 minutes 38 seconds; 7. any applicable statutory aggravating objective factors, identified above (s21A(2)(cb),(e),(eb),(k),(l)). 24/03/2020 RE PAUL BAMFORTH: Count 48, H78550740 /125 – S 66C(4) Crimes Act 1900, Aggravated - sexual intercourse child >=14 & <16 years-SI – LPC: 93697 RE JULIA BAMFORTH: Count 51, H78439722 /135 – S 66C(4) Crimes Act 1900, Aggravated - sexual intercourse child >=14 & <16 years-SI – LPC: 93697 1. A video file was retrieved from a 'HP Pavillion Laptop' (exhibit X0003986111) named "IMG_6607.MOV". This file is dated 24 March 2020. The video is 1 minute 42 seconds in duration. 2. The video depicts the victim having penile-vaginal intercourse with Julia BAMFORTH while she is giving oral sex to Paul BAMFORTH, who is filming the acts. 3. The victim was 15 years old at the date of the recording. 4. I have had regard to the Crown's submission that the objective seriousness falls towards the lower end of the high range of objective seriousness. 5. For both offenders I find the objective seriousness falls just above the mid-range having regard to the following factors: 1. the respective roles of the offenders, with Mrs Bamforth engaging in sexual intercourse with the victim while performing oral sex on Mr Bamforth who is filming; 2. the age of the victim; 3. the age differential; 4. the age of the victim relative to the offence provision, being 15 years old, at the top end; 5. the nature of the sexual offending, sexual intercourse; 6. the duration of the offending as indicated by the length of the recording, 1 minute 42 seconds; 7. any applicable statutory aggravating objective factors, identified above (s21A(2)(cb),(eb),(k),(l)). 25/03/2020 RE PAUL BAMFORTH: Count 49, H78550740 /40 – S 66DB(a) Crimes Act 1900, Intentionally sexually touch child >= 10 yrs & < 16 yrs-T1 – LPC: 93710 RE JULIA BAMFORTH: Count 52, H78439722 /126 – S 66DB(a) Crimes Act 1900, Intentionally sexually touch child >= 10 yrs & < 16 yrs-T1 – LPC: 93710 Video 1 1. A video was retrieved from the 'iPhone 11 Pro Max' (exhibit X0004050503) of Paul BAMFORTH named "2020_03_25_04_32_10_120000_1_Channel 01.avi". This file is dated 25 March 2020 at 03.32am. The duration of the video is 43 seconds. 2. The video depicts the victim and Julia BAMFORTH in the kitchen of the BAMFORTH residence. Julia BAMFORTH was naked and had one leg on the kitchen sink and the other foot on the floor. She took the victim's exposed penis and rubbed it against her vagina. 3. The victim was 15 years old at the date of the recording. Video 2 1. A further video was retrieved from the 'iPhone 11 Pro Max' (exhibit X0004050503) of Paul BAMFORTH named "2020_03_25_04_34_29_181000_1_Channel 01.avi". This file is dated 25 March 2020 at 03.34am. The duration of the video is 42 seconds. 2. The video depicts Paul BAMFORTH lying on a bed masturbating. Julia BAMFORTH is standing at the end of the bed naked with one foot on the bed head and the other foot on the ground. The victim removed his pants and Julia BAMFORTH took hold of his penis and rubbed it against her vagina. This is the charged act. 3. The victim was 15 years old at the date of the recording. 4. I have had regard to the Crown's submission that the objective seriousness falls at the mid-range of objective seriousness. 5. For both offenders I find the objective seriousness falls just below the mid-range having regard to the following factors: 1. the respective roles of the offenders, with Mrs Bamforth rubbing the victim's penis on her vagina and Mr Bamforth masturbating while watching; 2. the age of the victim; 3. the age differential; 4. the age of the victim relative to the offence provision, being 15 years old, at the top end; 5. the nature of the sexual offending, sexual touching; 6. the duration of the offending as indicated by the length of the recording, 42 seconds; 7. any applicable statutory aggravating objective factors, identified above (s21A(2)(cb),(e),(eb),(k),(l)). The victim turned 16 years old on 29 March 2020 02/05/2020 RE PAUL BAMFORTH: Count 50, H78550740 /129 – S 61KD(1)(a) Crimes Act 1900, Aggravated - sexually touch another person-T1 – LPC: 93664 RE JULIA BAMFORTH: Count 53, H78439722 /31 – S 61KD(1)(a) Crimes Act 1900, Aggravated - sexually touch another person-T1 – LPC: 93664 1. A video was retrieved from the 'iPhone 11 Pro Max' (exhibit X0004050503) of Paul BAMFORTH named "2020_05_02_05_07_56_713000_1_Channel 01.avi". This file is dated 02 May 2020 at 04.12am. The duration of the video is 7 minutes 27 seconds. 2. The video depicts the victim and PAUL BAMFORTH lying on a bed fully clothed. Julia BAMFORTH entered the room and lay on the bed in between them and began rubbing the penises of the victim and PAUL BAMFORTH over their clothing. The victim lowered his pants and Julia BAMFORTH began masturbating the victim. 3. The victim was 16 years old at the date of the recording. 4. I have had regard to the Crown's submission that the objective seriousness falls towards the lower end of the mid-range of objective seriousness. 5. For both offenders I find the objective seriousness falls just below the mid-range having regard to the following factors: 1. the respective roles of the offenders, with Mrs Bamforth masturbating the victim and rubbing the penis of Mr Bamforth over his clothing; 2. the age of the victim; 3. the age differential; 4. the nature of the sexual offending, masturbation; 5. the duration of the offending as indicated by the length of the recording, 7 minutes 27 seconds; 6. any applicable statutory aggravating objective factors, identified above (s21A(2)(cb),(e),(eb),(k)). 17/05/2020 RE PAUL BAMFORTH: Count 51, H78550740 /136 – S 61J(1) Crimes Act 1900, Agg sex assault-victim with cognitive impairment-SI – LPC: 70718 RE JULIA BAMFORTH: Count 54, H78439722 /14 – S 61J(1) Crimes Act 1900, Agg sex assault-victim with cognitive impairment-SI – LPC: 70718 Video 1 1. A video file was retrieved from the 'iPhone 11 Pro Max' (exhibit X0004050503) of Paul BAMFORTH named "IMG_3974". This file is dated 17 May 2020. The duration is 6 minutes 27 seconds. 2. Paul BAMFORTH is filming Julia BAMFORTH while she is masturbating and performing oral sex on the victim which continues until the victim ejaculates. 3. The victim was 16 years old at the date of the recording. Video 2 1. A further video file was retrieved from the 'Apple iPad' (exhibit X000398617) named "Import_26.mp4". This file is dated 17 May 2020. The video is 1 minute 59 seconds in duration. 2. The video depicts Julia BAMFORTH and Paul BAMFORTH having penile-vaginal intercourse in the presence of the victim. Julia BAMFORTH performed oral sex on the victim while having penile-vaginal intercourse with Paul BAMFORTH. This is the charged act. 3. The victim was 16 years old at the date of the recording. 4. I have had regard to the Crown's submission that the objective seriousness falls at the high range of objective seriousness. 5. For both offenders I find the objective seriousness falls just above the mid-range having regard to the following factors: 1. the respective roles of the offenders, with Mrs Bamforth performing oral sex on the victim while having sexual intercourse with Mr Bamforth; 2. the age of the victim; 3. the age differential; 4. the nature of the sexual offending, fellatio; 5. the duration of the offending as indicated by the length of the recording, 1 minute 59 seconds; 6. that it is a representative count, with the Crown relying upon other uncharged acts as context; 7. any applicable statutory aggravating objective factors, identified above (s21A(2)(cb),(e),(eb),(k)). 21/05/2020 RE PAUL BAMFORTH: Count 52, H78550740 /134 – S 61KD(1)(a) Crimes Act 1900, Aggravated - sexually touch another person-T1 – LPC: 93664 Count 53, H78550740 /135 – S 61J(1) Crimes Act 1900, Agg sex assault-victim with cognitive impairment-SI – LPC: 70718 RE JULIA BAMFORTH: Count 55, H78439722 /141 – S 61KD(1)(a) Crimes Act 1900, Aggravated - sexually touch another person-T1 – LPC: 93664 Count 56, H78439722 /142 – S 61J(1) Crimes Act 1900, Agg sex assault-victim with cognitive impairment-SI – LPC: 70718 Video 1 1. A video file was retrieved from the 'Apple iPad' (exhibit X000398617) named "IMG_0707.MOV". This file is dated 21 May 2020. The video is 2 minutes 33 seconds in duration. 2. The video depicts Julia BAMFORTH masturbating both the victim and Paul BAMFORTH. 3. The victim was 16 years old at the date of the recording. 4. I have had regard to the Crown's submission in respect of count 52 for Mr Bamforth and count 55 for Mrs Bamforth that the objective seriousness falls towards the lower end of the mid-range of objective seriousness. 5. For both offenders I find the objective seriousness falls just below the mid-range having regard to the following factors: 1. the respective roles of the offenders, with Mrs Bamforth masturbating both the victim and Mr Bamforth; 2. the age of the victim; 3. the age differential; 4. the nature of the sexual offending, masturbation; 5. the duration of the offending as indicated by the length of the recording, 2 minutes 33 seconds; 6. any applicable statutory aggravating objective factors, identified above (s21A(2)(cb),(e), (eb),(k)). Video 2 1. A further video file was retrieved from the 'Apple iPad' (exhibit X000398617) named "Import_47.mp4". This file is dated 21 May 2020. The video is 38 seconds in duration. 2. The video depicts Julia BAMFORTH assisting the victim to masturbate the outside of her vagina with the victim's penis. Julia BAMFORTH is performing oral sex on Paul BAMFORTH then has penile-vaginal intercourse with the victim while being filmed by Paul BAMFORTH. 3. The victim was 16 years old at the date of the recording. 4. I have had regard to the Crown's submission in respect of count 53 for Mr Bamforth and count 56 for Mrs Bamforth that the objective seriousness falls towards the lower end of the high range of objective seriousness. 5. For both offenders I find the objective seriousness falls just above the mid-range having regard to the following factors: 1. the respective roles of the offenders, with Mrs Bamforth engaging in sexual intercourse with the victim and Mr Bamforth filming; 2. the age of the victim; 3. the age differential; 4. the nature of the sexual offending, sexual intercourse; 5. the duration of the offending as indicated by the length of the recording, 38 seconds; 6. any applicable statutory aggravating objective factors, identified above (s21A(2)(cb),(e),(eb),(k)). 04/07/2020 RE PAUL BAMFORTH: Count 54, H78550740 /13 – S 61J(1) Crimes Act 1900, Agg sex assault-victim with cognitive impairment-SI – LPC: 70718 Count 55, H78550740 /14 – S 61KD(1)(a) Crimes Act 1900, Aggravated - sexually touch another person-T1 – LPC: 93664 RE JULIA BAMFORTH: Count 57, H78439722 /13 – S 61J(1) Crimes Act 1900, Agg sex assault-victim with cognitive impairment-SI – LPC: 70718 Count 58, H78439722 /18 – S 61KD(1)(a) Crimes Act 1900, Aggravated - sexually touch another person-T1 – LPC: 93664 Video 1 1. A video file was retrieved from the 'Toshiba Laptop' (exhibit X0003986112) named "MFQU4476.MP4". This file is dated 04 July 2020 at 04.45am. The duration is 58 minutes 35 seconds. 2. The video depicts a prolonged sexual act between the co-offenders and the victim. This video is recorded on the internal CCTV system at the BAMFORTH residence. 3. Paul BAMFORTH, Julia BAMFORTH, and the victim were lying on a bed. Paul BAMFORTH and the victim digitally penetrated the vagina of Julia BAMFORTH. 4. Following this Paul BAMFORTH and JULIA BAMFORTH had penile-vaginal intercourse in the presence of the victim. 5. Paul BAMFORTH then masturbated the penis of the victim while Julia BAMFORTH performed oral sex on Paul BAMFORTH. 6. Julia BAMFORTH and Paul BAMFORTH then have penile vaginal intercourse in the presence of the victim. 7. Julia BAMFORTH then masturbated the victim and Paul BAMFORTH at the same time. This is a charged act of sexually touch another person. 8. Paul BAMFORTH then masturbated the victim. 9. Julia BAMFORTH and Paul BAMFORTH then commenced penile-vaginal intercourse, following this Julia BAMFORTH got off the bed. 10. Paul BAMFORTH then masturbated the victim for approximately 20 seconds. 11. After a short period, Paul BAMFORTH stopped masturbating the victim and placed the victim's penis in his mouth and performed oral sex on the victim. 12. After removing the victim's penis from his mouth Paul BAMFORTH continued to masturbate the victim. 13. Following this Paul BAMFORTH and Julia BAMFORTH commence having penile-vaginal sexual intercourse in front of the victim for a further 6 minutes before the video ends. 14. The victim was 16 years old at the date of the recording. 15. I have had regard to the Crown's submission in respect of count 55 for Mr Bamforth and count 58 for Mrs Bamforth that the objective seriousness falls at the mid-range of objective seriousness. 16. For both offenders I find the objective seriousness falls just below the mid-range having regard to the following factors: 1. the respective roles of the offenders, with Mrs Bamforth masturbating the victim and Mr Bamforth at the same time, followed by Mr Bamforth masturbating the victim; 2. the age of the victim; 3. the age differential; 4. the nature of the sexual offending, masturbation; 5. the duration of the offending as indicated by the length of the recording, 58 minutes 35 seconds; 6. that it is a representative count, with the Crown relying upon other uncharged acts as context; 7. any applicable statutory aggravating objective factors, identified above (s21A(2)(cb),(e),(eb),(k)). Video 2 1. A video file was retrieved from the 'Toshiba Laptop' (exhibit X0003986112) named "LQYY9640". This file is dated 04 July 2020. The duration is 4 minutes 49 seconds. 2. The video depicts Julia BAMFORTH and Paul BAMFORTH engaged in penile-vaginal intercourse while Julia BAMFORTH masturbates the victim. 3. Julia BAMFORTH then has penile-vaginal sexual intercourse with the victim. This is a charged act of sexual assault. Paul BAMFORTH participated by performing oral sex on Julia BAMFORTH while she was having penile-vaginal intercourse with the victim and licked the genital (penis/testicle) area of the victim. 4. The victim was 16 years old at the date of the recording. 5. I have had regard to the Crown's submission in respect of count 54 for Mr Bamforth and count 57 for Mrs Bamforth that the objective seriousness falls at the high range of objective seriousness. 6. For both offenders I find the objective seriousness falls well above the mid-range having regard to the following factors: 1. the respective roles of the offenders, with Mrs Bamforth engaging in sexual intercourse with the victim and Mr Bamforth simultaneously performing oral sex on Mrs Bamforth and licking the victims genitals; 2. the age of the victim; 3. the age differential; 4. the nature of the sexual offending, sexual intercourse; 5. the duration of the offending as indicated by the length of the recording, 4 minutes 49 seconds; 6. that it is a representative count, with the Crown relying upon other uncharged acts as context; 7. any applicable statutory aggravating objective factors, identified above (s21A(2)(cb),(e),(eb),(k)). 27/07/2020 RE PAUL BAMFORTH: Count 56, H78550740 /130 – S 61J(1) Crimes Act 1900, Agg sex assault-victim with cognitive impairment-SI – LPC: 70718 RE JULIA BAMFORTH: Count 59, H78439722 /20 – S 61J(1) Crimes Act 1900, Agg sex assault-victim with cognitive impairment-SI – LPC: 70718 1. A video file was retrieved from the 'Toshiba Laptop' (exhibit X0003986114) named "IMG_8647.MOV". This file is dated 27 July 2020 at 06.20pm. This file was saved in a folder called "My little cock lover" and is 1 minute 43 seconds in duration. 2. The video depicts Paul BAMFORTH filming Julia BAMFORTH having penile-vaginal intercourse with the victim. Paul BAMFORTH said, "Get back on it baby" and took hold of the victim's penis and inserted it into the vagina of Julia BAMFORTH. During the video Paul BAMFORTH instructed Julia BAMFORTH and was heard to say, "you haven't done what I asked you to yet baby", "hook it in baby and love it", "make love to him" and "do it one more time". 3. The victim was 16 years old at the date of the recording. 4. I have had regard to the Crown's submission that the objective seriousness falls towards the lower end of the high range of objective seriousness. 5. For Mr Bamforth I find the objective seriousness falls at the mid-range having regard to the following factors: 1. the respective roles of the offenders, with Mrs Bamforth engaging in sexual intercourse with the victim and Mr Bamforth encouraging, instructing and filming the offending; 2. the age of the victim; 3. the age differential; 4. the nature of the sexual offending, sexual intercourse; 5. the duration of the offending as indicated by the length of the recording, 1 minute 43 seconds; 6. the fact that the file was placed in a folder named 'My little cock lover'; 7. any applicable statutory aggravating objective factors, identified above (s21A(2)(cb),(e),(eb),(k)). 1. For Mrs Bamforth the second last factor referred to above does not apply, however, I also find the objective seriousness of her offending falls at the mid-range, given her direct physical contact with the victim. 02/12/2020 - UNCHARGED 1. A video file was retrieved from a 'HP Pavillion Laptop' (exhibit X0003986111) named "IMG_3046.MOV". This file is dated 02 December 2020. The video is 47 seconds in duration. 2. The video depicts Julia BAMFORTH in a sheer black nightie being filmed by Paul BAMFORTH who is laying on a bed. The video pans to the victim sitting on the bed smoking a substance in what appears to be an 'ice pipe'. 3. The victim was 16 years old at the date of the recording. 07/12/2020 RE PAUL BAMFORTH: Count 57, H78550740 /142 – S 61J(1) Crimes Act 1900, Agg sex assault-victim with cognitive impairment – LPC: 70718 Count 58, H78550740 /137 – S 61J(1) Crimes Act 1900, Agg sex assault-victim with cognitive impairment-SI – LPC: 70718 RE JULIA BAMFORTH: Count 60, H78439722 /145 – S 61J(1) Crimes Act 1900, Agg sex assault-victim with cognitive impairment-SI – LPC: 70718 Count 61, H78439722 /19 – S 61J(1) Crimes Act 1900, Agg sex assault-victim with cognitive impairment-SI – LPC: 70718 Video 1 1. A video file was retrieved from the 'Apple iPad' (exhibit X000398617) named "IMG_0744.MOV". This file is dated 07 December 2020. The video is 3 minutes 47 seconds in duration. 2. The video depicts the victim appearing to be highly drug affected. The victim was masturbating Julia BAMFORTH who began to perform oral sex on the victim before she lays on bed and the victim has penile-vaginal intercourse with her. This is the charged act of aggravated sexual assault. Paul BAMFORTH was filming the acts. 3. The victim was 16 years old at the date of the recording. 4. I have had regard to the Crown's submission in respect of count 57 for Mr Bamforth and count 60 for Mrs Bamforth that the objective seriousness falls at the high range of objective seriousness. 5. For both offenders I find the objective seriousness falls just above the mid-range having regard to the following factors: 1. the respective roles of the offenders, with Mrs Bamforth engaging in sexual intercourse with the victim and Mr Bamforth filming; 2. the age of the victim; 3. the age differential; 4. the nature of the sexual offending, sexual intercourse; 5. the fact that the victim appeared to be highly drug affected; 6. the duration of the offending as indicated by the length of the recording, 3 minutes 47 seconds; 7. that it is a representative count, with the Crown relying upon other uncharged acts as context; 8. any applicable statutory aggravating objective factors, identified above (s21A(2)(cb),(e),(eb),(k)). Video 2 1. A further video file was retrieved from the 'Apple iPad' (exhibit X000398617) named "cplar0xvyil9gen6gnzxmqstohsnpky.MOV". This file is dated 07 December 2020. 2. The video depicts Julia BAMFORTH performing oral sex on the victim while having penile-vaginal intercourse with Paul BAMFORTH. Paul BAMFORTH performed oral sex on the victim on three separate occasions while having penile-vaginal intercourse with Julia BAMFORTH. This is the charged act. 3. The victim was 16 years old at the date of the recording. 4. I have had regard to the Crown's submission in respect of count 58 for Mr Bamforth and count 61 for Mrs Bamforth that the objective seriousness falls at the high range of objective seriousness. 5. For both offenders I find the objective seriousness falls well above the mid-range having regard to the following factors: 1. the respective roles of the offenders, with Mr Bamforth performing oral sex on the victim on three separate occasions while having sexual intercourse with Mrs Bamforth; 2. the age of the victim; 3. the age differential; 4. the nature of the sexual offending, fellatio; 5. that it is a representative count, with the Crown relying upon other uncharged acts as context; 6. any applicable statutory aggravating objective factors, identified above (s21A(2)(cb),(e),(eb),(k)). 08/12/2020 RE PAUL BAMFORTH: Count 59, H78550740 /143 – S 61J(1) Crimes Act 1900, Agg sex assault-victim with cognitive impairment-SI – LPC: 70718 RE JULIA BAMFORTH: Count 62, H78439722 /150 – S 61J(1) Crimes Act 1900, Agg sex assault-victim with cognitive impairment-SI – LPC: 70718 1. A video file was retrieved from the 'Apple iPad' (exhibit X000398617) named "cplaxkx+uilky6v6eb_fzkwij3abjxh.mov". This file is dated 08 December 2020. 2. The video depicts Julia BAMFORTH performing oral sex on the victim and proceeds to have penile-vaginal intercourse with the victim. The penile-vaginal intercourse is the charged act. Paul BAMFORTH was filming and encouraging the acts. 3. The victim was 16 years old at the date of the recording. 4. I have had regard to the Crown's submission that the objective seriousness falls at the high range of objective seriousness. 5. For both offenders I find the objective seriousness falls just above the mid-range having regard to the following factors: 1. the respective roles of the offenders, with Mrs Bamforth engaging in sexual intercourse with the victim and Mr Bamforth encouraging and filming the offending; 2. the age of the victim; 3. the age differential; 4. the nature of the sexual offending, sexual intercourse; 5. that it is a representative count, with the Crown relying upon other uncharged acts as context; 6. any applicable statutory aggravating objective factors, identified above (s21A(2)(cb),(e),(eb),(k)). 11/12/2020 RE PAUL BAMFORTH: Count 60, H78550740 /128 – S 61J(1) Crimes Act 1900, Agg sex assault-victim with cognitive impairment-SI – LPC: 70718 RE JULIA BAMFORTH: Count 63, H78439722 /28 – S 61J(1) Crimes Act 1900, Agg sex assault-victim with cognitive impairment-SI – LPC: 70718 Video 1 1. A video file was retrieved from the 'Apple iPad' (exhibit X000398617) named "IMG_0752.MOV". This file is dated 11 December 2020. The video is 56 seconds in duration. 2. The video depicts a conversation led by Paul BAMFORTH with the victim. Paul BAMFORTH was asking questions about a conversation between Julia BAMFORTH and the victim where Julia BAMFORTH asked the victim to perform various sexual acts upon her without Paul BAMFORTH being present. 3. The victim was 16 years old at the date of the recording. Video 2 1. A further video file was retrieved from the 'Apple iPad' (exhibit X000398617) named "IMG_0753.MOV". This file is dated 11 December 2020. The video is 2 minutes 23 seconds in duration and is a continuation of the conversation in video IMG_0752.MOV. 2. The victim was 16 years old at the date of the recording. Video 3 1. A video file was retrieved from the 'iPhone 11 Pro Max' (exhibit X0004050503) of Paul BAMFORTH named "03EAA3F9-3C93-449C-8EF2-C2994C879605.mp4". This file is dated 11 December 2020 at 16.51. The duration of the video is 1 minute 12 seconds. 2. The video depicts the victim in a room with Paul BAMFORTH and Julia BAMFORTH. Paul BAMFORTH was filming as the victim took his penis out of his pants and commenced penile-vaginal intercourse with Julia BAMFORTH for approximately 10 seconds. This is the charged act. Paul BAMFORTH was holding his exposed penis toward Julia BAMFORTH and the victim. 3. The victim was 16 years old at the date of the recording. 4. I have had regard to the Crown's submission that the objective seriousness falls towards the lower end of the high range of objective seriousness. 5. For both offenders I find the objective seriousness falls at the mid-range having regard to the following factors: 1. the respective roles of the offenders, with Mrs Bamforth engaging in sexual intercourse with the victim and Mr Bamforth filming and holding his exposed penis towards Mrs Bamforth and the victim; 2. the age of the victim; 3. the age differential; 4. the nature of the sexual offending, sexual intercourse; 5. the duration of the offending as indicated by the length of the recording, 1 minute 12 seconds; 6. any applicable statutory aggravating objective factors, identified above (s21A(2)(cb),(e),(eb),(k)). 14/12/2020 RE PAUL BAMFORTH: Count 61, H78550740 /145 – S 61J(1) Crimes Act 1900, Agg sex assault-victim with cognitive impairment-SI – LPC: 70718 RE JULIA BAMFORTH: Count 64, H78439722 /152 – S 61J(1) Crimes Act 1900, Agg sex assault-victim with cognitive impairment-SI – LPC: 70718 1. A video file was retrieved from the 'Apple iPad' (exhibit X000398617) named "cplaec+62d4jwntjjxih_0zkmxehomd.mov". This file is dated 14 December 2020. 2. The video depicts Julia BAMFORTH engaged in penile-vaginal intercourse with the victim and performed oral sex on the victim, filmed by Paul BAMFORTH. The penile-vaginal intercourse is the charged act. 3. The victim was 16 years old at the date of the recording. 4. I have had regard to the Crown's submission that the objective seriousness falls at the high range of objective seriousness. 5. For both offenders I find the objective seriousness falls just above the mid-range having regard to the following factors: 1. the respective roles of the offenders, with Mrs Bamforth engaging in sexual intercourse with the victim while performing oral sex on Mr Bamforth who is filming; 2. the age of the victim; 3. the age differential; 4. the nature of the sexual offending, sexual intercourse; 5. that it is a representative count, with the Crown relying upon other uncharged acts as context; 6. any applicable statutory aggravating objective factors, identified above (s21A(2)(cb),(e),(eb),(k)). 24/12/2020 RE PAUL BAMFORTH: Count 62, H78550740 /148 – S 61KD(1)(a) Crimes Act 1900, Aggravated - sexually touch another person-T1 – LPC: 93664 RE JULIA BAMFORTH: Count 65, H78439722 /154 – S 61KD(1)(a) Crimes Act 1900, Aggravated - sexually touch another person-T1 – LPC: 93664 Video 1 1. A video file was retrieved from the 'Apple iPad' (exhibit X000398617) named "cplavbcdocehgj5zpcllnmxvvlp7mds.mov". This file is dated 24 December 2020. The duration is 20 minutes 10 seconds. 2. The video depicts Julia BAMFORTH and Paul BAMFORTH using what appears to be an 'ice pipe' to administer a substance to the victim when Paul BAMFORTH hands the implement to the victim who uses the implement. Paul BAMFORTH masturbated Julia BAMFORTH in the presence of the victim. Julia BAMFORTH performed oral sex on Paul BAMFORTH in the presence of the victim while the victim was using the implement. The victim lay beside Julia BAMFORTH and Paul BAMFORTH while they had penile-vaginal intercourse. Julia BAMFORTH masturbated the victim while having penile-vaginal intercourse with Paul BAMFORTH. This is the charged act. 3. The victim was 16 years old at the date of the recording. Video 2 1. A further video file was retrieved from a 'HP Pavillion Laptop' (exhibit X0003986111) named "CDLB5161.MP4". This file is dated 24 December 2020. The video is 6 minutes 43 seconds in duration. 2. The video depicts Paul BAMFORTH and Julia BAMFORTH in a bedroom of their residence smoking what appears to be an 'ice pipe' in the presence of the victim and giving him the ice pipe. 3. The victim was 16 years old at the date of the recording. 4. I have had regard to the Crown's submission that the objective seriousness falls towards the lower end of the mid-range of objective seriousness. 5. For both offenders I find the objective seriousness falls just below the mid-range having regard to the following factors: 1. the respective roles of the offenders, with Mrs Bamforth masturbating the victim while engaged in sexual intercourse with Mr Bamforth who is filming; 2. the age of the victim; 3. the age differential; 4. the nature of the sexual offending, masturbation; 5. the fact that offenders gave the victim an ice pipe to administer a substance; 6. the fact that the offenders performed various sexual acts upon one another in the presence of the victim; 7. the duration of the offending as indicated by the length of the recording, 20 minutes 10 seconds; 8. any applicable statutory aggravating objective factors, identified above (s21A(2)(cb),(e),(eb),(k)). 25/12/2020 RE PAUL BAMFORTH: Count 63, H78550740 /149 – S 61J(1) Crimes Act 1900, Agg sex assault-victim with cognitive impairment-SI – LPC: 70718 RE JULIA BAMFORTH: Count 66, H78439722 /155 – S 61J(1) Crimes Act 1900, Agg sex assault-victim with cognitive impairment-SI – LPC: 70718 1. A video file was retrieved from the 'Toshiba Laptop' (exhibit X0003986114) named "VGLL9543.MP4". This file is dated 25 December 2020, Christmas Day. The video is 24 minutes 9 seconds in duration. The video is recorded on HD 'Swann' CCTV situated in bedroom. 2. The video depicts Julia BAMFORTH and Paul BAMFORTH having penile-vaginal intercourse, then Julia BAMFORTH performed oral sex on, and masturbated, the victim. 3. The victim was 16 years old at the date of the recording. 4. I have had regard to the Crown's that the objective seriousness falls at the high range of objective seriousness. 5. For both offenders I find the objective seriousness falls just above the mid-range having regard to the following factors: 1. the respective roles of the offenders, with Mrs Bamforth having sexual intercourse with Mr Bamforth before performing oral sex on the victim; 2. the age of the victim; 3. the age differential; 4. the nature of the sexual offending, fellatio; 5. the duration of the offending as indicated by the length of the recording, 24 minutes 9 seconds; 6. that it is a representative count, with the Crown relying upon other uncharged acts as context; 7. any applicable statutory aggravating objective factors, identified above (s21A(2)(cb),(e),(eb),(k)). 10/01/2021 RE PAUL BAMFORTH: Count 64, H78550740 /150 – S 61J(1) Crimes Act 1900, Agg sex assault-victim with cognitive impairment-SI – LPC: 70718 RE JULIA BAMFORTH: Count 67, H78439722 /143 – S 61J(1) Crimes Act 1900, Agg sex assault-victim with cognitive impairment-SI – LPC: 70718 1. A video file was retrieved from the 'iPhone 11 Pro Max' (exhibit X0004050503) of Paul BAMFORTH named "03EAA3F9-3C93-449C-8EF2-C2994C879605.mp4". This file is dated 10 January 2021. The duration of the video is 1 minute 12 seconds. 2. The video depicts the victim enter a bedroom and undress, while Julia BAMFORTH and Paul BAMFORTH are naked on the bed. The victim then had penile-vaginal intercourse with Julia BAMFORTH, filmed by Paul BAMFORTH. 3. The victim was 16 years old at the date of the recording. 4. I have had regard to the Crown's submission that the objective seriousness falls towards the lower end of the high range of objective seriousness. 5. For both offenders I find the objective seriousness falls at the mid-range having regard to the following factors: 1. the respective roles of the offenders, with Mrs Bamforth engaging in sexual intercourse with the victim and Mr Bamforth filming; 2. the age of the victim; 3. the age differential; 4. the nature of the sexual offending, sexual intercourse; 5. the duration of the offending as indicated by the length of the recording, 1 minute 12 seconds; 6. any applicable statutory aggravating objective factors, identified above (s21A(2)(cb),(e),(eb),(k)). Additional Child Abuse Material PAUL BAMFORTH & JULIA BAMFORTH: 1. From the 'iPhone 11 Pro Max' (exhibit X00004050503) of Paul BAMFORTH there were 697 notes located on the mobile phone. Of the 697 notes approximately 300 notes are stories written by both Paul BAMFORTH and Julia BAMFORTH. The stories range in length and the specific sexual details they go into. Some of the stories captured on the phone are from as far back as 2016 and have in excess of 2500 words. 2. These stories show that Paul BAMFORTH and Julia BAMFORTH have a predisposition to having sex with young children and the lengths they would go to, to satisfy their sexual needs. 3. Julia BAMFORTH talks about having sexual intercourse with her brother from the age of 9 and that she wished she found some older paedophiles to have their way with her. Julia also goes on to explain that she worked as a nurse at a nursing home, where she allegedly had numerous sexual encounters with the male residents of the nursing home and writing about the intimate and specific details of theses sexual encounters in detail. 4. Another story has Julia BAMFORTH working in a morgue, where she interferes with two corpses and again, goes into the specific details of the sexual encounter. She stated that the corpses are of a 10-year-old boy and the other a middle-aged female. 5. The content of these notes also includes the numerous sexual encounters with the victim and another young person, LG. Again, the notes go into the specific detail and offending against both, with Julia BAMFORTH stating that she cannot wait to continue to re-offend against the victim in the company of Paul BAMFORTH. 6. There are stories to suggest that if Paul BAMFORTH and Julia BAMFORTH had not been arrested, they would continue to reoffend against children. One story detailed the fantasy of both, to take in homeless or deserted children to offend against, and the discussion of kidnapping children to satisfy their sexual urges and fantasies. 7. One of the stories details the fact that Julia BAMFORTH would give birth to a child, so they could sexually abuse their own child to satisfy their needs. 8. In addition to the notes, Investigators also located several text messages between Paul BAMFORTH and Julia BAMFORTH. During these text messages exchanges between Paul BAMFORTH and Julia BAMFORTH, it is clear that both were aware of the cognitive impairment of the victim. This is evidenced by both referring to the victim as a "retard" throughout these exchanges. 11/02/2021 RE PAUL BAMFORTH ONLY: Count 65, H78550740 /11 – S 86(3) Crimes Act 1900, Kidnap in company w/i serious indictable occasion abh – LPC: 87202 Co-offenders: ZB, JS, CD & Jacob Smyth 1. The offending is captured on high-definition CCTV from inside the premises. The Crown relies on this footage on sentence. 2. The co-offender young persons in this matter are: 1. ZB, born 2003; 2. CD, born 2003; and 3. JS, born 2003. 1. The co-offender adult is Jacob Smyth (not to be confused with the young person JS). 2. At the time of the offending the persons above were in the company of each other and were all known to each other. 3. On the 9th or 10th of February 2021, the victim disclosed to two persons (one being CD) that for a number of years Paul BAMFORTH and Julia BAMFORTH had been committing sexual offences upon him. 4. During the course of that disclosure the victim called Paul BAMFORTH a 'paedophile'. The victim disclosed to GE that there had been sexual offending by the BAMFORTHS (Paul and Julia). 5. On the 11th of February 2021, the victim was with JS and CD at a location in Narara. There was contact between CD and the BAMFORTHS where CD informed the BAMFORTHS that the victim was calling Mr BAMFORTH a 'paedophile' and was telling people that he had been 'touched up' by the BAMFORTHS. 6. The BAMFORTHS then arranged for CD to bring the victim to their residence at Narara. 7. The victim, CD and JS arrived at the residence at 11.32pm. High-definition CCTV set up inside the residence and captured the offending as it took place. This footage was located on the phone of Mr BAMFORTH. 8. The detention of the victim is captured on internal CCTV from the premises and depicts the following: 1. at 11.32pm CD, JS and the victim arrive at the offenders' premises; 2. the three young people appear to pause at the first bedroom to speak with Paul BAMFORTH; 3. the victim continued down the hallway where he is met by ZB; 4. ZB immediately punched the victim three times to the head with a closed right fist. ZB then wrestled the victim to the floor where he continued to punch the victim to the head and the body; 5. whilst the victim is on the ground CD can be seen to kick the victim to the head. JS can be seen to kick the victim to his side; 6. the victim got halfway off the ground when ZB punched him with considerable force in an uppercut motion with a right closed fist contacting the head of the victim. The victim fell back to the ground; 7. the victim tried again to get to his feet; 8. CD again kicked the victim while he was on the ground. JS was nearby at this time; the view of JS is obscured at this time; 9. the victim dragged himself along the floor toward the front door. The victim managed to stand up when SMYTH entered the hallway from a bedroom where had been located, and lunged at the victim with force punching him in the face; 10. following this SMYTH walks away past Scott FROST (not an offender) and can be seen to be looking at his right hand; 11. the camera angle then changed to the front bedroom of the premises where the victim was sitting on the bed, gasping for breath, rubbing his face and rocking back and forth. The victim was clearly dazed and terrified; 12. CD entered the room followed by ZB, both appear to be speaking to and standing over the victim. ZB started gesticulating in a pointing motion in the victims' face. CD tried to leave the room but remained behind ZB. CD puts his arm on ZB's arm in order to hold him back from the victim. ZB pushed CD's arm away. CD tries to hold ZB's arm again unsuccessfully. CD then left the room. The victim leant back away from ZB and placed both of his hands in the air and raised one knee to protect himself. The victim appeared to be pleading with ZB and was clearly in fear; 13. Paul BAMFORTH entered the room and stood next to ZB. ZB continued to threaten the victim and motioned for him to get out of the room. The victim got off the bed and he was pushed through the door by ZB; 14. JS is not depicted in the footage of the events in the front bedroom; 15. The victim walked into another room and sat on the lounge. The victim was visibly distressed. ZB, Paul BAMFORTH and SMYTH followed the victim into the room. CD was not present at this time; 16. ZB is seen to grab a blowtorch from the floor and hold it over the body of the victim who jumped sideways on the lounge. ZB followed the victim holding the torch over his body. The blowtorch was not on; 17. the victim attempts to run from the room and is stopped and directed back to the lounge by Paul BAMFORTH; 18. ZB then punched the victim to the face, the victim's head can be seen to be forced backward. ZB walked away, looked at his hand then returned and stood over the victim while he was laying on the lounge holding his eye; 19. ZB continued to stand over the victim and then moved away. A few minutes later, CD entered the room; 20. Paul BAMFORTH, CD and JS then approached the victim on the lounge, CD punched the victim with twice both hands, towards the head and body of the victim, who was laying on the lounge on his back covering his face, and then backed away. Paul BAMFORTH then stood over the victim, speaking and pointing; 21. Paul BAMFORTH at this time lifted his right leg up and kicked the victim. CD then left the room. JS stood to the side of the room. Paul BAMFORTH continued to stand over the victim while smoking a cigarette. Paul BAMFORTH raised his arm to hit the victim, standing over him and pointing towards his face; 22. Paul BAMFORTH and JS remain in the room, saying things to the victim as he sat on the lounge; 23. JS, FROST and Paul BAMFORTH pointed and yelled things at the victim. JS can be seen to be laughing as Paul BAMFORTH pat him on the shoulder. After a few minutes, CD can be seen standing behind Paul BAMFORTH; 24. CD and JS stood in the room with the victim. JS approached the victim, and the victim can be seen to grab a pillow and place it over his body in an effort to protect himself. CD then approached the victim. CD then left and JS remained standing over the victim. JS then left. CD returned on his phone, spoke to the victim, and left again; 25. after a few minutes, they return to the room where the victim was seated on the lounge and spoke to the victim. CD was not in the room for this interaction. They left the room, and the victim remained in the room by himself; 26. after a few minutes, JS and CD return. JS swung his left arm toward the victim and pulled the victim off the lounge by his legs while CD stood next to him. The victim got back on the lounge and again hugged a pillow to protect himself; 27. CD and JS directed the victim to remove his shirt, shoes and pants leaving the victim in his underwear. CD then left the room; 28. JS and ZB return. ZB and JS appear to be photographing the victim; 29. ZB directed the victim to kneel on the ground and lick the shoe of JS. CD then grabbed the victim by the hair and walked him over to a corner of the room where the others were standing. CD then returned by himself towards the couch, and then returned to the group. CD then leaves the room, followed by the others, except for Paul BAMFORTH and the victim. The footage ends at 11.59pm; 30. the victim says during this event Paul BAMFORTH attempted to stab him in the legs with a Philips head screwdriver at 11.40pm. Complaint 1. The victim stated Paul BAMFORTH, "bashed [him] inside of that house" and would not let him leave until the morning. 2. The victim stated he went to Paul BAMFORTH and Julia BAMFORTH's house to say hello to ZB. ZB then came out of the room and hit the victim in the face multiple times, and the victim said, "that many times he nearly knocked me out.". 3. The victim ran into another room and sat down, and then Paul BAMFORTH told him to get out of the room. The victim said Paul BAMFORTH, ZB, JS and CD all had a go at bashing him, before the dog bit him on the leg. Julia BAMFORTH was not present for the assault and was just cooking dinner. 4. The victim stated that during the assault, Paul BAMFORTH tried to stab the victim in the legs with a screwdriver. The victim begged him not to. 5. The victim also stated that they also tried to take the victim to Crackneck lookout, but he begged them not to. JS then tried to burn the victim with a blowtorch. 6. The victim recalled he was placed in the boot of CD's car, and they were saying they would take him up to Crackneck lookout. This was following the victim having been knocked out and waking up around 5 or 6 am. 7. They told him to get in the car, tried to take him to Kincumber, and then when the vehicle was stopped at a set of lights, the victim jumped out of the car. Paul BAMFORTH was driving the vehicle (a blue wagon) and SMYTH was sitting in the front passenger seat. The victim was sitting behind, in the back seat. 8. Around 7.30am the victim appeared at his father's house in Green Point, with a black mark under his left eye. The victim disclosed that he had been "bashed by five blokes" and was visibly in pain. The victim's father asked to have a look and saw that there was bruising on the victim's back, and the victim was also complaining of a sore neck. 9. The victim's father contacted Paul BAMFORTH who denied having seen the victim for two days. Jacob SMYTH 1. On 18 March 2021 Jacob SMYTH was arrested and charged. SMYTH denied any knowledge of the assault. He was conveyed to Gosford Police Station where he participated in an ERISP. ERISP with Jacob Smyth 1. On 18 March 2021 SMYTH participated in an electronically recorded interview with police. He advised police that the cannabis located in his bedroom was a gift from his father, that he had initially been given ten ounces, and there may have been around five ounces remaining. 2. He said that on the date of the physical assault on the victim, he came to have some "cones" and beers with ZB. Around 10pm, they received a call from "CD, and apparently the victim was talking all this rubbish about ZB and his family. And, um, ZB went and told Paul." 3. Paul BAMFORTH then made arrangements for the victim to be brought over to the house, where everyone was "punching at him and I stood there, and I yelled at him." 4. SMYTH says he hit the victim one time "and then I backed off. I stood away, stayed out of it. And then I, I told everyone else to get off him. And then I, um, everyone got off him. And then they were still trying to just be disgusting and stuff. So then, um, I kept telling everyone to back off." 5. SMYTH says that he went into ZB's room, that Paul then told everyone to put the victim in the back room, and says he kept going out to the room because he could hear them "having a go at him" and was telling them to walk away. 6. The victim attempted to leave the house and SMYTH observed on two occasions Paul BAMFORTH and JS stopping him. During the evening there were also ongoing threats to "dump him in the forest." 7. Following this, CD and JS left the house, and SMYTH also went home to bed. The following morning, SMYTH returned because he needed a lift from Paul BAMFORTH to go to work. SMYTH says Paul dropped him at Wyoming and had the victim in the car and said he was taking him to Green Point. 8. SMYTH says that during the assault, JS made the victim lick his shoe, and take his clothes off. He said, "if I could've gotten the victim out of that house, I fucking would've but I've got no power." 9. SMYTH said "you can ask (the victim), I was a good cunt to him that night. Dead-set. I made sure the cunt was safe. I made sure no more happened to him. When I saw what they were doing to him that was fucked." 10. When SMYTH first saw the victim the next day, he noticed that there was bruising all over his face, and the victim's eyes were "really shut". 11. SMYTH says he was not able to assist the victim because he "would've brought myself unstuck." JS 1. On 18 March 2021, police attended JS's house. He gave police consent to search his house, and police searched for and located clothing depicted in the footage on 11 February 2021. 2. JS declined to participate in an interview, and a Forensic Procedure was completed. CD 1. On 18 March 2021, police attended the residence of CD and placed him under arrest. 2. Whilst police were attempting to place handcuffs on CD he resisted by moving his arms away, turning and bending his upper body. He continued to struggle and wiggle out of the grip the police had on him. He was taken to the ground, kicked his legs out for a short period, and was eventually handcuffed to the front of his body. Objective Seriousness 1. I have had regard to the Crown's submission in respect of count 65 for Mr Bamforth that the objective seriousness falls at the mid-range of objective seriousness. I have also had regard to the submission from counsel on behalf of Mr Bamforth, who submitted that the offending falls "somewhere around the mid-range" (09/03/2023 at T111.48). 2. I find the objective seriousness falls at the mid-range having regard to the following factors: 1. the duration of the offending, approximately 8 hours; 2. the degradation and humiliation of the victim, including directing him to undress to his underwear, taking photos of him, and directing him to lick a shoe; 3. the threats to take the victim to Crackneck lookout or dump him in the forest; 4. it is apparent that the victim is terrified and cowering during the offending; 5. the fact that the offending only ended when the victim got out of Mr Bamforth's car; 6. any applicable statutory aggravating objective factors, identified above (s21A(2)(cb),(eb),(k)). Arrest of both Paul & Julia Bamforth 1. On 26 February 2021, Julia BAMFORTH was charged with several offences and bail refused. Later that evening, Paul BAMFORTH was arrested and charged. 2. Paul BAMFORTH declined to participate in an ERISP. On being escorted back to the dock, he said to PSC BISHOP "What have I been charged with?" and PSC BISHOP responded, "possess child abuse material, produce child abuse material, as well as aggravated indecent assault." 3. Paul BAMFORTH responded, "But I never touched him" and PSC BISHOP said "I didn't say you touched him. There are videos on your phone showing you filming, which is the production of child abuse material. The videos are on your phone, which is why you were charged with the possession of child abuse material, and you were charged with the aggravated indecent assault as you are on the videos inciting your wife to engage in sexual acts with a child." 4. Paul BAMFORTH then said to PSC BISHOP "Yeah, but he wanted it" and PSC BISHOP responded "He wanted it? He's a 12-year-old boy!". 5. On 10 March 2021 Paul and Julia BAMFORTH were charged with further offences relating to the material located on the telephone belonging to Paul BAMFORTH. 6. A forensic procedure was conducted on both Paul BAMFORTH and Julia BAMFORTH capturing images of their respective tattoos. 7. Identification of each offender is supported by the quality of the footage, their distinctive tattoos, and their voices. JOINT CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE Legal Principles 1. Joint criminal liability arises from the making of an agreement (tacit or express) and the offender's participation in its execution: Huynh v The Queen [2013] HCA 6 at [37]. A person participates in a joint enterprise by being present when the agreed crime is committed: Huynh v The Queen at [38]; Youkhana v R (2015) 249 A Crim R 424 at [13]. Although presence at the actual commission of the crime is sufficient, it is not necessary if the offender participated in some other way in furtherance of the enterprise: Dickson v R (2017) 94 NSWLR 476 at [47]–[48]. 2. Joint criminal liability between two or more persons for a single crime may be established in different ways: 1. where the crime charged is the very crime that each of the participants agreed to commit: Gillard v The Queen (2003) 219 CLR 1 at [109]–[110]; 2. where the crime committed fell within the scope of the joint criminal enterprise agreed upon as a possible incident in carrying out the offence the subject of the joint criminal enterprise: McAuliffe v The Queen (1995) 183 CLR 108 at [114]–[115], affirmed in Miller v The Queen (2016) 259 CLR 380 at [29]; or 3. where the crime committed was one that the accused foresaw might have been committed during the commission of the joint criminal enterprise, although that crime was outside the scope of the joint criminal enterprise: see McAuliffe v The Queen at 115–118 affirmed in Miller v The Queen at [10], [51], [135], and [148]. 1. In cases of joint criminal enterprise, an Offender's degree of culpability is to be assessed by reference to his or her particular conduct (KR v The Queen [2012] NSWCCA 32 at [19]). 2. In R v Wright [2009] NSWCCA 3 at [28]–[29], it was confirmed that in circumstances where conduct by other persons was done in the carrying out of a joint criminal enterprise, to which an offender was a party, then the offender should also be sentenced for that conduct. This is due to the principle that a party to a joint criminal enterprise is to be sentenced for the full range of the criminal acts done by any of the other participating parties in carrying out the enterprise. However, this does not necessarily translate that each individual should receive the same punishment, and any sentencing outcome will turn on the particular circumstances of the case. It is always relevant to refer to the particular conduct of each participant, with a view to identifying the level of culpability for which each must be sentenced (R v JW [2010] NSWCCA 49 at [161]). 3. Different sentences may be called for when the conduct of co-offenders can be differentiated (Lowe v The Queen (1984) 154 CLR 606). This may be so, for example, if one offender stands out as the obvious ring-leader, or abuses some inside knowledge or connection with the premises to carry the crime into effect, or is the person who actually elects to carry out the threat of violence by using the weapon offensively to cause injury to the victim (R v Goundar [2001] NSWCCA 198 at [30] – [34]; R v JW [2010] NSWCCA 49). Roles of the offenders 1. Both the Crown and counsel for Mrs Bamforth submitted that the roles of the offenders were equivalent. Counsel for Mr Bamforth submitted in writing that his client's role in the offending was lesser than that of Mrs Bamforth. 2. In oral submissions, counsel for Mr Bamforth stated, "My ultimate submission is, notwithstanding some of the concessions given by the expert, it's clear that there is a dependency by my client on his wife." (19/05/23 at T21.7). That position was later clarified at T21.19 when it was submitted "I accept that the expert has altered his opinion in that it may affect his opinion so perhaps the term dominated is too strong and too high, too high a watermark but certainly influenced in my respectful submission is still something that your Honour may find on the evidence". I decline to make that finding. 3. Some of the remarks expressed by Dr Lennings may support this submission, including that Mr Bamforth developed a strong dependence upon his wife, that Mr Bamforth had dependency issues and appeared to be dominated by his wife rather than he leading the offending. For reasons provided in the remarks below, I do not accept the opinion of Dr Lennings. 4. Whilst Mrs Bamforth was the principal actor in relation to the vast majority of the sexual offending, it is clear from the facts that Mr Bamforth was entirely complicit. In most cases he provided encouragement and gave directions as to what Mrs Bamforth and the victim were to do. He was often also engaged in the sexual acts, mostly with his wife, although on several occasions with the victim directly. Despite Mr Bamforth's evidence that he offended only for his wife's pleasure, I find that his motive for the offending was his own gratification. 5. The account provided by the victim demonstrates that Mr Bamforth was the initiator of the sexual abuse and regularly gave directions and instructions to others. 6. Significantly, Mr Bamforth was responsible for the filming of the sexual acts, the collating of the videos on various hard drives, and in respect of the child abuse material, was responsible for the preparation of edited compilation recordings which he later reviewed for personal sexual gratification. As observed above, the manner in which recordings are organised on a computer may indicate a more or less sophisticated approach on the part of the offender. 7. In relation to the child abuse material charges, there is no evidence that Mrs Bamforth was involved in either the filming or the subsequent management of the recordings. 8. In respect of that category of offending, Mr Bamforth's role was far superior to that of Mrs Bamforth. This was conceded by counsel for Mr Bamforth on 9/03/2023 at T113.5, "So, with respect to that offence, it's conceded, the 91H, his culpability is higher than his wife's". 9. Notwithstanding that Mrs Bamforth appeared largely to be following the directions of her husband, no submission was made regarding non-exculpatory duress, even though there was evidence of violence in their relationship. 10. I will give further consideration to the question of their respective roles when considering parity, below. IMPACT ON VICTIM Victim Impact Statement 1. A victim impact statement was provided by the victim's mother which details the ongoing harm caused by the offending. 2. She described a wide range of emotions displayed by the victim, including PTSD, enhanced anxiety, depression, flashbacks, anger, sadness, embarrassment, shame, hurt, and loneliness. She described the victim needing help processing these emotions, with either a family member, counsellor, a psychologist or a psychiatrist. 3. The victim impact statement details that the victim got into trouble with the police for carrying a knife, which he did due to feeling threatened and unsafe and a need to protect himself. 4. I accept that the offending has had a very significant and an ongoing effect on the victim. 5. Mr Bamforth tattooed a depiction of a demon on the victim which served as a reminder of the abuse and was the cause of much embarrassment when people would ask about the tattoo. The victim's brother has since covered the image with another tattoo. 6. The victim's mother further described the impact of the drugs given to him by the offenders, which have led to angry outbursts and difficulty managing his own behaviour. 7. The Court's understanding of the long-term implications of child sexual assault on victims is reflected in R v CMB [2014] NSWCCA 5 at [92], which recognised "the profound and deleterious effect that child sexual abuse may have upon victims for many years, if not for the whole of their lives." In this case it is both apparent and obvious that the offending has caused and will continue to cause harm to the victim. The fact that the sexual assaults occurred in the period of time capturing the victim's formative years (12-16 years) would indicate that the harm suffered was profound. Report by Dr Susan Pulman, Psychologist 1. The victim was interviewed and assessed on 28 September 2022 by Dr Susan Pulman, psychologist. 2. Dr Pulman completed a documentation review and noted the victim was diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder Level 2 and ADHD by Dr John Miller Psychiatrist in 2013. He was further diagnosed by Ms Emma Purden, Speech Pathologist in 2021 as having a severe receptive and expressive language disorder with his literacy skills falling at the level of a 10-year-old. Relevantly, Dr Pulman expressed that "his language disorder is also a developmental condition which would have been present during his early school years and therefore present during the court of offending." The victim also has diagnoses of Complex Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, depression and anxiety. 3. Dr Pulman also completed a neuro-psychological assessment of the victim, which indicated that he met the criteria for a Mild to Moderate Intellectual Disability, which is a developmental disorder present before the age of 18, and which is permanent and lifelong. The testing also found that the victim's attention and concentration skills and his information processing speed were well below age expectations, falling within the extremely low range. Further, his ability to learn and recall new verbal information was poor. 4. Dr Pulman concluded that: "[The victim's] capacity to make a decision to freely and voluntarily participate in the sexual acts following his 16th birthday, considering the nature of the impairment and the course of offending committed upon him between the ages of 7 and 16, would likely have been substantially impaired." 1. Dr Pulman further opined that: "…child complainant[s] irrespective of their level of cognitive functioning often continue to comply with sexual abuse many years after the commencement of the abuse despite them not participating in the sexual acts voluntarily and being aged over 16 years." 1. Having given careful consideration to the evidence, I confidently find that victim suffered substantial psychological harm. 2. It is clear from the facts that the offenders were aware of the victim's impairment. He was variously referred to as "little cry baby retard", "retardo", "ugly little retard", "retard boy" and "dumb". In respect of the charges regarding committing an offence against a victim with a cognitive impairment, these facts establish that the offenders were aware of same. In respect of all other offences against the victim, they prove knowledge of his vulnerability enlivening the finding under s21A(2)(l). I note that the aggravating factor does not apply to those offences in respect of which cognitive impairment is a circumstance of aggravation. PAUL BAMFORTH'S SUBJECTIVE CASE 1. Mr Bamforth was born on 21 December 1972 and is currently 51 years of age. When the offending commenced, he was aged 43 years and he was 48 years of age at the time of his arrest. Report of Dr Christopher Lennings, Psychologist 1. Exhibit 1 is a psychological report by Dr Lennings dated 12 December 2022 following a consultation with Mr Bamforth via AVL on 8 December 2022. The following factors warrant reference in relation to Mr Bamforth's subjective case. 2. He was abused by youth workers as a 12-year-old year old, including an attempt to anally rape him. I note Dr Lennings finding that he "did not report recurring thoughts about it and it does not appear to be an enduring issue for him or related to the current offences". 3. Mr Bamforth's father was an angry man and a stern and harsh disciplinarian, who displayed abusive behaviour including pulling his hair and pulling his pants down and thrashing him on the bottom with a strap. 4. At aged 11 he began smoking cannabis and "got in with the wrong crowd", resulting in involvement in the juvenile justice system until 1996 when he was last in gaol (although his criminal record continues until 2018). 5. At a point in time, he was diagnosed with ADHD but never took medication for it. He was also diagnosed with epilepsy as a child; however, his last seizure was when he was about 9 years of age. 6. Mr Bamforth left school in year 10 and obtained a panel beating/spray painting certificate from TAFE. He worked as a spray painter until 1996/7 when he injured his back and began receiving the disability support pension. He has not worked since. 7. He was prescribed Oxycontin in 1999/2000 and was eventually taking up to 640 milligrams a day (8x 80 milligram tablets) according to the history he provided to Dr Lennings. Dr Lennings indicated that this was "an extremely large does given that my research indicates the maximum safe dose is 288 milligrams a day". Mr Bamforth told Dr Lennings that his prescribing doctors had subsequently been de-registered for over prescribing Oxycontin. Dr Lennings further noted that "on the basis of information provided as a summary of his medical records, by the time of the offence he was on a dose of 80 milligrams per day". There is no other evidence which would support the suggestion of Mr Bamforth taking 640 milligrams of OxyContin daily at any time. I reject the evidence in this respect. 8. Mr Bamforth says the Oxycontin made him tired and slow, so he commenced using amphetamine and later methamphetamine to "pep himself up", developing a co-occurring ice habit. At some point he tried MDMA but not during the period of offending. Whatever the reason given for the illicit drug use, it was a personal choice. 9. He met his wife in 1996 and described a generally loving and caring relationship. He denied any violence or AVOs in his relationship, which is in contradiction with the account provided by Julia Bamforth to forensic mental health clinician Lee Knight who noted, "she alleged that her husband was physically violent towards her at times, stating that he would punch her in the face." Mr Bamforth was asked about an alleged incident of physical violence towards Mrs Bamforth in cross examination by the Crown on 22/02/2023 at T42.28-30: "Q. There is a video of Julia sitting on the toilet, and you coming into the toilet and punching her in the face. Is that -- yes? A. There's no – there's no video in the toilet." 1. Further questions were asked by Counsel for Mr Bamforth on the same date at T43.37-43: "Q. Do you remember an occasion where Julia was sitting on the toilet and you went in there and you punched her in the face. A. No. Q. I've asked you if you remembered. Are you saying it could have happened, but you don't remember, or are you denying that that occurred? A. No remembered. I don't remember that at all. 1. And at T43.50: "Q. In relation to your evidence that there were fights during the course of your marriage, the fights would include you punching her in the face on occasion, isn't it? A. No. Q. There's times when you would punch her in the face. A. No, I don't remember that. Q. Well, are you denying it, or you just don't remember it? A. No, I'm not – not denying it, because we did have – we had – we did have fights, me and her, you know, but nothing to get the police about or assault charges or anything like that. They were – they were just argument fights. Always – always, like, the next – the next day, always good. That night, good. You know, like, never went to bed angry." 1. On 9/03/2023 Exhibit E was tendered by the Crown, a short video which depicts Mr Bamforth assaulting Mrs Bamforth. The following questions were asked at T89.49: "Q. First of all Mr Bamforth, do you accept that that's your voice on that recording? A. Yes, and I didn't - I didn't punch her, I was - look, I slapped her on the - on the side of the head. Q. So, you say that was a slap, and you accept that at the time you slapped her she was upset and sitting there? A. No, she had no tears or anything in her eyes. Q. Sorry? A. She had no tears or anything in her eyes. Q. So, you don't think she was upset at that point in time, at the time you slapped her? A. Well, she had no tears in her eyes and. I - we - we had a lot of arguments. You can ask her, like get - let her give evidence." 1. Mr Bamforth's evidence is unconvincing and downplays the violence in his relationship. It is plain from all of the evidence, including the child abuse material, that Mr Bamforth was a dominant partner in the marriage. To the extent that Dr Lennings expressed a contrary view, I reject his opinion. 2. Mr Bamforth reported that Mrs Bamforth had a high sex drive and that at times he struggled to keep up with her. He described watching pornography and that he was interested in "normal porn" including threesomes, lesbian and consensual sex pornography. This is at odds with the agreed facts that the victim's father observed Mr Bamforth watching pornography that involved acts of bestiality. He denied ever engaging with child abuse material, again, in contradiction with the account provided by Mrs Bamforth to Mr Knight. I prefer Mrs Bamforth's account and reject this statement by Mr Bamforth as untruthful. 3. It is apparent from the fact that Mr Bamforth lied to Dr Lennings about the offending and his role in it, and that the reliability of the broader history provided by the offender is questionable. 4. Dr Lennings provided his opinion that Mr Bamforth's "dependency upon his wife meant that he prioritised pleasing her to the extent that he abandoned any moral scruples he might have otherwise considered" and that "the offending pattern appears dominated by his wife, rather than he leading the offending". I reject that opinion and find that Mr Bamforth and Mrs Bamforth are equally culpable for the criminal conduct. If either of them was the dominant actor, I find that it was Mr Bamforth. As previously outlined, Mr Bamforth provided encouragement, gave directions, and was often also engaged in the sexual acts, mostly with his wife, although on several occasions with the victim directly. These aspects of the offending were clearly outlined in the agreed facts to which Dr Lennings had access when formulating his report, but to which he seemed to have no regard. 5. When giving evidence in Court on 19 May 2023 Dr Lennings stated at T12.48-49 that "this is a guy who appeared to have gone inwards and there was no – as I said earlier, no sense of autonomy about his behaviour". At T13.36-37 when asked whether Mr Bamforth's decision to film the sexual acts would be to a degree autonomous, Dr Lennings responded, "It could be, but it would depend on whether or not he had been given permission to provide direction or not." I don't fully understand that answer, and in any event, reject that evidence. Dr Lennings was an unimpressive witness who displayed an unwillingness to make obvious concessions in his evidence. 6. He also acknowledged that in many instances there were inconsistencies between the agreed facts and what he was told by Mr Bamforth. Dr Lennings said that Mr Bamforth was "flipping and flopping" throughout the interview, was defensive and was unable to engage with the police facts. Notwithstanding this, the expert's opinion was formulated based on what he was told by Mr Bamforth. Ultimately in evidence, Dr Lennings accepted that Mr Bamforth probably would meet the diagnosis for paraphilia (T18.23). The offender's attitude to the offending 1. Putting to one side the criminal acts engaged in, one of the most troubling aspects of this matter is the attitude of Mr Bamforth. Of course, none of this reflects at all upon Mrs Bamforth. 2. Although guilty pleas were entered by Mr Bamforth in the Local Court on 16 September 2022, when the matter was first mentioned before me on 22 February 2023, I was informed that he had instructed to withdraw his pleas. After receiving advice from his then counsel, he maintained his pleas. Mr Bamforth was then arraigned before me. Care was taken to ensure that he understood each of the charges for sentence. The arraignment was, at times, paused for the offender's counsel or me to explain to the offender the factual and, at times, legal basis for the charge. The latter in particular, involved an explanation of criminal responsibility in the context of joint criminal enterprise. The offender's attitude was that as it was his wife who was engaged in the sexual acts with the victim, and that she was solely responsible. 3. Another aspect of Mr Bamforth's attitude was that he sought to blame the victim and the victim's father for the offending. This was utterly baseless, but again, demonstrated a lack of acceptance of responsibility by the offender. Examples include the following: 4. On 22/02/2023, T37.46-T38.12: "Q. And was his father aware of what was going on? A. Yes, your Honour. Even in (the victim's father's) statement, it said that [the victim] told him that, what was going on, and [the victim] said "don't tell – don't say anything" and (the father) goes "oh, I won't. It's okay." And (the father) used to bring him over all the time, you know? Like – like I said, your Honour, this has like – been blown right out of proportion. I-- Q. Didn't his father approach you at one point, and ask you whether you'd been abusing his son? A. Never. Not – not once. Q. But you say that he was already aware of the fact that you were having – you and your wife were having sex with his son? A. Yes. Because he was coming over from the age of – while I thought it was 13, but it was 12. So from the age of 12, he was coming over all the time up until he was 17 years old, until we got arrested. On his own free will; his father would bring him over – like, it was – yeah." (emphasis added) 1. On 22/02/2023, T52.9-31: "Q. When you said, "This has all been blown out of proportion, you were referring to all of your sexual offending against [the victim] – weren't you? A. I was just referring to the whole thing that – the way – the way it's – like, how everything's come about. Like, how you – how youse have worded it, and everything like that. 'Cause that's, like – like, how it happened. Like I'd said, he – he come in on his own free will the whole way through. You know? Like, his – his old man would come – brought him over, dropped him off and stayed there with him. And-- Q. So you think his old man is to blame? A. I don't think his old man's to blame. But his old man's, like – he knew about it as well. Like, in – he was like, "Yeah, no worries". Like, "Good on you". Like – you know? And it-- Q. And you-- A. --wasn't – wasn't so it was – just happened when he was younger. He – he would – he was coming around all the way 'til he was 17 years old. You know? Like – like, on his own free will. Q. So you think [the victim] is to blame for going there of his own free will. Is that right? A. I don't think anyone's to blame. You know?" 1. On 22/02/2023, T56.24-27: "Q. What about [the victim]? Did you get sexual satisfaction out of having sex with your wife and [the victim]? A. I just let – I just let him do it because he wanted to do it, your Honour, like, that's pretty much what it was." 1. On 22/02/2023, T56.50-T57.1: "Q: But you accept you performed oral sex on [the victim]? A: Yeah, not three times. And he put his penis in my hand." 1. On 22/02/2023, T59.11-14: "Q. You had no regard for what [the victim] wanted at all, did you? You didn't care what [the victim] wanted. A. [The victim] wanted this, otherwise it would never have happened. Like I said, this wasn't planned. He used to come around on his own free will." 1. In Dr Lennings Report, paragraph 6: "He said the 'boy was never made to have sex', he 'sought it out', and could not see that his behaviour might have caused harm to the boy." 1. Mr Bamforth also attempted to downplay the gravity of his offending, again demonstrating a lack of awareness of both the gravity of his conduct and the impact it had on the young victim. Examples include the following: 2. On 22/02/2023, T37.50-T38.1: "Like I said, your Honour, this has like- been blown right out of proportion." 1. On 9/03/2023, T74.35-45: "Q: No, but you were engaging in this sexual conduct with [the victim], by directing in and encouraging your wife to do it for your own gratification, do you accept that? A: No, for my wife's gratification Q: Only for your wife's gratification? A: Yes Q: Not your own? A: No, I mean I was – it was gratifying for me because my wife was enjoying it." 1. On 22/02/2023, T50.46-T51.21: "Q: Whose idea was it to sexually abuse the boy? A: My wife's Q Your wife's. A: Yeah. Well, joint. Joint. Go joint. … Q Why did you say your wife's a minute ago? A: Just don't want to get in troubles, your Honour. Q: Sorry? A: I don't want to get her into too much trouble. Q: What what's the truthful answer though? Whose idea was it to engage with [the victim] in sexual activities? A: My wife" 1. In the circumstances I am unable to make findings regarding remorse, rehabilitation and risk of reoffending which are favourable to this offender, notwithstanding his ultimate adherence to the guilty pleas. 2. I make this finding despite submissions by counsel for Mr Bamforth that "his adherence to the pleas of guilty ought to be characterised as evidence of his remorse for his offending." Counsel also referred to the case of Georgopolous v R [2010] NSWCCA 246 at [45]: "The Court indicated at [44] that no separate discount should be given for remorse. But it does not follow, and it would be inconsistent with s 21A(3)(i), that remorse falling within the section cannot lead to a more lenient sentence." 1. I have no doubt that Mr Bamforth's guilty pleas were due only to the overwhelmingly strong Crown case which in respect of each charge was supported by objective incontrovertible evidence, namely CCTV recordings or videos. 2. I note that at Mr Bamforth was quite emotional at one point when giving evidence on 9/03/2023 at T76.47 when he said "I'd never do it again either. I'm sorry, okay." I do not consider that to be an expression of remorse, but rather the offender being regretful of and coming to terms with the seriousness of the situation in which he finds himself. Lies told by Mr Bamforth 1. Mr Bamforth has consistently lied to the police, Dr Lennngs, and in his evidence. 2. On a number of occasions, he denied sexually touching the victim, examples include the following: 1. On 22/02/2023, T34.32-34: Q: so other than that count (Count 58), you're saying in respect of all the other counts of sexual touching or intercourse, you didn't actually touch him" A: "I never touched him at all" 1. On 22/02/2023, T36.14: "I never touched him in any way, but I'm very sorry." 1. On 9/03/2023, T69.34-40: "Q: Are you 100% confident that you never masturbated the victim on more than one occasion? A: Yes Q: And are you 100% confident you never masturbated the victim when he was below the age of 16? A: 100%" 1. Dr Lenning's Report, paragraph 4: "He denies any sexual touch of the child." 1. Following his arrest: "[Mr Bamforth] said to PSC BISHOP 'What have I been charged with?' and PSC BISHOP responded, 'possess child abuse material, produce child abuse material, as well as aggravated indecent assault.' Paul BAMFORTH responded, 'But I never touched him'." 1. These lies are directly at odds with the agreed facts signed by the offender, specifically, counts 27, 46 and 55 for Mr Bamforth, which all involved him masturbating the victim, and count 58, which arose from Mr Bamforth performing oral sex on the victim on three occasions. Further, in count 54 Mr Bamforth licked the genital (penis/testicle) area of the victim while the victim was having penile-vaginal sexual intercourse with the co-accused. I note that counts 27 and 46 were when the victim was under the age of 16. I find that Mr Bamforth engaged in this offending behaviour for his own perverted sexual gratification. 2. Mr Bamforth further lied about providing and sharing drugs with the victim: 1. On 22/02/2023, T37.11: "Q: So at no point did you provide him [the victim] with drugs? A: No. Not, no." 1. On 22/02/2023, T39.15: "Q: And did you have your own ice pipe?... So you weren't sharing a pipe? A: Nah. No." 1. On 9/03/2023, T83.25-39: "Q So you accept there were times when you at least provided [the victim] with drugs by handing him drugs? A: I, I accept the fact that I smoked the drugs and [the victim] was there, yes. No, I don't- no I don't actually even remember giving him ice. I'd never give no- I've never given him ice. Q: You've never given him ice? A: No Q: And I'm not talking about selling him ice, just to be clear Mr Bamforth, I'm talking about handing him drugs for him to smoke. A: No, I've never handed him drugs to smoke. 1. These statements are contradicted by the agreed facts signed by Mr Bamforth, particularly for counts 43, 45, 46 and 62. Count 43 involved the offender using an ice pipe in front of the victim. Counts 45, 46 and 62 involved the offender using an ice pipe and then handing it to the victim who also uses it. CCTV footage of count 62 was tendered as Exhibit F and depicted Mr Bamforth handing an ice pipe to the victim. I find that Mr Bamforth provided the victim with drugs to facilitate his participation in the vile sexual offending. 2. Mr Bamforth also lied about his role in directing and filming videos of the offending: 1. On 9/03/2023, T72.22-24: "Q: Now you regularly filmed these sexual acts with your wife. And you regularly encouraged Julia to have sex with [the victim], do you agree with that? A: No" 1. On 9/03/2023, T74.35-45: "Q: No, but you were engaging in this sexual conduct with [the victim], by directing in and encouraging your wife to do it for your own gratification, do you accept that? A: No for my wife's gratification Q: Only for your wife's gratification? A: Yes Q: Not your own? A: No, I mean I was – it was gratifying for me because my wife was enjoying it." 1. I have already found that in relation to many charges Mr Bamforth provided encouragement and gave directions as to what Mrs Bamforth and the victim were to do. All of the offences were either filmed by CCTV or directly by Mr Bamforth using his phone. 2. Mr Bamforth also lied about his role in editing and storing videos of the offending: 1. On 9/03/2023, T77.43-45: "Q: And you made that compilation video using the application, Kite Video, so that you could watch it for your own gratification. A: No" 1. On 9/03/2023, T79.39-42: "Q: And you would name those folders, so you'd know how to reference those videos? A: No. The folder names were like all I said, "a b", like big, long things, like you've already said before." 1. This sworn evidence is directly at odds with video 3 of counts 20 and 21 which were titled "SUCK OFF.AVI", a folder retrieved from the Toshiba Laptop titled "My little cock lover", and the evidence provide by Mr Bamforth on the 9/03/2023 at T80.9-11: "Q: So you consciously placed names on them, and those names were based on the content of that video file? A: Maybe. Yes. Yes." 1. Mr Bamforth lied about his knowledge of the victim's cognitive impairment: 1. On 22/02/2023, T54.38-40: "Q: But you knew that he was vulnerable because of his learning disability and his intellectual disability. A: No. He's like a normal person to me." 1. On 22/02/2023, T56.8-10: "Q: And that you sought to take advantage of [the victim], partly because he was cognitively impaired. A: No. That's not true at all." 1. As previously remarked, it is clear from the facts that the offenders were both aware of the victim's impairment. He was variously referred to as terms including "little cry baby retard". 2. Further, Mr Bamforth lied about his violence against Mrs Bamforth: 1. On 9/03/2023, T89.29-34: "Q: Is it possible that you punched your wife in the toilet without it being in the context of an argument with her? A: No, No. No. Q: Is that possible? A: No" 1. Dr Lenning's Report, paragraph 21: "Mr Bamforth denies any violence in his relationship" 1. This evidence by Mr Bamforth is at odds with the evidence in Mrs Bamforth's psychological report, which will be discussed in detail later in these remarks. 2. Finally, Mr Bamforth has lied about his involvement in and knowledge of the take and detain offending: 3. On 22/02/2023, T40.8-15: "Q: And you realise, you're responsible, again, with this concept of joint criminal enterprise, for what your son's mates did? You understand that? That you were in the house, at least at periods of time, and you're responsible for that? A Yes, but wait Q: And you accept that? A: I had no control over what they did your Honour. Like- I had no control over what they did." 1. I do not accept this evidence. The victim was brought to Mr Bamforth's house at the Bamforth's request. He was the only mature adult present. He directed the activity of others. He stood over, seemingly yelled abuse and also kicked the victim in the face. He was the person in control who stopped the victim leaving the house. This is all clear from Exhibit C, the recording of the take/detain offence and the agreed facts to which I have already made reference. 2. On 22/02/2023, T41.22-28: "Q: And you then arranged for CD to bring the victim to your house? A: That's lies, your Honour. That's lies. He was brought to my house because like I said to you, he told everybody we had drugs in the house. Drugs in the roof and the walls and that. And my son – my son's actually the one that got him to come over." 1. This is at odds with the agreed facts signed by the offenders, in particular: "On the 11th of February 2021, the victim was with JS and CD at a location in Narara. There was contact between CD and the BAMFORTHS where CD informed the BAMFORTHS that the victim was calling Mr BAMFORTH a 'paedophile' and was telling people that he had been 'touched up' by the BAMFORTHS. The BAMFORTHS then arranged for CD to bring the victim to their residence at Narara." 1. Once again Mr Bamforth gave evidence in Court under oath which is inconsistent with the signed agreed facts. 2. On 9/03/2023, T93.18-21: "Q: After you saw him being assaulted in the hallway you didn't assist him to leave, did you? A: I didn't – I didn't see him getting assaulting in the hallway. By the time I got there he was already up and running into the bedroom." 1. This evidence is contradicted by Exhibit C, which depicts the offender standing beside the victim who is on the ground in the hallway being kicked and punched by the co-offenders. At one point Mr Bamforth raised one of his feet as if to stomp on the head of the victim, although it is not clear from the recording whether that occurred. 2. On 9/03/2023, T92.50-T93.4: "Q: but you didn't stop it at that point in time, did you? A: I did stop it, cause when – when I got there he went into our bedroom then my son went into the bedroom after him and I went- that's when I went into the bedroom and said "no, stop, what's going? , I didn't know what was going on." 1. I do not accept this evidence. It is at odds with the agreed facts and the video recording. 2. In the circumstances I find that Mr Bamforth is an untruthful witness whose evidence cannot be accepted, unless corroborated by other reliable evidence. I find that he has repeatedly lied to the expert, the police, and in Court. JULIA BAMFORTH'S SUBJECTIVE CASE 1. Mrs Bamforth was born on 29 July 1973. She is now 50 years of age. She was 42 years of age when the offending commenced and 47 years old upon her arrest. Report of Lee Knight, Forensic Mental Health Clinican 1. Exhibit 1 is a psychiatric report by Lee Knight dated 7 February 2023. His report was completed following a consultation via AVL on 21 October 2022. Mr Knight expressed the view that Mrs Bamforth meets the diagnostic criteria for paedophilic disorder, specified paraphilic disorder, namely necrophilia, stimulant use disorder and opioid use disorder. 2. When providing an account of the offences Mrs Bamforth told Mr Knight that she asked the victim if he wanted to participate in the sexual acts and he said yes. She further stated that she knows what they did was wrong. She denied the CCTV in their home was to specifically video record the sexual acts they were engaged in, and she suggested that they recorded 24 hours a day in case they were victims of a break and enter. She told Mr Knight that she is sorry that she offended, that she "wish[es] she had not offended", and she was embarrassed by her offending. Mrs Bamforth blamed her offending on her drug use, stating that she "believe[s] it was the drugs [causing her to sexually offend]". Of course, self-induced intoxication is not a mitigating factor (s21A(5AA)). 3. In terms of Mrs Bamforth's drug and alcohol history, she commenced using amphetamines at the age of 42, and consumed the substance once every three days for about six months. From the age of 43 until incarcerated she used crystalline methamphetamine (ice), smoking up to half a ball of the substance daily. Mr Bamforth in cross-examination confirmed that he introduced Mrs Bamforth to ice (22.02.23 T46.10). In her mid-40s she smoked heroin around five times. She abused Oxycontin from the age of 44 to 48, using 40mg per day. From the age of 46 she used cocaine twice per week and MDMA three to four times per week. 4. Mrs Bamforth described her childhood, education, vocational and relationship history. Her childhood is best described as unremarkable. She was born in Gosford, had a lot of friends as a child, her mother was a competent parent, despite her alcohol dependence, and she continues to have a good relationship with her parents and brother. 5. She attended school from kindergarten to year 12. She was employed at a newsagency for two years from the age of 13, at a factory for two years from the age of 18, with her father as a casual traffic controller for around 5 years at 20, and as an Assistant in Nursing for two years at age 33. She has not held employment since she was 35 years of age and has been a recipient of the Disability Support Pension since then due to a back injury sustained in a motor vehicle accident. 6. Mrs Bamforth has had one other relationship at aged 20, which lasted approximately 2 years. Her next relationship was with Mr Bamforth when she was 24. They have been married approximately 23 years and raised a son together. She told Mr Knight that she intends to remain married to Mr Bamforth, that they write to each other whilst in custody, and that they intend to live together when they are no longer incarcerated. 7. The report also contains a comprehensive psychosexual assessment. Mrs Bamforth described that Mr Bamforth would frequently watch pornography and she would watch it with him, including bestiality, necrophilia, and child exploitation material which she found to be sexually arousing only when using illicit substances. Again, this contradicts what Mr Bamforth said to Dr Lennings. She further stated with respect to child exploitation material, that she preferred the children to be older than 10 years. 8. Mrs Bamforth told Mr Knight that she generally preferred to have sexual intercourse with adults, but whilst using illicit substances she preferred to have sex with adults 70% of the time and children 30% of the time. She denied having any sexual interest in children when not using illicit substances. When discussing the offending Mrs Bamforth stated that sometimes "she just went along with it" however most of the time she was "as into it as Paul". This would further suggest that Mr Bamforth was the dominant offender. 9. Mr Knight completed an RSVP-V2 risk assessment and identified Mrs Bamforth as requiring intervention in the following domains: P1 extreme minimisation of sexual violence, P2 attitudes that support or condone sexual violence, P3 problems with self-awareness, P6 sexual deviance, P10 problems with substance use, and P11 problems with sexually violent ideation. Offender's Letter to the Court 1. Exhibit 2 is a letter from Mrs Bamforth in which she expressed deep remorse and accepted responsibility and regret for the harm she has caused to the victim. She acknowledges that the offending would have 'traumatised' the victim and that she has ruined the life of an innocent child. I accept that Mrs Bamforth is remorseful and she has demonstrated remorse to the level required under s 21A(3), so as to establish it as a mitigating factor. 2. I have made this finding despite submissions from the Crown that Exhibit 2 should be given very little weight in the absence of Mrs Bamforth providing oral evidence in the Court. Mrs Bamforth has steadfastly maintained her guilt and has in no way sought to shift blame to her husband, the victim, or the victim's father. Elsewhere in these remarks I have expressed a preference for evidence in her subjective case over the evidence in Mr Bamforth's case, which I found was either untruthful or otherwise unreliable. I have no reason to doubt the truthfulness of Mrs Bamforth's letter which I accept without hesitation. 3. There is a consistency between what she said to Mr Knight and what she said in her letter to the Court, which warrants acceptance of both sources of evidence. It is plain that she accepts responsibility and acknowledges the wicked behaviour engaged in by her and Mr Bamforth, involving this victim. Mr Bamforth's Medical Evidence 1. Yesterday, there was an application by counsel for Mrs Bamforth in order for her to give evidence regarding her current medical condition. That application was consented to by the Crown and she was sworn in and gave evidence. 2. Mrs Bamforth gave her evidence in a straightforward manner, and I have no reason to question its's accuracy. I found her to be an honest and reliable witness. 3. Mrs Bamforth was diagnosed with leukemia by a Dr Shetty in September 2023. She has received chemotherapy for the past 6 months, which has occurred for a period of two weeks each month. While undergoing chemotherapy she is "locked in a cell" within the clinic for 2 weeks, and the remaining two weeks are spent in gaol where she advises she does not see anyone. 4. Prior to chemotherapy she held a job in custody, which she stopped while undergoing treatment. 5. Fortunately, the latest medical information is that Mrs Bamforth's condition is currently in remission. She has just concluded chemotherapy. Mrs Bamforth gave evidence, which I accept, that her condition is treatable but not curable, and could come back at any time. Her specialist has told her that when her blood levels return to normal, she can return to general population at the corrections facility, but there is no certainty to when that will occur. There is also uncertainty surrounding the symptoms relating to her prognosis, which could return at any time. 6. The chemotherapy has had a negative impact on Mrs Bamforth making her quite sick and causing her to vomit. She described the chemotherapy as being "very hard on her body". 7. I note that she has an appointment schedule in March to undergo a bone marrow biopsy and further blood tests, which will inform her return to general population. 8. I acknowledge Mrs Bamforth's evidence given in cross examination that the diagnosis may never return, and that she may never require chemotherapy again. She has received no indication as to the likelihood of her cancer returning. 9. In the circumstances of her diagnosis, I find that her time in custody has been and may continue to be more onerous than it otherwise would be. STATUTORY MITIGATING FACTORS (s21A(3)) (e) the offender does not have any record (or any significant record) of previous convictions and (f) the offender was a person of good character 1. I do not understand Counsel for either offender to rely on good character. Nonetheless, it is necessary to have regard to subsection (5A), which dictates that "In determining the appropriate sentence for a child sexual offence, the good character or lack of previous convictions of can offender is not to be taken into account as a mitigating factor if the court is satisfied that the factor concerned was of assistance to the offender in the commission of the offence." I find that both offenders' good character and lack of previous convictions of child sexual offending facilitated their access to the victim, and on that basis, I decline to apply this as a mitigating factor in respect of the child sexual abuse offences. (h) the offender has good prospects of rehabilitation, whether by reason of the offender's age or otherwise 1. With regard to the offenders' prospects of rehabilitation, I find that Mr Bamforth has shown no insight into his offending, he accepts no responsibility (other than the guilty pleas in face of overwhelming Crown case) and accordingly I find his prospects of rehabilitation are extremely poor. To be frank, Mr Bamforth is a paedophile, and he is in denial about that fact. His risk of re-offending is tied to the prospect of successful rehabilitation, which I consider extremely remote. 2. Based on Mrs Bamforth's acceptance of her responsibility and acknowledgement of its impact, I consider that she does have prospects for successful rehabilitation, however, the only finding I can make in this regard is that it is guarded. Her risk of re-offending turns on the cessation of consuming illicit substances and engaging in the rehabilitation of the type recommended by Mr Knight. I am unable to make an assessment as to her risk of re-offending. (i) the remorse shown by the offender for the offence, but only if-- (i) the offender has provided evidence that he or she has accepted responsibility for his or her actions, and (ii) the offender has acknowledged any injury, loss or damage caused by his or her actions or made reparation for such injury, loss or damage (or both) 1. For reasons already given, I decline to find remorse in the case of Mr Bamforth. 2. In relation to Mrs Bamforth, I have previously in these remarks found that she has expressed genuine remorse and insight into her offending. She has accepted responsibility of her actions and acknowledged the damage caused to the victim. She is entitled to a finding of remorse in mitigation of her sentence. (k) a plea of guilty by the offender 1. Plainly, the offenders' guilty pleas are a mitigating factor entitling them to a 25% discount on sentence (s25D). In the context of Mr Bamforth indicating his intention to traverse the plea, it is within my power to reduce the discount, however, I have decided not to do so. Ultimately, maintaining his guilty pleas has avoided the victim being further traumatised by giving evidence at a trial. PURPOSES OF SENTENCING 1. Section 3A sets out the purposes for which a sentence may be imposed: 1. (a) to ensure that the offender is adequately punished for the offence; 2. to prevent crime by deterring the offender and other persons from committing similar offences; 3. to protect the community from the offender; 4. to promote the rehabilitation of the offender; 5. to denounce the conduct of the offender; and 6. to recognise the harm done to the victim of the crime and the community. 1. Aside from the fundamental obligation ensuring adequate punishment, the purposes for sentence which are prominent in cases such as these are deterrence, denunciation and the recognition of the considerable harm done to the victim and caused to the community by offending of this type. S5 THRESHOLD 1. For the principal charges, I find that the section 5 threshold is crossed and that no form of punishment other than one of imprisonment by way of full-time custody is reasonable or appropriate in the circumstances. 2. In respect of the related charges, whilst there may ordinarily be alternatives to imprisonment, given that the offenders will be in custody for a lengthy period and unable to serve any community-based order, I find that for those offences, no penalty other than imprisonment is appropriate. To impose any other form of penalty would be futile. TABLES OF INDICATIVE TERMS AND OBJECTIVE SERIOUSNESS 1. I intend to impose an aggregate sentence. Before doing so I am required to provide indicative terms. The two Tables attached to these remarks set out my findings as to objective seriousness and also provides the indicative terms and indicative non-parole periods, as applicable. A copy of these remarks and the Tables will be available to the parties. For the benefit of the offenders, I make the following references to the Tables specifying the maximum penalties, standard non-parole periods, findings of objective seriousness, and the indicative terms. PARITY GENERALLY Legal Principles 1. The parity principle is an aspect of the objectives of achieving consistency and equality before the law, that is the treatment of like cases alike, and different cases differently: Green v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 462 at [28]. 2. The decision of Lowe v The Queen (1984) 154 CLR 606 is cited as the principal source of the parity principle. Dawson J, with whom Wilson J agreed, summarised the parity principle as follows at [623]: "There is no rule of law which requires co-offenders to be given the same sentence for the same offence even if no distinction can be drawn between them. Obviously where the circumstances of each offender or his involvement in the offence are different then different sentences may be called for but justice should be even-handed and it has come to be recognised both here and in England that any difference between the sentences imposed upon co-offenders for the same offence ought not to be such as to give rise to a justifiable sense of a grievance on the part of the offender with the heavier sentence or to give the appearance that justice has not been done." 1. In order to determine whether parity applies, it is necessary to consider whether failure to apply the principle would result in a justifiable sense of grievance for a party. This is an objective test. In Green, the majority further considered at [31]: "The sense of grievance necessary to attract appellate intervention with respect to disparate sentences is to be assessed by objective criteria. The application of the parity principle does not involve a judgment about the feelings of the person complaining of disparity. The court will refuse to intervene where disparity is justified by differences between co-offenders such as age, background, criminal history, general character and the part each has played in the relevant criminal conduct or enterprise." 1. The Court of Criminal Appeal has endorsed the proposition that it will be "cautious" and "not overly willing" to intervene where a sentencing judge has recognised the importance of the parity principle and gave effect to it: Stocco, Gino v R; Stocco, Mark v R [2018] NSWCCA 77 at [173]; Dawson v R [2021] NSWCCA 53 at [36]. Indeed, Hoeben CJ at CL observed in Dawson at [62]: "This Court has observed that "considerable obstacles" are placed before an application contending error on a parity basis where a sentencing judge is fully aware of the sentences imposed upon co-offenders and the reasons for those sentences, and provides reasons for departing from those sentences." 1. In Lloyd v R [2017] NSWCCA 303 at [96] Hoeben CJ at CL (with whome Payne JA and Garling J agreed) noted: "It is a basic principle of appellate review of sentencing that 'there is no single correct sentence' and 'judges at first instance are to be allowed as much flexibility in sentencing as is consonant with consistency of approach and as accords with the statutory regime that applies (citations omitted)." Parity as between Paul and Julia Bamforth 1. As noted, both the Crown and counsel for Mrs Bamforth submitted that the two offenders should receive the same sentence. On behalf of Mr Bamforth it was submitted that his sentence should be less on account of the fact that his role was less significant than his wife's role. I do not accept that submission. 2. A careful analysis of the facts demonstrate that Mr Bamforth was the dominant offender for the following reasons: 1. according to the victim, the sexual contact between the victim and the offenders was initiated by Mr Bamforth; 2. in many instances the acts engaged in by Mrs Bamforth with the victim were at the direction or instruction of Mr Bamforth; 3. other than images captured by fixed CCTV cameras, the video recordings were created, that is, filmed, by Mr Bamforth; 4. notwithstanding his denials, he was also responsible for sorting the recordings and preparing compilation videos; 5. according to the victim, it was Mr Bamforth who provided him with illicit substances to "fuck his wife"; and 6. Mr Bamforth is also to be sentenced for the separate and quite distinct and serious offence of detaining the victim whilst in company and with the intention of committing a serious indictable offence, namely intimidation and causing actual bodily harm. 1. Also relevant to the question of parity are my findings regarding remorse in relation to both offenders. The favourable finding made in respect of Mrs Bamforth, of itself, warrants a lesser sentence. 2. For these reasons, the proper application of legal principles relating to parity justify a harsher sentence for Mr Bamforth. 3. In addition, the difference in the non-parole periods applied to the offenders is indicated by the more favourable finding of special circumstances made in relation to Mrs Bamforth. Those findings will be announced later. Parity in relation to the detain/assault charges 1. In relation to these offences there were five offenders. Three of them were young persons and dealt with under the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987. Different legal principles apply to sentencing minors which justifies a much harsher sentence for Mr Bamforth, who is to be sentenced according to law. 2. There was however one other adult offender, Mr Smyth, he was 19 years old at the time of the offending. He was sentenced for two charges: assault occasioning actual bodily harm and possessing a prohibited drug, he was not charged for the more serious offence of detain in company. Mr Smyth received a sentence of imprisonment of 12 months, to be served by way of Intensive Corrections Order. In those circumstances, I do not consider that parity arises as between Mr Smyth and Mr Bamforth. 3. It is apparent from the facts that the detention of the victim was initiated by the Bamforths who arranged for CD to bring the victim to their residence. Whilst most of the physical assault was perpetrated by other offenders, it is also clear that it was Mr Bamforth who was in charge and who prevented the victim leaving the premises. 4. It is also relevant that the offending took place in Mr Bamforth's home and that he was the only mature adult involved in the offending. 5. For these reasons, a significantly more severe sentence for that offence is to be imposed upon Mr Bamforth. TOTALITY, CONCURRENCY AND ACCUMULATION 1. The total indicative terms for Mr Bamforth and Mrs Bamforth exceed 200 years. Were I to simply accumulate the indicative terms, the sentences would be harsh, if not absurd. Plainly, in the circumstances of these cases given the large number of offences, there must be considerable concurrency. This does not operate to reward offenders charged with multiple offences for repeat offending but rather to achieve a sensible, just and appropriate sentence in the circumstances. In many respects this is the most difficult part of this sentencing exercise. For that reason I have extracted and considered the legal principles arising from the following authorities. 2. It also raises questions of proportionality. I note in the High Court in Postiglione v The Queen (1997) 189 CLR 295 at [308], it was stated by McHugh J: "The Court must adjust the prima facie length of the sentences downward in order to achieve an appropriate relativity between the totality of the criminality and the totality of the sentences." 1. The case of R v Wheeler [2000] NSWCCA 34 at [36]-[37] is also frequently cited when addressing parity: "The countervailing factor, no less legitimate, is the need to ensure public confidence in the administration of criminal justice; and, in particular, to ensure that there does not emerge in the community at large a perception that there is not all that much to choose between the person who commits one or two offences, and the person who commits six or seven offences, for the reason that somehow or other they all manage to finish up with effective sentences between or among which there is hardly anything in practical terms to choose. It needs to be clearly understood by all concerned that a person who commits a deliberate series of discrete offences, - and the present applicant's case, is a good example of the kind, - he must not be left with the idea that by intoning references to the principle of totality as though it were some magic mantra, he can escape effective punishment for the offences which follow successively one upon another throughout the whole course of a studied and deliberate course of criminal behaviour." 1. In a decision of the High Court in Johnson v The Queen [2004] 78 ALJR 616 at [18] their Honours refer to Thomas's Principles of Sentencing 2nd ed, Heinemann, London, 1979, pp 56–7 and extracted the following statement: "The effect of the totality principle is to require a sentencer who has passed a series of sentences each properly calculated in relation to the offence for which it is imposed and each properly made consecutive in accordance with principles governing consecutive sentences to review the aggregate sentence and consider whether the aggregate is just and appropriate. The principle has been stated many times in various forms when a number of offences are being dealt with and specific punishments in respect of them are being totted up to make a total. It is always necessary for the Court to take a last look at the total to see whether it looks wrong. When cases of multiplicity of offences come before the Court, the Court must not content itself by doing the arithmetic in passing the sentence which the arithmetic produces. It must look at the totality of the criminal behaviour and ask itself what is the appropriate sentence for all of the offences." 1. I also note the observations of Street CJ of New South Wales in the matter of R v MMK [2006] NSWCCA 272 at [12]: "The principle of totality is a convenient phrase, descriptive of the significant practical consideration confronting a sentencing judge when sentencing for two or more offences. Not infrequently a straightforward arithmetical addition of sentences appropriate for each individual offence considered separately will arrive at an ultimate aggregate that exceeds what is called for in the whole of the circumstances. In such a situation the sentencing judge will evaluate in a broad sense the overall criminality involved in all of the offences and having done so will determine what, if any, downward adjustment is necessary, whether by telescoping or otherwise, in the aggregate sentences in order to achieve an appropriate relativity between the totality of the totality of the criminality and the totality of the sentences". 1. I note the observations of the Court of Criminal Appeal in Cahyadi v R [2007] NSWCCA 1 at [27]: "There is no general rule that determines whether sentences ought to be imposed concurrently or consecutively. The issue is determined by the application of the principle of totality of criminality: can the sentence for one offence comprehend and reflect the criminality for the other offence? If it can, the sentences ought to be concurrent otherwise there is a risk that the combined sentences will exceed that which is warranted to reflect the total criminality of the two offences. If not, the sentences should be at least partly cumulative otherwise there is a risk that the total sentence will fail to reflect the total criminality of the two offences. This is so regardless of whether the two offences represent two discrete acts of criminality or can be regarded as part of a single episode of criminality. Of course it is more likely that, where the offences are discrete and independent criminal acts, the sentence for one offence cannot comprehend the criminality of the other. Similarly, where they are part of a single episode of criminality with common factors, it is more likely that the sentence for one of the offences will reflect the criminality of both." 1. I am also mindful of the importance of public confidence in sentencing and the observations made in both the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal in the matter of R v MAK [2006] NSWCCA 381 at [18]. I quote: "A sentencing court must however take care when applying the totality principle. Public confidence in the administration of justice requires the Court to avoid any suggestion that what is in effect being offered is some kind of discount for multiple offending." 1. I further note the following observations in the matter of MAK at [17]: "An extremely long total sentence may be crushing upon the offender in the sense that it will induce a feeling of hopelessness and destroy any expectation of a useful life after release. This effect both increases the severity of the sentence to be served and also destroys such prospects as there may be of rehabilitation and reform. Of course in many cases of multiple offending, the offender may not be entitled to the element of mercy entailed in adopting such a constraint." 1. The assessment of whether a particular sentence is a crushing sentence must have regard to the offences committed, the maximum penalties, standard non-parole periods and all objective and subjective factors and principles concerning accumulation, concurrency and totality, to which I have referenced. 2. I note the more recent decision of the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal in the matter of Benn v R [2023] NSWCCA 24 where at [89]-[90] Gleeson J made observations by reference to the applicant's arguments relying upon the proposition that once indicative sentences have been identified the sentencing judge is obliged to "work through" what the judge did with the indicative head sentences and non-parole periods, and this involves three steps. First, taking each victim and the internal issue of concurrency and accumulation, a notional total for each victim must be calculated and a judge must state his reasons for any notional assessment of the degree of concurrency and accumulation of the indicative sentences relating to separate victims. Secondly, it is necessary to address the issue of notional accumulation between victims. And thirdly it is necessary for the judge to look at the total figures provisionally reached and consider if this is appropriate or crushing. This matter involves one victim and it is only the 3rd principle which has direct relevance. 3. His Honour also confirms at paragraph 99 of the judgment that it is uncontroversial the principle of totality applies to an aggregate sentence imposed under s 53A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act. Some of the cases I referred to earlier were not referencing aggregate sentences. 4. I have also had regard to and adopted the approach to considering totality referred to in detail by RA Hulme J in Hall v R [2021] NSWCCA 220 commencing at [52]. In these remarks I have gone into greater detail on totality than Hulme J said was necessary, only because of the substantial degree of concurrency which it was necessary to apply in order to ensure that the sentence imposed is a just and appropriate measure of the total criminality involved. 5. The sentences to be imposed are a consequence of the large number of offences and the extreme gravity of the offending which was egregious. 6. In many respects I am engaging in a similar sentencing exercise to that of Huggett DCJ, as her Honour then was, in R v WG (28 October 2018, unreported). On appeal (WG v R [2020] NSWCCA 155), Fullerton J adopted with approval the following remarks of Huggett DCJ at [1515]: "Given the age of the father, the length of the aggregate sentence I will impose upon him will have the practical effect of seeing him not released from custody begore he passes away. While none of the offences for which he has been convicted carry a maximum penalty of life imprisonment that does not necessarily mean he must expect to receive a sentence which will have the effect he is released from custody before he in fact passes away. The courts have made clear that age is not a licence to commit an offence (R v Holyoak (1995) 82 A Crim R 202 at 507). There is no sentencing principle that a sentencing court should impose a sentence which provides some prospect of an offender being released before his or her death. A fundamental sentencing principle is that the sentence ultimately imposed must reflect the totality of the criminality before the Court. The fact is that adherence to the sentencing principle of proportionality may on occasions have the effect of imposing a sentence which is equivalent to that of a life sentence depending upon the age of the offender." 1. It is not my intention to impose a life sentence on either offender. There is a real risk, however, particularly in the case of Mrs Bamforth due to ill health, that they will die before reaching the non-parole period which I intend to set. This is a consequence of 2 factors: the age of the offenders at the time of their arrest and the large number of charges for which they are to be sentenced. 2. It is also not my intention to impose sentences which are unduly harsh or crushing. I acknowledge that the sentences which I intend to impose, even after applying principles of totality, are greater than sentences which may be imposed for more serious crimes, including those with a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. Having carefully considered the matter I am satisfied that the sentences are appropriate in all the circumstances, reflecting the criminality involved and the large number of charges for sentence. Indeed, I have gone to great lengths in applying the concept of totality to do so. STANDARD NON-PAROLE PERIODS NOT ADOPTED 1. Even though most of the findings made regarding objective seriousness would engage the standard non-parole periods, their adoption would, in my opinion, result in a crushing sentence in the case of both offenders. The indicative non-parole periods set out in the Tables have been adjusted accordingly. SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES FOUND 1. Sections 44(2) and 44(2B) of the CSP Act provide that the non-parole period for either a single sentence or an aggregate sentence must not fall below three quarters of the term of sentence unless there is a finding of special circumstances and, in the event such a finding is made, reasons for doing so are recorded. 2. A finding of special circumstances is a discretionary finding of fact: R v El-Hayek [2004] NSWCCA 25 at [103]. The full range of subjective considerations can warrant a finding of special circumstances: R v Simpson (2001) 53 NSWLR 704 at [46]. It will be comparatively rare for an issue to be incapable, as a matter of law, of ever constituting a "special circumstance". 3. For Mr Bamforth, although he has been in custody previously, that was almost 20 years ago. I find special circumstances on the basis that he has returned to custody after a long period of time in the community. I have also considered the impact of COVID-19 in determining his non-parole period. I have varied the statutory ratio just slightly on account of these factors. 4. I acknowledge the submission by counsel for Mr Bamforth that his prospects of rehabilitation would be improved if the statutory ratio was altered to allow him to receive further therapeutic treatment while on parole. I reject this submission as even the unaltered statutory ratio enable the offender to obtain whatever treatment he may accept and to assimilate himself back into the community. 5. Further I consider it unlikely that Mr Bamforth will ever have sufficient insight into the gravity of his debased offending or his responsibility to participate in any form of rehabilitation in the community. 6. For Mrs Bamforth, I consider that a greater adjustment to the non-parole period is justified for a number of reasons. First, this is the offender's first time in custody. Secondly, by reason of the diagnosis made September 2023 her time in custody has been and may continue to be more onerous. She would warrant extra time on parole to participate in whatever rehabilitation or counselling is recommended to her. 7. It was submitted by counsel for Mrs Bamforth that I should have regard to the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on imprisonment, that "prison time is now harsher than it was prior to the onset of the pandemic" due to its impact on physical visits, access to courses, counselling and rehabilitation programs, and extended cell lockdowns. I accept those submissions. This is another reason for the reduction in the non-parole period for both offenders. SENTENCE Paul Bamforth 1. Mr Bamforth please stand. You are convicted of the 46 offences to which you have pleaded guilty. For those convictions I sentence you to a term of imprisonment comprising a head sentence of 32 years imprisonment, commencing 26 February 2021, expiring 25 February 2053 with a non-parole period of 22 years 4 months imprisonment, which will expire on 25 June 2043, at which time you will be eligible for consideration of parole. 2. The backup charge (H78550740/12) is withdrawn and dismissed. 3. Consideration was given to sending the report by Dr Lennings to corrective services. In view of the fact that little or no weight can be attributed to the report, I have declined to do so. Julia Bamforth 1. Mrs Bamforth please stand. You are convicted of the 46 offences to which you have pleaded guilty. For those convictions I sentence you to a term of imprisonment comprising a head sentence of 30 years imprisonment, commencing 26 February 2021, expiring 25 February 2051 with a non-parole period of 19 years 6 months years imprisonment, which will expire on 25 August 2040, at which time you will be eligible for consideration of parole. 2. I order that copy of the report by Lee Knight, Forensic Mental Health Clinican, dated 7 February 2023 be placed in a sealed envelope addressed to The Governor of the correctional facility where the offender is located. It should be marked "Confidential, only to be opened by the Governor". EXPLANATION OF SENTENCE TO OFFENDERS 1. Mr Bamforth, do you understand the sentence? You will be eligible to be considered for release on parole on 25 June 2043. Your head sentence will expire on 25 February 2053. I acknowledge that your sentence is harsher than that applied to your wife. There are good reasons for that based on sound legal principles including that you have been sentenced for the detain offences and that your wife's non-parole period has been reduced more than in your case. 2. Mrs Bamforth, do you understand the sentence? You will be eligible to be considered for release on parole on 25 August 2040. Your head sentence will expire on 25 February 2051. HIGH RISK OFFENDERS WARNING 1. I am obliged to tell you of the existence of the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006, which applies to "serious offences" including some of the offences for which you have been sentenced. 2. In summary, this means that the State can apply to the Supreme Court for an order that you continue to receive supervision or be held in detention beyond the end of your sentence if the court considers you would be a "high risk offender" who poses an unacceptable risk of committing a serious offence. 3. It is, therefore, in your interests to engage in rehabilitation opportunities whilst in custody. ********** Table 1: Addendum to Remarks – Paul Bamforth – P BAMFORTH TABLE Table 2: Addendum to Remarks – Julia Bamforth – J BAMFORTH TABLE I CERTIFY THAT THIS JUDGMENT AND THE ATTACHED TABLES ARE A TRUE COPY OF THE REASONS FOR SENTENCE HEREIN OF HIS HONOUR JUDGE WILSON SC. T Behl-Shanks Associate Amendments 29 February 2024 - Addendum tables attached 29 February 2024 - Grammatical amendments 01 March 2024 - Grammatical amendment DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 01 March 2024