Supreme Court told South-East rapist ‘immature’, not intellectually disabled, during appeal hearing

A SOUTH-East man who avoided spending a day in prison for blackmailing and twice raping a 14-year-old girl was “immature” — but not intellectually disabled — the Supreme Court has heard during an appeal against the lenient sentence.

A SOUTH-East man who received a suspended sentence for blackmailing and raping a 14-year-old girl did not have an intellectual ability but was only immature, the Supreme Court has heard.

The 21-year-old was sentenced to three years and six months in prison for possessing and disseminating child pornography and two counts of rape.

However the sentencing judge, Gordon Barrett, suspended the sentence on the grounds that the man had an intellectual disability and a clean criminal record.

Director of Public Prosecutions Adam Kimber SC personally appealed the sentence, telling a full sitting of the Supreme Court that suspension of the sentence should not have been an option for the sentencing judge.

Mr Kimber also said Judge Barrett had incorrectly concluded the man had an intellectual disability when a specialist had only reported that the man had a lower-than-average IQ and was functioning at the level of a 15-year-old.

‘This was a very serious example of rape,” Mr Kimber said.

“It was not a misunderstanding, it was not a momentary lapse of judgment.

“It was not open to the sentencing judge to find good reason to suspend the sentence.”

Nick Vadasz, acting for the man, argued that the appeal was based on “semantics” and that his client had failed Year 11 twice and never held a job.

“He was a 20-year-old country lad with rising hormones,” Mr Vadasz told the court.

The man sent and received naked photos to his 14-year-old victim in late 2016.

Both he and his victim lived in a small country town in the state’s South-East.

The man used the photos to blackmail the girl into having sex with him twice, two months apart.

The Supreme Court was presented copies of the text messages sent by the man who answered “too bad” when his victim said she wasn’t feeling comfortable with the text exchange.

The man repeatedly threatened to send publish the photos, going as far as sending them to the victim’s older sister in an attempt to coerce her into having sex with him.

“Remember what I got,” the man messaged his teenage victim.

The victim tried to bargain with the man but was unsuccessful in convincing him to delete the images.

The Supreme Court reserved its decision.