IN THE DISTRICT COURT
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION
ADELAIDE
MONDAY, 24 MARCH 2025 AT 9.33 A.M.
BEFORE HIS HONOUR JUDGE MUSCAT
NO.DCCRM-24-007646
R v TROY ANDREW WILLIAMS
HIS HONOUR IN SENTENCING SAID:
Troy Williams, you have pleaded guilty to 11 sexual offences against a child, A, who was 15 years of age. At the time, you were aged 49 years.
A said that he met you on an adult male dating site at the end of 2022. Thereafter, the two of you communicated via Snapchat.
A said that early in these communications, he told you that he was 15 years old. The two of you would send each other naked images and videos of yourselves. Often, the videos depicted each of you masturbating. This conduct forms the basis of Count 2, which is the offence of procuring a child to engage in sexual activity. This offence has a maximum penalty of 12 years imprisonment.
After about two months of this type of sexual interaction, the two of you met in person.
The first occasion occurred on a weekend. You met up at a park near where A lived. There, you went into a public toilet block and engaged in sexual activity. A performed fellatio upon you, with you ejaculating into his mouth. This act of unlawful sexual intercourse forms the basis of Count 3.
About two weeks later, the two of you met again at the same park and engaged in the same sexual activity in the toilet block. This forms the basis of Count 4.
On 11 April 2023, A's parents were not home. He invited you over. The two of you engaged in penile-anal sexual intercourse. Count 5 involves you engaging in anal sexual intercourse upon A and ejaculating into his anus. Count 6 involves A engaging in anal sexual intercourse upon you and ejaculating into your anus.
At a time shortly before A and his family moved to another address, A took an Uber, which you paid for, to your home. He arrived around 11 p.m., after his parents had gone to sleep for the night. Each of you performed an act of fellatio upon each other, and these acts are the subject of Counts 7 and 8. The two of you then engaged in anal sexual intercourse. Count 9 involves you engaging in anal sexual intercourse upon A until you ejaculated. Count 10 involves A engaging in anal sexual intercourse upon you until he ejaculated.
The last sexual encounter occurred when A again went to your home, arriving there in an Uber, after his parents had gone to sleep for the night. A engaged in an act of anal sexual intercourse upon you until he ejaculated. This forms the basis of Count 11. You then produced several sexual aids and inserted one of them into A's anus, which forms the basis of count 12.
There was some other sexual activity engaged in, including in the shower, that does not form the basis of any charges. You cannot be punished for that sexual activity.
You have pleaded guilty to each count identified, and by doing so, you are entitled to a sentencing discount. There is a dispute as to the applicable sentencing discount in your case. In order to determine the applicable sentencing discount, it is necessary to detail the history of the proceedings in the Magistrates Court.
Following your arrest on 1 September 2023, your first appearance was before the Elizabeth Magistrates Court on 4 September 2023, charged with one count of sexual abuse of A, contrary to s.50(1) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act.
Your next appearance was before the Adelaide Magistrates Court on 20 December 2023, at which time a charge determination was made by the Director of Public Prosecutions. The Director of Public Prosecutions did not proceed with the charge of sexual abuse of A, being Count 1, preferring the 11 charges you have pleaded guilty to, being one count of procuring a child to engage in sexual activity, contrary to s.63B(3)(a) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act (Count 2), and 10 counts of unlawful sexual intercourse with a child, contrary to s.49(3) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act (Counts 3-12).
The committal proceedings were adjourned to 1 February 2024, on the basis that the Director of Public Prosecutions was concerned that the preliminary brief of evidence had not been properly served upon you.
You next appeared in the Adelaide Magistrates Court on 23 January 2024, when you made an application to be released on home detention bail. The application was opposed by the Director of Public Prosecutions. Nevertheless, the court ordered a home detention inquiry report.
You then appeared before the Adelaide Magistrates Court on 1 February 2024, at which time the committal proceedings commenced. The application for bail was pursued by you, but it was refused by the court.
At this point, the Director of Public Prosecutions had not received any communication from your solicitors about a potential resolution of the charges. Neither had there been any written communication received by the Major Indictable Brief Unit of South Australia Police from your solicitors about the charges.
On 1 February 2024, the Director of Public Prosecutions applied for a 12‑week adjournment to answer the charges, on the basis that the DNA analysis was anticipated to take some time. The court was only prepared to adjourn the matter for eight weeks, noting that a DNA report was not necessary to establish a case to answer in relation to all counts. The answer charge hearing was set for 4 April 2024.
Your solicitor asked the court to note that 'negotiations with the prosecution had commenced'. Presumably, this was to preserve a higher sentencing discount, utilising s.110(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act. Having not received any notice of an intention to negotiate the charges prior to this hearing, the Director of Public Prosecutions asked the court to endorse the file that no negotiations had taken place to that time. You did not controvert the Director of Public Prosecutions' position as put to the court.
Prior to the answer charge hearing listed for 4 April 2024, your solicitor contacted the court, requesting that the matter be called on to enable you to plead guilty to the charges. You appeared before the Adelaide Magistrates Court on 27 February 2024 and entered guilty pleas to Counts 2-12 on the Information. You were then committed for sentence to this court.
I am satisfied that the committal appearance in this matter occurred on 1 February 2024.
Section 40(3) of the Sentencing Act provides that where a defendant has pleaded guilty during the period commencing on the day after the committal appearance and ending immediately before the defendant is committed for trial, the sentencing court may reduce the sentence for a serious indictable offence, of which all of these charges are, by up to 10%.
Section 110(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act enables a defendant to preserve a higher sentencing discount if the defendant advises the court that negotiations are taking place with the prosecution, by calling the matter on at any time within four weeks after the committal appearance for the purpose of entering a guilty plea to the charge. In such a case, the defendant will be treated, for the purposes of a sentencing discount, as if the defendant had pleaded guilty at the committal appearance. In this situation that would have entitled you to a sentencing discount of up to 15%.
Contrary to your counsel's submissions, I am not satisfied that you had entered into negotiations with the Director of Public Prosecutions. 'Negotiations' means a discussion between two parties to resolve an issue that both find acceptable. At no stage did you write to or communicate with the Director of Public Prosecutions with respect to negotiating the charges. No offer was made by you in relation to the charges that were being considered by the Director of Public Prosecutions.
The reasons why negotiations in relation to the charges did not occur is because your solicitor advised you that whether you pleaded guilty to a single count of sexual abuse of A encompassing the offending conduct as originally charged, or pleaded guilty to the 11 identified counts relating to the individual sexual acts engaged in, you still stood to be sentenced as a serious repeat offender because of your previous sentences in 2015 for similar offences. As such, there was no benefit to you in negotiating the charges, and you then pleaded guilty to Counts 2-12.
Simply asking the court to note that negotiations have commenced does not comply with the requirements of s.110(3) of the Criminal Law Procedure Act, especially when, as a matter of fact, no negotiations had commenced to that point in time, or indeed, after. An obligation must rest upon a defendant to comply with s.110(3) if the defendant wishes to preserve their position in relation to a sentencing discount, to engage in negotiations with a view to resolving the matter.
The Director of Public Prosecutions received no correspondence or communication from your solicitors at all in relation to the charges. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that negotiations have taken place with the prosecution in relation to the charges. There was nothing on the table from you for the Director of Public Prosecutions to consider. There is an explanation for this that I have identified, but the fact remains no negotiations ever took place. That you called the matter on within four weeks of the committal appearance and pleaded guilty does not of itself satisfy the statutory criteria in s.110(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act.
While it is correct that by calling the matter on when you did, the Director of Public Prosecutions was no longer required to pursue a report in relation to the DNA analysis, that is not relevant, in my view, to a determination of the applicable sentencing discount. That will factor into whether you should receive the maximum discount of 10% for pleading guilty when you did.
Accordingly, I am of the view that you are only entitled to a maximum sentencing discount of up to 10% for pleading guilty when you did. I indicate now that I will afford you this discount in full.
The fact that A was a willing participant to the sexual activity is not a mitigating circumstance. Although it is now 35 years ago, what King CJ stated in R v Williams (1990) 53 SASR 253 remains pertinent today, namely that the law which prohibits sexual intercourse with children exists in order to protect children from their own inclinations until they have reached a sufficient degree of maturity in life to make sensible and responsible decisions as to their own lives. It is necessary for the courts to impose penalties which vindicate that law and deter older men from taking advantage of the sexual inclinations of children.
What is of concern to the court in sentencing you for these offences, is that in 2015 you were sentenced in this court for offences of one count of communicating with a child with the intention of making that child amenable to sexual activity, two counts of unlawful sexual intercourse, and one count of aggravated possession of child pornography. You were sentenced to a total of one year and seven months imprisonment for those offences. A very merciful non-parole period of six months was fixed.
I have been provided with the remarks of the judge who sentenced you. There are remarkable similarities between that offending conduct and this offending. You met that earlier victim on a homosexual dating site. He was 16 years old at the time. You then met him in person shortly after and engaged in two acts of sexual intercourse with him at your home. Thereafter, you engaged in conversations with him on Facebook that were highly sexualised.
The judge found that you were communicating with the boy in the hope that you would resume a sexual relationship with him when you returned from overseas.
You pleaded not guilty to the charges of unlawful sexual intercourse, claiming that you believed, on reasonable grounds, that the complainant was 17 years when you had sexual intercourse with him.
The jury rejected your defence and found you guilty of those charges. It is apparent from the judge's remarks that not only was the complainant clear in his evidence that you were aware of his age, but his physical appearance would have made it obvious to you that he was younger than 17 years.
Your sexual interest in boys was also quite clear from your possession of some images depicting boys engaging in various sexual acts.
I also note that on 31 January 2023 you were sentenced in the Magistrates Court for 14 counts of failing to comply with your reporting obligations under the Child Sex Offenders Registration Act. According to the record those offences occurred on 5 May 2022. You were sentenced by a magistrate, who fined you $650, without recording convictions for any of the offences.
The court has been provided with a psychological report prepared by Mr Fugler for your sentencing in 2015.
As a result of that offending you lost your position as a pool attendant and groundskeeper at a private school, as well as having to resign your position as a volunteer scout group leader. You were also ostracised from your social network. You developed depression as a result. You were prescribed antidepressant medication by your GP and engaged with a clinical psychologist for ongoing treatment and assistance to address those psychological issues. Your background to that time was well documented in Mr Fugler's report. You had lived an unremarkable life until that offending.
You have now been assessed by Dr Lim, a forensic psychologist. A report has been provided to the court to assist in sentencing you. Consistent with what Mr Fugler reported, you described to Dr Lim a normal and stable upbringing.
I was told by your counsel that following the imposition of sentence in 2015, the Department for Correctional Services did not require you to participate in any child sex offender treatment program, either while serving the sentence or after you were released on parole. However, neither did you voluntarily seek to engage in any treatment for yourself.
Following your arrest for the present offences you were randomly assaulted by another prisoner while on remand. A week after the assault, and while you were still recovering in the prison infirmary, you suffered a heart attack. You have since made a full recovery from the heart attack, although I was told that you were still waiting to receive some medication prescribed for you by a cardiologist. It appears that you have also overcome the physical trauma associated with your prison assault.
Dr Lim has reported that you do not meet the diagnostic criteria for a paedophilic disorder. One of the principal criteria for a diagnosis is recurrent intense sexually-arousing fantasies or sexual urges or behaviours involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child, generally a child aged 13 years or younger. As your previous offences and the current offences involve boys aged 16 years and 15 years, you do not meet this primary diagnostic criteria. However, this does not mean that you are not at risk of offending like this again. Dr Lim is of the opinion that you have developed a deviant sexual preference for pubescent boys aged 15 years and above. Dr Lim opines that this age group may not represent your exclusive or primary sexual preference, as you have developed a propensity to become sexually attracted to males who appear to be significantly younger than yourself, including males who are aged 18 years and above.
Dr Lim noted that you offended while you were a registered child sex offender and this is, plainly, an aggravating factor in your offending against A.
Dr Lim was also of the opinion that you have only expressed superficial remorse and victim empathy and that you have a very limited understanding of the exact nature of the emotional harm that your behaviour and actions have caused A.
Finally, Dr Lim is of the opinion that your risk of offending in a similar way again falls within the moderately high range. You have not yet engaged in a child sex offender treatment program. Dr Lim believes that your prospects of rehabilitation and prognosis will remain guarded until you have had the opportunity to demonstrate your commitment towards your sexual rehabilitation, including your willingness to control your deviant sexual urges.
Dr Lim has made a number of important recommendations to safeguard the safety of the community from you through your participation in the prison-based Sexual Behaviour Clinic and engaging in treatment at Owenia House as part of your parole conditions, matters that I was told you were not required to undertake in relation to your previous sentence.
Your previous offences reveal that despite being sentenced for similar sexual conduct against a child, you have reoffended in a like manner. As such, personal deterrence is clearly a relevant consideration in sentencing you.
From 1 October 2022 the maximum penalty for engaging in sexual intercourse with a person under the age of 17 years was increased from 10 years imprisonment to 15 years imprisonment, and the maximum penalty for procuring a child to engage in sexual activity was increased from 10 years imprisonment to 12 years imprisonment. These increases in the penalties signifies the Parliament's clear view of the seriousness of such offending conduct, reflecting the community's concerns over the sexual abuse of children.
You are to be sentenced as a serious repeat offender. I do not consider that it is necessary to impose a disproportionate sentence for the offences as the protection of the safety of the community and personal and general deterrence can be achieved through sentencing you in the conventional way. Nevertheless, a non-parole period of at least four-fifths of the sentence must be fixed.
While you did not abuse any position of trust in relation to A, there existed a significant age difference between yourself and A. By that very age difference there was a power imbalance, with you being an adult aged 49 years and A being a boy aged 15 years. In this regard, I refer to what the Court of Criminal Appeal stated in R v Chesterman [2017] SASCFC 31 at [45]-[47]. Similar views were expressed by the Court of Appeal in R v Lian [2023] SASCA 122 and R v Seymour [2024] SASC 41.
The sexual exploitation of children and the lasting effects upon them resulting from their abuse cannot be understated. The primary purpose of the criminal law is the protection of the safety of the community. This is no more emphasised than in protecting children from sexual exploitation by adults. Your actions demonstrate, in the clearest way, that despite knowing A's age you engaged and continued to engage in sexual activity with him to satisfy your need to have sex with a child.
I now turn to sentencing you for the offences you have committed.
I consider this to be an appropriate case to impose a single sentence for your course of conduct spanning about four months. I will indicate the individual sentence for each sexual encounter first and then determine the appropriate final single sentence.
Your offending was not a mere momentary lapse of judgment on your part. You made a conscious decision to continue to engage in sexual activity with A. You had opportunities to reflect on what you were doing and the age disparity between the two of you after each sexual encounter with A, but you chose to continue with what you were doing. I am satisfied that your offending would have continued but for the fact that A's father discovered messages on A's phone, revealing that A was meeting up with you. A's father then reported his suspicions to the police, following which you were arrested and charged.
In relation to Count 2, being the offence of procuring A to engage in sexual activity, you will be imprisoned for two years and six months. The sentence the is reduced to two years and three months on account of your guilty plea.
In relation to counts 3 and 4, you will be imprisoned for three years and six months on each count. Each sentence is reduced to three years, three months and 24 days on account of your pleas of guilty.
In relation to Counts 5 and 6, I impose a single sentence of four years imprisonment. This sentence is reduced to three years, seven months and six days on account of your of pleas of guilty.
In relation to Counts 7, 8, 9 and 10, I will impose a single sentence of four years imprisonment. This sentence is also reduced to three years, seven months and six days on account of your pleas of guilty.
Finally, in relation to Counts 11 and 12, I impose another single sentence of four years imprisonment. This sentence is reduced to three years, seven months and six days on account of your pleas of guilty.
Having identified the individual sentences imposed for each sexual encounter, I now turn to impose a single sentence, that in my view, properly reflects the totality of your offending conduct assessed as a whole and taking into account your subjective circumstances including the need to protect the safety of the community, as well as recognising general and personal deterrence with the latter consideration necessary because of the course of conduct engaged in and your previous similar offending conduct.
I consider a sentence of eight years and six months is called for.
As you are a serious repeat offender, the non-parole period must be at least four-fifths of the sentence. I fix a non-parole period of six years and 10 months.
The sentence will commence from 1 September 2023 when you were arrested and remanded in custody.
The phone the police seized from you that was used to communicate with A is forfeited pursuant to s.63D of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act.
I am required to consider whether an intervention order should be issued to protect A from you. In the circumstances, where A has not requested such an order, has now reached the age of consent, and given the lengthy sentence imposed upon you, I consider such an order is unnecessary and I decline to make one.
ADJOURNED 10.03 A.M.
DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment 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 in which it was generated.