By Paul Gregoire and Ugur Nedim
A former Australian soldier met with a sex worker on 9 August 2023, for the third time in roughly a month. But unlike the first two occasions on which the pair met, when the man paid the woman for her services, he handed her a receipt which fraudulently suggested he had deposited $700 into her bank account, when it had only been $100.
On receiving the receipt, the sex worker provided the ex-soldier with her services, only to later realise that she hadn’t received the full payment. She then texted her client, but there was no reply.
Over the next two days, the man failed to reply to three further text messages, as well as to answer a call from the woman’s mobile phone. When the woman called from another number, the man answered, then hung up upon hearing her voice.
The then 35-year-old man came to the attention of New South Wales police on a different matter in September 2024, for which was remanded in custody.
Whilst the man was in custody, officers realised he had an outstanding warrant in relation to the fraudulent receipt incident.
Charged with sexual assault
The man was formerly charged with one count of sexual assault under section 61I of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), which carries a maximum penalty of 14 years in prison and a standard non-parole period (SNPP) of 7 years.
An SNPP is a guidepost or reference point for a sentencing judge, when determining the minimum term an offender must spend behind bars before being eligible to apply for release on parole.
The offence is also known as sexual intercourse without consent and requires proof beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant:
- Had sexual consent with another person,
- Did so without the other person’s consent, and
- Knew the other person did not consent, or was reckless as to whether there was consent, or had no reasonable grounds for believing the other person consented.
A person was ‘reckless’ if the person was aware there was a substantial risk that consent was absent, and it was unjustifiable in the circumstances to take that risk, but the person went ahead with their conduct regardless.
The man pleaded guilty to the offence before the New South Wales District Court in October 2025 after his legal team unsuccessfully challenged the assertion it was the correct offence in the circumstances, given the act of sexual intercourse was ostensibly consensual despite the inducement, being the claimed payment, having been fraudulent.
The man’s conviction marks the first time a person has been convicted of sexual assault by reason of the inducement to engage in the conduct being fraudulent, under broadened sexual consent laws passed in 2021.
The Form 1 process
A second offence against the man was considered on what is known as a ‘Form 1’.
The process for ‘Form 1 offences’ is set out in section 32 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), and it consists of a second charge that a defendant hasn’t been convicted over, but, on request of the accused, is taken into account when sentencing for the principal charge.
On agreeing to any additional charge/s to be dealt with via a Form 1, the defendant admits guilt. However, no conviction is listed on their criminal record. A sentencing judge is required to take into consideration the effect of a Form 1 offence, when sentencing in respect to the primary offence. But the judicial officer does not quantify a particular sentencing time in relation to a Form 1 offence.
The second offence taken on the Form 1 was another count of sexual assault, under section 61I of the Crimes Act. So, the primary charge of sexual assault related to penile vaginal intercourse, whilst the Form 1 offence was in respect of fellatio.
“As is well recognised there is no hierarchy of sexual acts with each case needing to be determined on its own facts and circumstances,” the presiding judicial officer, Judge Jonathon Priestley, clarified in his 15 October 2025 ruling.
Fraudulent inducement
In respect of the two counts of sexual assault, the ex-soldier’s legal team put to the court that the defendant had not used “any physical coercion, verbal threats or insults, age or power imbalance or domestic violence” in order to induce the sex worker to have intercourse. Yet, this did result in the consideration that his offending was “quite premeditated” and the crime “required some planning”.
Section 61HJ of the Crimes Act contains a list of circumstances in which it is considered that consent has not been given to sexual activity. The prosecution relied upon subsection 61HJ(1)(k), which provides that no consent has been given to sexual activity, when a person has participated “because of a fraudulent inducement.”
According to then NSW attorney general Mark Speakman in October 2021, this provision was in part being enacted “to better protect sex workers who are fraudulently promised payment for sexual services”.
The use of fraudulent is used to capture all circumstances in which a person has been tricked into providing consent to sexual activity, and not just those in which the crime of fraud has been made out. However, fraudulent consent doesn’t “include a misrepresentation about a person’s income, wealth or feelings”.
Before the court
Judge Priestley considered the crime to be in the “low range of objective seriousness”. The Crown argued a number of aggravating factors in respect of the defendant’s criminal record. But his Honour found that whilst this disentitled the defendant to leniency in respect of no prior convictions, his record did not aggravate offending, especially as there was no prior sexual offending.
The prosecution also asserted that the victim was vulnerable in the way that a night shopkeeper or a taxi driver is, in respect of crime. His Honour agreed but then qualified that this did differ in terms of how a robbery involving a night shopkeeper involves the threat of violence, as there had been no such threat in the circumstances involving the defendant and the sex worker.
So, the victim’s vulnerability was found not to be highly aggravating, and neither was the planning aspect of the crime.
A psychiatric report from a Dr Nielsen set out that the ex-soldier was “not a sex offender in the sense of having committed a sexual assault on an unwilling person”, but rather the victim had consented to the encounter on receipt of payment.
The victim impact statement outlined the harms suffered by the victim, which involved a negative societal attitude towards sex workers and generalities around how men treat women. It was accepted that the woman felt preyed upon and underwent ongoing psychological impacts. His Honour noted that she also considered that he could have rectified the crime if he’d paid her.
Sentencing considerations
The ex-soldier was eligible to a 25 percent sentencing discount due to the utilitarian value of his early guilty plea.
Judge Priestley found special circumstances in respect of the ex-soldier’s long-term drug use and schizophrenic condition. These circumstances, his Honour explained, meant that he would benefit from a longer period of time on parole, or via conditional release, than what’s legislatively stipulated.
Section 44 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) provides that a parole period must not exceed a third of the overall time an offender has been sentenced to prison, unless special circumstances are found.
In terms of the effect of the Form 1 offence, Judge Priestley explained that it permits the adding of greater weight to the penalty in respect of the primary offence, and it has bearing in particular, on the sentencing elements of personal deterrence and “the community’s entitlement to extract retribution for serious offences”. However, in the current circumstances, this had minimal impact.
“It must of course be taken into account, and it constitutes a second act of sexual intercourse,” his Honour explained. “At the same time, it is part of the one occasion of sexual engagement that occurred by reason of the fraudulent inducement.”
In terms of adequate sentencing, his Honour set out that there was little need for specific deterrence but when it came to general deterrence, there was a need to ensure that “likely clientele of sex workers” don’t consider not paying amounts to simply wrongdoing in the commercial sense, but rather it is also “a serious criminal offence”.
The ex-solider had already spent 144 days on remand by the time he was sentenced. Judge Priestley considered that time spent in the community was essential for rehabilitation, as then the defendant could seek adequate counselling. His Honour added that it would be beneficial for the time spent on remand to be considered the ex-soldier’s entire non-parole period.
On 15 October 2025, Judge Priestley sentenced the ex-solider to 16 months imprisonment, which, when discounted by 25 percent due to his early guilty plea, came to 12 months in gaol. The non-parole period was set at 144 days, of which the defendant had already served.
So, the defendant is now out on parole and will remain under conditional release until 24 May 2026.
