We call on the NSW Attorney General  and the office of Director of Public Prosecutions to submit for appeal , the manifestly inadequate sentencing of of a 28 year old Coogee man found unimously guilty of rape on the 8th July 2026. 

The comments reportedly made during sentencing to align with defense requests for a lesser penalty   have sparked nationwide outcry as they revitalise the abolished argument of implied consent for the defense of rape. 

At a time where the epidemic of domestic and sexual violence and how our institutions respond to it is the focus of the public eye, this lenient sentencing sends an un-acceptable message to the public and to the victims everywhere.  If allowed to stand, this sentence sets the precedent for future sentencing. 

It goes deeply against public interest for compounding and complex reasons that span cross border as further detailed below. 

We deem it appropriate to petition for the NSW Attorney General to intervene in this matter , to instruct for an appeal before the 28 day statutory period expires on or around 05/08/2026  and to have a sentence handed down to this convicted-found unanimously guilty- rapist, befitting the gravity of crime of rape. 

The victim , Anastasia, has a previously established petition thatbseeks to acheive broader reforms.   This petition aids to strengthen her arguments,  and focuses on immediate change .  It comes  as  earlier this month the Hon. Deb Frecklington ,Qld Attorney General, instructed the ODPP to submit for immediate appeal on a similar matter where the sentence handed down in that case was seen as manifestly inadequate and against public interest. 

Please sign and share in the interest of ALL sexual violence victim survivors  to send the message that this is unacceptable and demonstrates our legal system remains dissapointingly ill-trauma informed. 

Timing is critical. 

Notice of Public Interest:  Request for Appeal Against Manifestly Inadequate Sentence (State of NSW v. Convicted Offender in the Matter of Anastasia Treharne)

Dear Attorney General and Director of Public Prosecutions,

We call on you to immediately lodge an appeal against the sentence recently handed down in the matter of Anastasia, on the grounds that a 100-hour non-custodial community service order for the crime of rape is manifestly inadequate, contrary to law, and deeply against the public interest.

The maximum penalty for sexual assault/rape under the Crimes Act  (NSW) is 14 years’ imprisonment. To penalize a unanimously convicted rapist with 100 hours of community service—a penalty routinely handed down for minor property damage or traffic infractions—is to signal that the physical safety, bodily autonomy, and psychological integrity of women in New South Wales are worth little more in the eyes of the law.

1. Undermining the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Sexual Consent Reforms) Act 2021
In June 2022, New South Wales took a historic step forward by enacting affirmative consent laws. The legislation explicitly codifies that:

Consent must be active, communicated, and ongoing.
Consent can be withdrawn at any point during a sexual act, and continuing past that withdrawal constitutes rape.
Silence or lack of physical resistance does not equal consent.
In her testimony, Anastasia  stated "I asked you to stop, I told you you were hurting me, I said no repeatedly." Consent was unequivocally withdrawn. The offender forced her down and caused significant physical injury.

Despite this, the magistrate commemts during sentencing, minimised the incident by observing  that "it didn't appear premeditated" and that no one else heard her scream/protest.  Additionally that there was confliction, due some parts were consensual,  and thus aligned with the defense that the offense was lower in the scale.  These remarks functionally resurrect the abolished defense of "implied consent" under thin legal jargon. By penalizing this crime with community service because the victim did not scream loudly enough, the judiciary undermines the legislative intent of the 2022 reforms and undoes years of public education.

2. Psychological Damage and Re-traumatization
The magistrate’s reasoning displays a lack of trauma-informed understanding. Modern medical and psychological science recognizes that when human beings face immediate sexual threat, the brain’s amygdala triggers automatic, physiological survival responses—including freeze, fawn, and feint.

To treat a victim's instinctual threat response as a mitigating factor for the offender is medically and ethically indefensible. Anastasia endured four agonizing years of court proceedings, subjecting herself to relentless scrutiny to secure a conviction. To then tell her—and all victim-survivors—that a unanimous guilty verdict yields zero custodial time causes profound, compounding psychological harm. It sends a message that the system will demand everything from victims during trial, only to validate their rapists at sentencing.

3. Precedent, Public Interest, and Executive Action
Every sentence sets a precedent for the next. This decision tells sexual predators and offenders that they can commit sexual assault with impunity, while telling victims that seeking justice is pointless. It actively inflames public mistrust in the state institutions bound to protect citizens.

We do not have to look far for principled leadership on this issue. Earlier this month, Queensland Attorney-General Deb Frecklington instructed the ODPP to lodge an appeal against a manifestly inadequate sexual violence sentence, explicitly citing the imperative that penalties must reflect community expectations and the severity of harm inflicted.

New South Wales must do the same.

Justice must not only be done—it must be seen to be done.  In the interest of Anastasia, victim-survivors across the state, and a public that expects its laws to be enforced, we urge you to intervene, instruct an immediate appeal, and seek a sentence that carries a mandatory custodial penalty befitting the gravity of rape.

Yours sincerely,

Alishia Fox,

Victim- survivor

Qld  4300