A Bunbury magistrate has taken the unusual step of requesting that a convicted sex offender, who pleaded guilty to indecent dealing with his six-year-old granddaughter, pay his victim $1000.
The 67-year-old grandfather, who cannot be named (to protect the identity of his victim), pleaded guilty to two counts of unlawful and indecent dealing after admitting to twice touching her vagina.
The Bunbury Magistrates court was told on Thursday that between December 26, 2016 and January 22, 2017, he twice touched the girl, who has a moderate disability.
The man claimed that he and the girl were playing before he fell asleep, and that when he awoke with a start, he "pushed her away in fright", touching the girl on her vagina.
He was fined $1000 and granted a spent conviction order, in a case that Magistrate Brian Mahon repeatedly described as "very, very unusual" - before he then requested the man put $1000 into a bank account for his granddaughter to access when she was older.
Magistrate Mahon said it was difficult to weigh the penalties that come with the serious charge against the community expectations given the circumstances.
"I can't order you to do that but I think it would be appropriate in this instance to request that you help to set your granddaughter up financially for the future as soon as you can afford it," the magistrate said.
The man indicated he was happy to oblige the request.
Negotiations between the prosecution and defence over a number of weeks discussed whether a charge of unlawful and indecent assault or common assault was the appropriate disposition.
Police prosecutor senior constable Karl Rep said the arresting officer was "an experienced police officer" who stood by his decision.
Mr Mahon said the grandfather showed poor judgement and while he did not wish to minimise the offence, it was one of the "strangest" matters he had dealt with in more than 20 years as a defence lawyer and magistrate.
He told the court a pre-sentence report recommended the man undergo counselling but admitted he was not likely to reoffend.
Mr Mahon also raised the topic of a spent conviction but senior constable Rep opposed it because the offence was alleged to have occurred twice.
The magistrate said he was "quietly confident" the 67-year-old, who had never been charged with any offence before, would not return to court again.
"I'm satisfied the reoffending risk is minimal and as such I will grant a spent conviction order," he said.
"It is rare to consider spent conviction orders for offences of this type and I make it clear that it is not appropriate to strike a child in this way."
The grandfather was fined $1000 and ordered to pay court costs of $98.50.
The maximum fine for each offence was $24,000 and/or two years imprisonment.