At sentencing, Judge Tompkins noted the offending was a serious breach of trust by Fisher despite his lawyer arguing the offending was spontaneous. The pre-sentence report at the time also stated Fisher minimised the offending, saying there was "nothing sexual in his actions" and it was a "lapse of reasoning", the sentencing judge had noted.
Lawyer Ian Hard argued at appeal that the sentencing judge gave too much emphasis to alleged minimisation by Fisher rather than considering other relevant factors including his client's admission of guilt and previous lack of offending.
However, appeal judge Justice Joe Williams said Fisher's claims there was nothing sexual in his actions showed he had a profound lack of insight into his offending.
Justice Williams dismissed the appeal, finding Judge Tompkins rightfully refused a home-detention sentence for Fisher.