Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v El-Haouli
[2018] VCC 2172
•19 December 2018
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication | |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION
Case No. CR-18-00342
| COMMONWEALTH DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| RAMSEY EL-HAOULI |
---
JUDGE: | HIS HONOUR JUDGE GAMBLE | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 10 September and 13 December 2018 | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 19 December 2018 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP (Cth) v El-Haouli | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2019] VCC 2172 | |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Subject: CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence -
Catchwords:
Legislation Cited:
Cases Cited:
Sentence:
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Prosecution | Ms L Monagle | Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused | Mr L Gwynn | Theo Magazis |
HIS HONOUR:
Introduction
1 Ramsey El-Haouli, you have pleaded guilty to a Commonwealth indictment containing two charges of dishonestly obtaining a financial advantage from a Commonwealth entity contrary to subsection 134.2(1) of the Criminal Code (Cth). The maximum penalty for each of those offences is 10 years’ imprisonment.
2 The offence alleged in charge 1 spans the 2½ year period between 12 June 2013 and 6 January 2016. As a result of your failure to comply with your obligation to advise the Department of Human Services of your employment and income, you dishonestly obtained a financial advantage in the form of payments of a Carer Payment.
3 The offence in charge 2 is alleged in slightly different terms. It spans the nearly 14 month period between 14 January 2016 and 8 March 2017. As a result of you falsely declaring that you were not undertaking any paid work, you dishonestly obtained a financial advantage in the form of payments of a Carer Payment.
4 The circumstances in which you came to commit those offences are set out in the typed prosecution opening dated 3 September 2018, a copy of which was tendered as exhibit A on the plea hearing. As your counsel did not take issue with what was therein alleged, it can be treated as an agreed statement of facts for sentencing purposes.
5 Your repeated failure to inform the Department about your income from employment during the period alleged in charge 1 amounted to an ongoing course of conduct as there were intentional omissions of a similar nature with the purpose of obtaining payments of Carer Payment from the relevant Commonwealth Department, payments which you knew or believed you were not eligible to receive. As a result, you fraudulently obtained $59,187.18 from the Commonwealth.
6 The offending in charge 2 commenced on 14 January 2016, when you falsely advised the Department that you were not working. Thereafter, for the remainder of the period alleged, you continued to receive payments based on that false information. As a result, you fraudulently obtained $27,130.09 from the Commonwealth.
7 The total amount that you fraudulently obtained was therefore $86,317.27.
8 I note that you were born on 5 January 1983. You were therefore aged between 30 and 33 when you committed the offence alleged in charge 1 and between 33 and 34 when you committed the offence alleged in charge 2.
Background
9 By way of relevant background, I note the following.
10 At all relevant times, Centrelink was responsible for the administration and delivery of social security payments. On 1 July 2011, Parliament passed legislation which integrated those services into the Department of Human Services.
11 In order to qualify for a social security payment, a person is required to lodge a claim form which, among other things, requires the person to provide evidence of their identity and any assets and income. Based on the information provided by the applicant, a determination is made as to whether to grant or reject the claim.
12 A successful claimant is advised in writing of their ongoing obligations to notify Centrelink of changes in circumstances that might affect their entitlement. Thereafter, certain triggers cause advice and obligation letters to remind a claimant of their obligations. Centrelink electronically records contact with recipients.
13 Since 1999, you had intermittently been in receipt of social security benefits in the form of Youth Allowance, Parenting Payment Single, Newstart Allowance and Carer Payment.
14 A Carer Payment is payable to eligible persons who provide full-time care in the home of a person with a severe disability. The rate of benefit payable is affected by other income received by the person (the caregiver), including income from employment.
Circumstances of the offending
15 I turn now to briefly describe the circumstances of your offending.
16 On 20 May 2013, you commenced self-employment as a Family Day Care Educator with Kids R Kids Family Day Care. You failed to report this change in your circumstances to the Department and, as a result, you obtained social security payments to which you knew or believed you were not entitled.
17 You continued to earn income from that employment during the entire period covered by the two charges.
18 During the period alleged in charge 1, you earned $516,604.24 in gross income, at an average of $7,597.12 gross income per fortnight. During that period, you were not required to regularly report in order to continue to receive benefits from the Department. However, you remained subject to an ongoing legal obligation to report an event or change in circumstance, such as changes to your income, including if you commenced earning income or if your income varied. Given that income, you were not in fact entitled to receive any benefits and, accordingly, the entire amount you received by way of social security payments during that period, namely $59,187.18, constitutes an overpayment.
19 During the period alleged in charge 2, you earned $205,986.94 in gross income, at an average of $6,644.74 gross income per fortnight. During that period, you were similarly not required to regularly report. However, on 14 January 2016, you returned a completed ‘Review of eligibility for Carer Payment and Carer’s Allowance’ form in which you ticked the ‘No’ box for the question “Do you undertake any paid or voluntary work, study or training?” As a result of that false declaration, you obtained social security payments to which you knew or believed you were not entitled. Given that income, you were not in fact entitled to receive any benefits and, accordingly, the entire amount you received by way of social security payments during that period, namely $27,130.09, is considered to be an overpayment.
20 As I have already noted, the total overpayment received by you as a result of the charged offending in which you engaged, was $86,317.27. The total period encompassed by that offending is approximately 3 years and 9 months.
Detection of Offending
21 This offending was detected by way of an internal Department review.
22 On 7 April 2017, the Department sent you written advice of the overpayment.
23 On 5 May 2017, the Department sent you a written invitation to take part in a formal interview, which you declined.
24 However, on 24 May 2017, you provided a signed statement in which you asserted that you did not deliberately fail to disclose your financial circumstances to Centrelink.
Subsequent events
25 On 30 October 2017, you were charged on summons.
26 On 15 February 2018, the matter resolved.
27 You were formally arraigned on 3 July 2018 and pleaded guilty.
28 The matter was then adjourned for a plea hearing which commenced on 10 September and concluded on 13 December.
29 I note that Mr El-Haouli has not served any pre-sentence detention in respect of this matter.
Reparation
30 I also note that the prosecution have, pursuant to section 21B(1) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), sought an order for reparation in favour of the Commonwealth for the full amount of $86,317.27 and that Mr El-Haouli has, through his counsel, indicated his consent to the making of such an order. It is appropriate in all of the circumstances to grant that application. Accordingly, the reparation order is made in the terms sought by the prosecution. I have taken the fact that Mr El-Haouli consented to the making of such an order into account in his favour.
Personal circumstances
31 I will now briefly outline your personal circumstances, Mr El-Haouli.
32 Your background has been referred to by your counsel and by the consultant psychologist, Mr Ian Mackinnon, in his report dated 31 August 2018.[1]
[1] The report was tendered as exhibit 2 on the plea.
33 Your parents are originally from Lebanon. You were born and raised in Melbourne as one of nine children and as part of a very large extended family. You enjoy a good relationship with your parents and siblings. You are now aged 35.
34 You left secondary school mid-way through Year 12 to work as a spray painter. After 12 months, you worked in a bakery and then as a tiler for 10 years. From 2013 until 2017, you did Family Day Care work, caring for up to 8 children at a time in your home. The payments you received were used, in part, to cover the cost of meals, utilities and other expenses such as excursions.
35 You have not been in paid employment since leaving your role as a child care worker in early March 2017. Since then, you have been in receipt of a New Start allowance. However, as soon as you are free to do so, you intend to resume work as a tiler. I have no doubt that you will have little difficulty finding work in that field when you are released from custody.
36 You appear to have had two significant relationships. The first was with a young woman named Simen and produced two sons now aged 17 and 18, respectively. That relationship commenced when you were very young and did not last very long. You have had the custody of those boys since you were 18. The second relationship was with your wife, Malek, and produced four children whom your counsel described as being aged 13, 10, 8 and 5. Until very recently, you and your wife were separated but living under the one roof with your six children, in rented accommodation.
37 That situation changed as the result of an interim intervention order that was taken out against you by Victoria Police on 19 November 2018, following an alleged incident of domestic violence. You have had to move out of the family home as the protected persons under that order are your ex-wife Malek and four of your children. The foundational allegation for the making of that interim order is disputed by you and will be the subject of a contested hearing when the matter returns to the Magistrates’ Court on 10 January next year.
38 Since that change in your family circumstances, you and your two eldest children, who are not part of the order, have been living at your parents’ home. Given those newfound circumstances, it is unsurprising that your counsel abandoned his earlier attempt to rely on family hardship as a mitigating factor in your case.
39 Your oldest son, Hamzah, has special needs and requires ongoing treatment for several medical conditions including migraine headaches, arrested hydrocephalus, posterior fossa arachnoid cyst and asymmetric diplegia.[2] Whilst his condition has now improved, he required significantly more care in the relevant period 2013 to 2017.
[2] As to which, see medical report of Dr Freeman dated 5 June 2015, exhibit 3.
40 Your now 7 year old son, Noah, also suffers from a number of chronic medical conditions, including Noonan’s syndrome, Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, S/P myectomy and atrial ectopic tachycardia.[3] Following his birth, he spent 12 months in hospital. He has already undergone heart surgery and may require further surgery in the future.
[3] As to which, see two medical reports from the Royal Children’s Hospital dated 28 May and 15 June 2018, exhibits 4 and 5, respectively.
41 Your wife, Malek, has her own medical problems to cope with. She suffers from Polio and a resultant weakness in her left leg.
42 For your part, Mr El-Haouli, you enjoy relatively good physical health.
43 You were seen by the consultant psychologist, Mr Ian Mackinnon, on 23 August 2018. He prepared a report dated 31 August and gave viva voce evidence at the further plea hearing on 13 December.
44 You have no history of illicit substance use and denied having had any previous psychiatric or psychological treatment, including medication. In the history that you provided to Mr Mackinnon, you reported no significant or chronic conditions but rather stated “Just anxiety and depression over all of this. My main concern is my kids and my wife”.
45 Mr Mackinnon assessed both your functional intelligence and your general cognitive functioning as falling within the normal adult range. He considered you to be a very family-orientated individual rather than an inherently antisocial or criminal character. You impressed him as remorseful and explained your offending by reference to the serious medical prognosis for your son at that time and your perceived need to focus on him and the rest of your family and look after them as best as you could during what was a very difficult and stressful time.
46 The opinions expressed by Mr Mackinnon in his report included the following:
“Mr El-Haouli appeared to be suffering from a long standing Mixed Anxiety and Depression Disorder (MADD) – a consequence of the long term stressors (emotional and financial) arising from his parental and partner responsibilities; exacerbated more recently by his unresolved legal matters and the threat of imprisonment he faces”.[4]
[4] Exhibit 2, page 5.3.
…
“…Mr El-Haouli’s [disorder] probably made a significant contribution to his offending by degrading his ability to reason and make sound judgement, elevating his impulsivity, lowering his powers of consequential thinking, lowering his frustration tolerance threshold and encouraging an especially family-focussed perspective – to the exclusion of some of his normal social responsibilities.
In this context, Mr El-Haouli’s sense of legal and community responsibilities and obligations was severely degraded. Mr El-Haouli does not appear to have been motivated by selfish antisocial aims but his sense of what was, and what was not, acceptable conduct was distorted by his perception of his family’s needs and difficulties. At the time, [his] son, Noah, had apparently been given a prognosis by his treating specialists that suggested he would probably not live more than a few years.
At the time of the offences, Mr El-Haouli was working as a Family Day Care worker but he was still struggling with severe financial difficulties as he attempted to provide adequately for his six children and Malek (the special needs of his two children and his ex-wife putting exceptional strain on Mr El-Haouli). Accordingly, Mr El-Haouli’s offending was motivated by financial gain, his judgement having been distorted by severe financial stressors and the anxiety and depression he was suffering with. Quite simply, at the time, Mr El-Haouli and Malek did not expect Noah to live much longer…”[5]
[5] Ibid, pages 5.9-6.3.
47 Addressing the likely experience of imprisonment for Mr El-Haouli, Mr Mackinnon noted the following:
“Should the court impose a significant term of imprisonment on Mr El-Haouli, it is likely that his Mixed Anxiety and Depression Disorder will worsen. It is already manifested at a significant level and [his] imprisonment may well lead to an acute psychological breakdown. Mr El-Haouli’s family appear to be highly dependent on him and his absence is likely to put more strain on them-especially his ex-wife as she attempts to care for six children without the help of her former husband.”[6]
[6] Ibid, pages 6.9-7.1.
48 In terms of treatment, Mr Mackinnon recommended, in light of the stressors Mr El-Haouli is already under, that he consider pursuing psychological therapy of his own initiative, in his own time, at his own pace, to address his anxiety, depression and other issues.
49 In his viva voce evidence at the further plea hearing, Mr Mackinnon explained that his opinions in respect of your likely mental state at the time of your offending were based on the history that you gave him rather than on any contemporaneous medical, psychological or psychiatric records, as none existed. He also took into account your presentation at the time he interviewed you on 23 August this year. He also confirmed that the level of your underlying anxiety and depression has been exacerbated by your current legal predicament, including the prospect of having to serve an immediate sentence of imprisonment. Unsurprisingly, he found it difficult to ‘unpack’ that and provide any quantification of the relevant contributions of the various factors which have contributed to your condition. He remained adamant that your condition was of clinical significance and not solely reactive to your legal situation.
50 In cross-examination, Mr Mackinnon indicated that he had seen you on one occasion, for 90 minutes. As he understood it, you had never previously been referred for any relevant medical or psychological/psychiatric treatment. He readily acknowledged that he had not been told how much you or your ex-wife had been earning during the relevant period and once advised of the details by Ms Monagle, had to concede that his earlier expressed opinions relating to your offending having been motivated by financial stress may have to change.
Analysis
51 In my view, there are some real problems which the defence face in relation to establishing the necessary evidentiary basis for a full reliance on the Verdins principles. Whilst I have no doubt that principles 5 and 6 are engaged in circumstances where Mr El-Haouli will have to serve an immediate term of imprisonment, the situation in relation to the other principles is more problematic.
52 In terms of whether Mr El-Haouli suffered from a mental condition at the relevant time, and if so, whether and to what degree it was causally connected to his offending, Mr Mackinnon was substantially reliant on Mr El-Haouli’s self-report of how he was feeling at a time anywhere from 18 months to 5 years previously, depending on which charge and which part of the timeframe encompassed by the charge was being considered. He also seems to have accepted what he was told without question. A court must pause to question the reliability of such a process, even if the historian is doing their best to try and accurately recollect. Here, there is some further cause for caution when one considers the emphasis that Mr El-Haouli seems to have given the financial stress that he claims he and his family were under at the time.[7]
[7] A letter from Mr El-Haouli dated 6 September 2018 was tendered as exhibit 6 on the plea.
53 In the end, I am prepared to accept that Mr El-Haouli was in an emotionally stressful situation during the period of his offending. There is no real dispute that he and his wife were charged with the care of a large family which included two children with special needs. It must be recognised and acknowledged that the situation with young Noah was particularly difficult. It would be harsh in the extreme not to recognise that Mr El-Haouli’s offending occurred in that context during a period of emotional challenge and stress. I am prepared to accept that it played some role in his offending which would otherwise not be easily explained for a mature aged first time offender like Mr El-Haouli.
54 But, I do not accept that Mr El-Haouli felt under any financial stress given the known facts relating to what he and his wife were earning. This was not a case of true need. Nor is it a case of true greed, in my view. There was a very unusual and nuanced context to this offending.
55 Ultimately, I am satisfied that Mr El-Haouli would have been experiencing symptoms of anxiety and depression on account of the stressful emotional, as opposed to financial, situation he faced in respect of his children, in particular, Noah.
56 It is not as easy to look back so far and try and determine with precision the nature and extent of his symptoms of anxiety and depression and the manner and degree to which it influenced his offending.
57 What I am prepared to do, however, is acknowledge the difficult situation that Mr El-Haouli faced and give some weight to the emotionally stressful context in which his offending occurred. Were it not for the unusual context in which this offending occurred, an appreciably more severe sentence would have been imposed on Mr El-Haouli.
Gravity of the offending
58 As is implicit from the relative high maximum penalty that applies, any instance of this type of offending must be treated seriously.
59 Offending such as this is easy to commit and difficult to detect. It is not a victimless crime. It puts at risk the Commonwealth Government’s ability to assist all of those members of the community who are in genuine financial need. The Government’s financial resources are not limitless.
60 Given the periods and amounts involved, each of these offences is a relatively serious offence. Clearly, the criminal offending encompassed by charge 1 is the most serious.
61 It is important to recognise, however, that Mr El-Haouli voluntarily brought an end to this offending on 5 March 2017, by which time he had ‘had enough’ of working as hard as he was. It was not, as in some cases, a situation where the offending was only curtailed as a result of detection by the relevant investigating authority.
Matters in mitigation
62 As was clear from the plea in mitigation made by Mr Gwynn, a number of matters in mitigation were able to be relied on by Mr El-Haouli. They include, inter alia, the following.
63 Mr El-Haouli has pleaded guilty at an early stage of the proceedings and demonstrated remorse for his offending. That warrants a significant discount in sentence.
64 He is of previous good character and to be treated as a first time offender given the fact that he has no prior or subsequent findings of guilt or convictions and no other criminal charges pending. As demonstrated by the tendered testimonials, this offending appears to have been considered as out of character for Mr El-Haouli.
65 He appears to have a good work ethic and a sound employment history. He will have little difficulty finding work again when he has the opportunity.
66 He is a committed family man and has ongoing family support from his large extended family. His immediate family situation is somewhat uncertain at present.
67 There are no drug or alcohol issues that may impede his future rehabilitation and his future prospects must be considered as very good.
68 The offending occurred during a period of high emotional stress and, in my opinion, is unlikely to be repeated.
69 Any term of immediate imprisonment will weigh heavily on Mr El-Haouli for a number of reasons. He has no previous experience with the criminal justice system or with incarceration. He suffers from anxiety and depression which will likely worsen once he is incarcerated shortly. He will have to face the difficulties relating to his immediate family situation while in custody as opposed to while in the community, that is, without the resources that are normally available to a person who is living in the community. He will also no doubt worry about the welfare of his family, in particular his children.
Sentencing principles
70 Of course, matters personal to Mr El Haouli are not the only matters to which I must have regard.
71 I am obliged to have regard to, so far as they are relevant, the various matters set out in s.16A of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) and I do so. Any sentence that I impose must be one that is of a severity appropriate in all the circumstances of this case.
72 General deterrence is an important sentencing consideration as is denunciation. Any sentence that this court imposes must be of such an order to achieve those sentencing objectives. It must make other like-minded offenders think twice about engaging in this or any similar type of offending in the future. The sentence imposed must send a clear message on behalf of the community that such criminal conduct is denounced in strong terms.
73 Mr El-Haouli must be punished for the criminal conduct in which he engaged, but in a manner and to an extent that is just and fair. When regard is had to all of the relevant circumstances, it is clear that any punishment must be relatively significant if it is to fulfil the need to pay due regard to the relevant sentencing objectives, in particular, general deterrence.
74 Given the nature and extent of this offending, specific deterrence also has some role to play, albeit a lesser one than some other sentencing considerations.
75 And, this court must have regard to Mr El-Haouli’s age and prospects of rehabilitation, which I have ultimately concluded are very good.
Sentencing submissions
76 In his sentencing submissions on behalf of the defence, Mr Gwynn submitted that all relevant sentencing considerations can be appropriately met through the imposition of an appropriately tailored community correction order or by an immediate release on a recognisance release order pursuant to s.20(1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth).
77 For their part, the prosecution sought to highlight the serious nature of this offending, the relatively high applicable maximum penalty and the need to give appropriate weight to the sentencing principle of general deterrence in the particular circumstances of this case. According to Ms Monagle, counsel appearing on behalf of the Commonwealth Director, only an immediate term of imprisonment would be appropriate for this offending.
78 I have considered those submissions carefully when deciding on the appropriate penalty in this case.
79 Bearing in mind the nature and extent of this offending, Mr El-Haouli’s personal circumstances, and the other relevant considerations, including the matters to which I must have regard in s.16A of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), I have ultimately concluded that the sentencing submission made by the prosecution in relation to the need for an immediately servable sentence of imprisonment is correct. In arriving at that view, I have, consistent with the statutory requirement in s.17A of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) concluded that no other option than a sentence of imprisonment is appropriate in all of the circumstances of this case.
Sentence
80 Mr El-Haouli, after balancing and weighing the relevant sentencing considerations in your case as best I can, I have concluded that nothing short of an immediate term of imprisonment is open. To do otherwise would fail to accord sufficient weight to a number of important sentencing considerations, especially general deterrence, and would represent an inadequate punishment for the criminality in which you engaged.
81 Mr El-Haouli, you are hereby convicted of each charge and sentenced to the following terms of imprisonment.
82 On Charge 1, dishonestly obtain a financial advantage by deception from a Commonwealth entity, 12 months.
83 On Charge 2, dishonestly obtain a financial advantage by deception from a Commonwealth entity, 6 months.
84 I make the following directions as to the commencement dates of those sentences
85 The sentence for Charge 1 is to commence today.
86 The sentence for Charge 2 is to commence 3 months before the sentence for Charge 1 is completed.
87 The total effective sentence is therefore 15 months’ imprisonment.
88 Pursuant to s.20(1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), I direct that Mr El-Haouli be released in relation to all federal sentences imposed this day, after having served 5 months of that sentence, upon giving security in the sum of $1000 on condition that he be of good behaviour for a period of 15 months.
89 The period of 5 months to be immediately served is, in my view, the minimum period that can be ordered in the circumstance of this case. In so ordering, I have sought to maximise what prospects of rehabilitation Mr El-Haouli has without undermining the punitive and deterrent requirements of this sentence.
90 Mr El-Haouli, I am required to explain the nature of that order to you and the consequences for you if you were to breach it.
91 The total sentence I have imposed is 15 months’ imprisonment. You are required to serve 5 months of that sentence in custody, that is, in gaol. Once you have done so, you will then be released on the recognisance in the sum of $1000, a condition of which is that you will be required to be of good behaviour for a period of 15 months. If you breach any of the conditions of that recognisance you can be brought back to court and, in addition to forfeiting the recognisance amount of $1000, you may be required to serve the balance of the sentence, namely, 10 months, in custody. Either you or the prosecution can seek to have the order discharged or varied under the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth). By signing the recognisance, which you will be invited to do shortly, you will be agreeing to be bound by the terms and conditions of that order. You will be given a copy of that order today.
92 Ms Monagle, have you prepared the required recognisance release order form?
93 MS MONAGLE: I have the form, Your Honour. Would Your Honour prefer just to stand down while it's filled in?
94 HIS HONOUR: I can do that.
95 MS MONAGLE: Thank you, Your Honour.
96 HIS HONOUR: Let my Associate know when you're ready. Thank you.
97 MS MONAGLE: Thank you, Your Honour.
98 HIS HONOUR: Mr Gwynn, you might take that opportunity to explain to your client what you need to at this stage.
99 MS GWYNN: I'm grateful, Your Honour, thank you.
100 HIS HONOUR: Thank you.
(Short adjournment)
101 MS MONAGLE: Your Honour, I have prepared the recognisance release order and my learned friend has had a look at that.
102 HIS HONOUR: Thank you.
103 MS MONAGLE: And I also have a copy of the reparation order for Your Honour's signature.
104 HIS HONOUR: Yes, I've signed each of those, I'll now ask that Mr El-Haouli sign the recognisance release order. Mr Gwynn, you may approach the dock and provide him with any further assistance he requires, if any.
105 MR GWYNN: Yes. Thank you, Your Honour. He's aware of the terms and conditions and he's in a position to sign it now. Thank you, Your Honour.
(Order signed by Mr El-Haouli)
106 HIS HONOUR: Mr El-Haouli, is that your signature on the document you were asked to sign?
107 OFFENDER: Yes, your Honour.
108 HIS HONOUR: Do you agree to be bound by the terms and conditions of that order?
109 OFFENDER: Yes.
110 HIS HONOUR: You may be seated, thank you.
Section 6 AAA indication
111 Pursuant to s.6AAA of the Sentencing Act 1991, I indicate that the total effective sentence that would have been imposed but for Mr El-Haouli’s plea of guilty to these charges would have been 20 months’ imprisonment with release under a recognisance release order after having served a period of 10 months.
Pre-sentence detention
112 I note for the sake of completeness that there is no period of pre-sentence detention to be declared in respect of the sentence that has been imposed on Mr El-Haouli today.
Custody management issues
113 Mr Gwynn, are there any custody management issues that should be noted apart from the fact that Mr El-Haouli will be vulnerable in custody because this is his first sentence of imprisonment and he has been diagnosed with a Mixed Anxiety and Depression Disorder which is expected to worsen once he goes into custody?
114 MR GWYNN: No, they are the only matters, thank you, Your Honour.
115 HIS HONOUR: Thank you.
Other matters
116 Counsel, are there any matters that either of you need to raise at this stage in relation to either sentence or my sentencing reasons?
117 MR GWYNN: No, thank you, Your Honour.
118 MS MONAGLE: No, Your Honour.
119 HIS HONOUR: Very well. Thank you each for your assistance in this matter. Adjourn the court sine die at this stage please Mr Hammill.
- - -
0
1
0