Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v Garside
[2015] VCC 1344
•23 September 2015
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA | Revised |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL JURISDICTIONCase No. CR-15-01071
| COMMONWEALTH DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| LESLY GARSIDE |
---
| JUDGE: | HIS HONOUR ACTING CHIEF JUDGE MCINERNEY |
| WHERE HELD: | Melbourne |
| DATE OF HEARING: | 8 September 2015 |
| DATE OF SENTENCE: | 23 September 2015 |
| CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP (Cth) v Garside |
| MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2015] VCC 1344 |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---Subject: CRIMINAL LAW
Catchwords: Sentence – plea of guilty to one charge of access child pornography using carriage service and one charge of knowingly possess child pornography
Legislation Cited: Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth), Crimes Act 1958 (Vic), Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic), Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), Sex Offenders Registration Act 2004 (Vic)
Cases Cited: R v Oliver [2003] 1 Cr App R 28; R v Porte [2015] NSWCCA 174; Boulton v R [2014] VSCA 342; R v De Leeuw [2015] NSWCCA 183; R v D'Alessandro (2010) 26 VR 447; DPP v Smith [2010] VSCA 215; R v Gent [2005] NSWCCA 370; DPP v Guest [2014] VSCA 29; Hasan v R [2010] 31 VR 28; R v Hudson (2010) 30 VR 610; DPP (Cth) v Zarb [2014] VSCA 347; DPP v Tokava [2006] VSCA 156; R v Merritt, Piggott and Ferrari [2007] 14 VR 392
Sentence: Convicted and sentenced to a Community Corrections Order of 4 years
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the CDPP | Ms A. Payton (Plea) Ms R. Verdon (Sentence) | Solicitor for the CDPP |
| For the Offender | Mr S. Howe | Hughes Watson Marks Kennedy |
HIS HONOUR:
1In this matter Mr Lesly Garside, who is 55 years of age and was born on 13th day of April 1960, pleaded guilty to two charges in Indictment CR-15-01071. In the plea Mr Howe appeared on behalf of Mr Garside and Ms Payton on behalf of the Commonwealth Director, and Ms Verdon appears today.
2The two charges on the Indictment are, firstly, a Commonwealth charge pursuant to clause 474(19)(1) of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth), that is accessing child pornography by use of a carriage service. The period of access for which Mr Garside is charged, is from July 2014 to March of this year, a period of eight months. The seriousness of this charge is demonstrated by the fact that the maximum penalty proscribed by the Commonwealth Parliament is 15 years.
3The second charge is that of possess child pornography. That is a State offence pursuant to s.70 of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic). Such relates to the possession, on the day on which the warrant was executed at your home, that is 26th day of March 2015. Again, that is a serious offence, but not as serious as the first charge as demonstrated by the fact that the maximum penalty proscribed in the Crimes Act1958 (Vic) is one of five years' gaol.
4In opening the prosecution advised the Court that you have no priors whatsoever. The prosecution opening was tendered by consent, Exhibit A, and your counsel, Mr Howe, accepted that the facts set out in that opening represented the facts upon which you are to be sentenced. It is clear that you were detected through analysis by the Federal Police of various sites, which dealt in child pornography, which were downloaded to your IP address.
5You made, on the day of the execution of the warrant, a record of conversation with the police. Seized was your office computer, which had attached to it an external hard drive. It is apparent from what you said on that day, that you had been accessing pornography, indeed pornography related to children, for some years. I stress, however, that you are not being charged for all of such. You are only charged for accessing child pornography in the eight month period set out in the Indictment.
6The material tendered to the Court shows that you had on that day, 6018 unique child pornography files. They had all been created in that eight month period. There was no subsequent record of interview entered into. You pleaded guilty at the committal mention in June of this year and the plea was heard three months later before this Court on 8 September. I am not sure - I might have had quicker matters, but coming before the Court and being heard as a plea in a period of three months, must be close to a record. What is important from your point of view is that your remorse, demonstrated by your plea of guilty and the utilitarian benefit by such, could not have been more to the fore, nor could the course of justice have been better assisted.
7You are, by that plea, subject to the Sex Offenders Registration Act 2004 (Vic) reporting conditions imposed by Parliament. In that regard you are required to be subject to those conditions for a period of 15 years. Those matters do not relate to me. However it is necessary for me to obtain from you on behalf of the Parliament, an acknowledgement of your understanding of this obligation. I will ask for that to be obtained now, and for your counsel to assist in that regard.
8Thank you. Insofar as the pornography was concerned, as I have just indicated, Exhibit B was a sample of such material provided to the Court. It is obviously important to comprehend and categorise such material. That categorisation and analysis follows a decision made in England in R v Oliver [2003] 1 Cr App R 28 ‘Oliver’.
9The Court of Appeal in England, at p.466, accepted the analysis from the English Sentencing Advisory Panel of the United Kingdom for the grading of such offences, by way of a grading system based upon what is known as the Copine scale. The Court of Appeal adopted at [11] not precisely the Copine scale, but a five level scale. The Federal authorities in Australia use a slightly different scale known as the Australian National Identification Library, and that is the scale used in Mr Garside’s case.
10The first of the scales, of which it is accepted 95 per cent of your child pornography material relates, is described by the Federal authorities as child exploitative material. Such involves no actual sexual activity, but involves a display, usually of the breasts or genitalia of a child. There was an issue raised, insofar as questions raised in Oliver were concerned, whether your material was predominately of that type, or simply of a display type. Having given your counsel the option to look at the sample it is clear that your material fits within the type that I have just described.
11The second category is that which is described as child exploitative material. This involves solo masturbation, sometimes the use of sex aids, sometimes the provision of an action of various low-key sex acts between children. There is no penetration by third parties.
12The third level relates to adults and children relationships but involves non-penetrative actions. The fourth scale is adult penetrative sexual activity and the fifth includes images of child abuse and sadism.
13There was some discussion between Ms Payton and myself about this categorisation. It is true, and has to be accepted, that there is no aggravation of these offences by being category 1 or 2. The fact they are not within the higher categories does not necessarily create any mitigation. I accept that totally. However it is valuable, and it is indeed important for such to be discriminated in order to determine the gravity in a particular case of the crime.
14It is not one of the most joyful experiences of a Judge to look at this material. This material was supplied to me to look at. There was, as I said, 95 per cent in the first category. It should not be misunderstood, such involves an inappropriate, concentration on, and display of young girls. A concentration in a sexual manner and display, upon their genitals or breasts, and their anus. Again not the most illuminating thing I have ever had to observe.
15We come then to the second category and admittedly this comprised less than two per cent of what you held. However the materials in this, because the children were quite young, can only be described as disgusting and in nearly every instance quite graphic. Such were very demeaning, and involved a gynaecological exploration of these young children.
16The third category is, again, a very low proportion of what you had, but again involves fairly unsavoury matters. The fourth category involving penetrative sexual activity by adults with children, obviously such is an indication of the seriousness of such material. I think the only word appropriate for that level is that most of it is absolutely revolting, especially the one that involved a very young baby.
17The fifth category involves, again, a very low number, indeed only 0.2 per cent but involves abuse of child, and indeed in one case a video involving a dog licking a child’s vagina.
18In our Court of Appeal, Priest JA, considered that it is not always necessary for a Judge to view the material, and I agree with that. If there is a proper analysis given, as there has been in this case, it is not always necessary. However I was prevailed upon to look at this material, that is, a sample of the 6018 unique child pornography files.
19
What did I get from this? Firstly it proves that at times it is necessary to view this material despite the inclination of the Court that it should not. I accept the comments put to me by the learned prosecutor, as set out in
R v Porte[2015] NSWCCA 174 [75], that all levels of this material are capable of possessing significance and gravity. All of the material from level 2 through to 5 were obnoxious. However the point has to be made that such was only five per cent.
20However, equally the point was made by the prosecution, that at each of those levels the files are substantial. In the sample, for example, there were 33 videos and one set of photographs. Each of the videos in themselves was quite extensive. The sample CD took between three to three and a half hours to play. That gives some indication, relating to only 33 videos, of the extent of all of the material in this case.
21
We then come to the issues as detailed before the Court by Mr Howe.
Mr Howe stressed that Mr Garside comes before the Court, at the age of 55. His wife is 53, and they have been married for 35 years. His daughter is also present in Court with her fiancé, as I understand it, and there has been strong family support, albeit for a short time, Mr Garside was required to move out from the home. Mr Garside remains, and is, supported by the family despite, no doubt, a failure to understand this offending which led, essentially, to a period of banishment and ultimately to forgiveness.
22There are two reports tendered on his behalf, both of psychologists. The first of Mr Joblin, Exhibit 1, and then of Mr Troup, Exhibit 2. Each talk to the empathy that has been expressed by Mr Garside, and the undertaking of counselling leading to an understanding of the seriousness of these crimes. Mr Joblin reports no minimisation and apparently, indeed, Mr Garside thanked the police for their actions, which he said finally put a stop to these crimes.
23I will not go over each of Mr Joblin's comments. He assesses the issues and problems that faced Mr Garside following this, the steps he has taken to understand the criminality and overcome it. He finally concludes at p.6 as follows:
"There is no doubt the offences of child pornography were concerning matters for Mr Garside. He believes those problems have been addressed and to assist him with the finality of that he is attending a counsellor".
24Mr Joblin said:
"In my opinion it (the counselling) is very important and should continue. He reported he wants to do that so he can fully understand the basis of the offending. A present situation appears one of stability. He's still working, his employers being unaware of what are the charges. He still enjoys a good relationship with his wife living at home".
25The stability of the present treatment programs, in Mr Joblin's view, should continue. Both of those factors operate to reduce substantially the risk of future offending. Mr Joblin submits that there has been considerable experience from his reaction, steps taken, the medical emergency in his case and his travails through the justice system as to awareness. Mr Joblin talks of genuine remorse and Mr Garside being strongly self-deprecating. Indeed to that extent, as we understand it, there was a medical emergency, which has been referred to, and materials tendered insofar as an admission to the Royal Melbourne Hospital on the 6th day of May 2015.
26Insofar as Exhibit 2 is concerned, that is the report of Mr Troup, there have been eight consultations with Mr Troup since the offending, having begun in April 2015. Such consultations are continuing and are recommended to be continued. In regard to the life crisis, that have been spoken about, the issues which led to what I have just referred to, since that time, M Garside has been on Zoloft as an anti-depressant medication and is maintaining abstinence of alcohol.
27As to the assessment, there is no walking away from the seriousness of these crimes. In consultation, Mr Garside attributed the attraction in this criminality to a compulsive fascination, which developed, and which was driven by curiosity.
28There is, of course, no other aspects that are often associated with this type of behaviour, in the sense there is no exchanging of such files with other persons or making them available on the internet, or profit making. There is no issue, according to the psychologists, of any deviance, apart from viewing this material in a voyeur capacity. Insofar as understanding general issues with his health and the circumstances that led to these crimes, he continues to undertake counselling and treatment.
29It was Mr Troup's opinion that there is a positive prognosis in regard to Mr Garside understanding and overcoming this aspect of his personality, which led him to commit these crimes. Particularly at p.4 Mr Troup said:
"Given the changes he has shown to date, in my opinion he would benefit from ongoing professional input for the next year so that he can show that such matters are fully under control over an extended period. This will involve regular treatment from the GP and psychologist over some time.
The evidence gathered during this assessment, interviews and therapy sessions suggests Mr Garside is unlikely to re-offend. He does not fit the profile of a repeat sexual offender. His viewing and possession of child pornography did not, as far as I am aware, progress to form associations with others to source files or distribute the material.
He lives with and is connected to his family. He has demonstrated the capacity to reflect upon his sexual attitudes and to develop consideration for the victims. His is remorseful and committed to continuing the mental health support. Further therapy would also be required to deal with his depression".
30It is the recommendation, found at p.5 of Mr Greg Troup, clinical psychologist that:
"His psychological health and well-being of his family be considered on sentencing. Incarceration is likely to have a significant long term detrimental effect on his mental health. The emotional impact of his absence on his family will be high and Mr Garside's fragile mental health in times of severe stress put him at a risk of harm".
31There was also a strong reference from his own father, Exhibit 3. It was put by Mr Howe that I should conclude that you, Mr Garside, have minimal prospects of re-offending given the fact that you are dealing with the issues that led to this. It was put to me that that your self-deprecation has led to an understanding and an acceptance, which should satisfy the Court that you have no desire to re-offend.
32It is put that you have suffered, not only because of the disclosure of these matters to your family, your daughter and your friends who are in Court, but genuine personal shame, which led to that mental crisis.
33The principles in Boulton v R [2014] VSCA 342 ‘Boulton’ were generally referred to. It was the submission of Mr Howe that in the circumstances I should pass a Community Corrections Order by way of sentence, despite the seriousness of the charges.
34That then takes me to the submission on sentence of the prosecution. That submission essentially amounted to the fact that given the seriousness of the material of which I viewed, albeit the rating of 95 per cent of it, such still called for a sentence involving a period of immediate imprisonment.
35The prosecution in submission referred to R v De Leeuw [2015] NSWCCA 183 ‘De Leeuw’. These matters and general classifications have been referred to by our own Court of Appeal in R v D'Alessandro (2010) 26 VR 447 and by Nettle AJ, as he then was, in DPP v Smith [2010] VSCA 215 ‘Smith’.
36At paragraph 16 of the submission a number of matters spoken of in De Leeuw were referred to, that they reflect very much the issues spoken of by Nettle JA, as he then was, in Smith at [23] and as referred to by Nettle JA in that paragraph, the criteria enumerated in Johnson J in R v Gent [2005] NSWCCA 370 [99].
37However taking DeLeeuw as a convenient summary, and given that the learned prosecutor was good enough to provide same to the Court, it is important to look at this offending on such basis. I have described the nature and content of the material that relates to children. The material was particularly grave in the level from 2 to 5.
38The numbers involved are considerable, albeit that in DeLeeuw I think it was something like 32,000. This is at the 6000 level and is more akin to that found in Smith. As to whether the material was for the purpose of sale or further distribution there is no such evidence. As to whether there was any profit from the offending, again there is no such evidence.
39As to the number of children depicted and thereby victimised one could not postulate, but as I have indicated there are a number of children in each instance and we know for sure that there were 6000 separate files. So there is probably, at least that number, it is just not appropriate to guess. The length of time, of course, over which this material was downloaded was a period of eight months leading to the Victorian charge, as to the possession on the day.
40The learned prosecutor appropriately took me to the principle of general deterrence, Mr Howe did not dispute such, the intent of Parliament as expressed in the proscribed sentences and also the factors in s16A(2) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth).
41The Crown also took me to the issue of contrition. I have concluded that there has been genuine contrition, and appropriate steps taken by Mr Garside to remedy those defects in his character, which have led him to such criminality. I've also already referred to the guilty plea. There is no doubt that specific deterrence plays an important role in this sentence and there is, of course, a need for appropriate punishment.
42I do not agree with the proposition put in paragraph 38, Exhibit A, that non-custodial dispositions should only be contemplated in circumstances that can properly be said to be exceptional. It was in such context, given the totality of the videos that I have referred to, the prosecution submitted that immediate imprisonment should be imposed.
43The learned prosecutor relied, in particular, upon the comments in DPP v Guest [2014] VSCA 29, and, given the correlation of the circumstances to Mr Garside’s case, as stated by Coghlan JA at [48] of that determination. In particular the learned prosecutor referred to the paragraph that I have just referred to. That is, where His Honour said, "A non-custodial disposition should only be contemplated in circumstances that are exceptional".
44Insofar as the Court takes into account other sentences and Court pronouncements, such is obviously done as part of the process of synthesis that a Court undertakes. In that regard, of course, I thank the Commonwealth prosecutor for the list of comparative cased given to me. The issue was raised in Hasan v R [2010] 31 VR 28. Under the heading "Consistency of Sentencing" the Court of Appeal stresses that the first task of a sentencing Judge, when seeking to ascertain an appropriate sentence, is to assess the objective gravity of a particular offence. Of course the maximum penalty set by Parliament gives a good guide. The Court then go on to look and talk about cases, which assist a Judge to make objective assessments, but warns that there are limitations in such process. Those matters are further referred to in R v Hudson (2010) 30 VR 610 [27].
45It seems to me that such is appropriate when I bear in mind both the facts and the statements made in Guest and the series of authorities that the learned prosecutor was kind enough to refer, which is set out in the materials that I have just indicated.
46Insofar as the particular words of Coghlan JA it is always difficult, when one is sitting in an inferior Court, to be so bold as to make any comment. But being bold, and certainly not critical, in order to fully understand this I have, on prior occasions, when this case has been submitted by the Commonwealth, analysed the relevant cases, in particular D'Alessandro, Gent, Smith, Guest and DPP (Cth) v Zarb [2014] VSCA 347 ‘Zarb’.
47The view, adopted in Zarb, by the majority, was to agree with the comments in Guest of Coghlan J, is not the analysis that I prefer. The view expressed by Nettle JA in Smith at [23], as he then was, and Priest JA, summarised in the minority decision in Zarb, is the view which most closely reflects my experience of sentencing over the last 20 years. If I may quote Priest JA from Zarb, the comment that I refer to is at p.31, [71] where His Honour said:
"With respect I do not think the view expressed by Coghlan JA can be accepted without qualification. It is not correct, in my view to posit that a non-custodial disposition should only be contemplated in circumstances that are exceptional. There is no statutory warrant for that view, let alone an inflexible legislative command that an offender must be imprisoned for this kind of offending unless exceptional circumstances exist".
48It is my respectful opinion that the better analysis is as expressed by Nettle JA in Smith, as I have said at [23], which was as follows,
"A sentence of immediate imprisonment might ordinarily be warranted. Cases where a sentence which does not involve a period of actual custody are not precluded. Each case must, of course, depend on its own particular facts".
49Of course in the case of Smith at paragraphs 27 and 29 is an analysis, as I have already indicated, similar to that of Priest JA. I think in the context of what might be seen to be a pedantic analysis, but important in this case, I am inclined to go with the Priest/Nettle view. I therefore reject that proposition put to me by the learned prosecutor, and indeed Mr Howe, with great respect, perhaps adopted by yourself.
50Also of fundamental importance, as pointed out the prosecutor is the principle set out in s.17A of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), and I have already referred to that.
51In addition, I refer to the words of the President of the Victorian Court of Appeal, as to the importance of rehabilitation in any sentence. Such were firstly expressed in DPP v Tokava [2006] VSCA 156. Albeit that such case related to young offenders, the principles seem to me equally applicable to Mr Garside, being a person who has spent 55 years of his life without any criminal conviction. In our system of Justice, and certainly in this Court, a person of that age, with a clean background, is entitled to come to the Court seeking mercy.
52The point in Tokava, made by the President, about rehabilitation, is that, of course, a Court is sanctioned not to impose a period of imprisonment unless that is the last option. That is set out in, as I said, s.17A of the Commonwealth Crimes Act. The President at [24] said:
"It is important for sentencing Courts not to ignore the evidence about the social effects of time spent in actual gaol".
53More particularly by way of reference to the issue of rehabilitation are the statements made, also by the President, in R v Merritt, Piggott and Ferrari [2007] 14 VR 392. In particular at [49] where the President said, in regard to rehabilitation, the following:
"The sentencing Court looks to the future as well as the past. There is a very great benefit to the community at large as well as to the individuals themselves and their immediate families if future criminal activity can be avoided. It is important that this Court, by its own sentencing decisions, recognise and reward efforts at rehabilitation. Just as we should support trial Judges who do so.
"It is important to reinforce in the public mind the very considerable public interest and the rehabilitation of offenders. The preoccupation with retribution which characterises much of the public debate on sentencing is understandable, but it focuses on only part of what the sentencing Court does".
54I find that these principles are very important when one is dealing with a man such as Mr Garside, who is aged 55, who has lived, as I have said, a blame free life to this time. The steps taken and rehabilitation effected since these crimes were committed are very significant, it is for that reason that I have taken the time to refer specifically to the opinions of the psychologists. Of course I accept totally, in matters such as this, rehabilitation is always a factor, but only one of the factors which has to be balanced against the very important factors, to which I have referred as set out in the authorities, being general deterrence, specific deterrence, punishment and denunciation.
55However I am convinced upon the evidence before me that Mr Garside has taken steps, and has suffered appropriate shame, given the disclosure of these crimes to his family and given the steps he has taken with the psychologists, that I have referred to. I have confidence that, if given an opportunity, Mr Garside is not a person who will be back before this Court again.
56In particular, insofar as the Victoria legislation is concerned I take into account the principles set out in s.5 and s.5(4)(c) of the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic). As I have said I take into account in particular the age of Mr Garside and the fact that he has no prior convictions whatsoever. I stress again the support of the family, the steps taken to date by Mr Garside by way of counselling and medical treatment and the genuine shame and remorse demonstrated by him.
57This is not in any way to lessen the seriousness of these crimes, but in assessing the gravity it is important to understand that 95 per cent of this material was, as I have indicated, in the first category, albeit still offensive. It is also appropriate to comprehend that as a result of his plea Mr Garside is to be subject to sexual reporting for the next 15 years.
58As I said the report given this morning from the Community Corrections officer is positive. In all the circumstances, despite the strong submission put to me by the prosecutor that immediate imprisonment should be imposed, I have determined that such should not be so. I accede to the submission of Mr Howe, that in this particular case, for the reasons expressed, the appropriate sentence to impose is a Community Corrections Order.
59I do, however, intend to impose a significant fine. That fine cannot be imposed as part of a Community Corrections Order for a Commonwealth matter. It is necessary therefore to impose two separate Community Corrections Orders. I intend to impose a fine in addition to two Community Corrections Orders, Mr Howe, which will be for a period of four years, which will have within them a requirement to do 300 hours of community, and to include the requirements as detailed in the Community Corrections report.
60In addition to the Community Corrections Order I intend to impose a fine in regard to the State offence in the sum of $5000. I am happy to give a stay of, say, 12 months in that regard, but Mr Howe you should explain to your client that if there was an extension sought, a significant amount of that sum would need to be paid. I need you to talk to your client to ensure that he is happy to accept and undertake the obligations involved in such Community Corrections Order and insofar as the fine is concerned.
61MR HOWE: Yes, Your Honour. My client accepts those obligations, Your Honour.
62HIS HONOUR: Yes, if you would stand, Mr Garside.
63You will be convicted on both of these charges. There is enough that has been said, no doubt, in the privacy of your own home and indeed as part of your counselling, for you to reflect on the criminal seriousness of the behaviour that you have indulged. You have heard me describe the type of material, and you, more than anyone else in this Court, understand that material.
64However for all of the factors expressed, I have decided, despite the strong submission of the Commonwealth, that I will not impose a period of immediate imprisonment in your case. That in itself should make you understand that not only do these conditions have to be complied with, but there is to be no further criminality in your life. You would understand the consequences, if there were. Also you would understand how close you have come today to losing your liberty.
65In that regard you will be convicted in regard to the first charge, being the Commonwealth offence, for which I intend to impose a Community Corrections Order for a period of four years.
66Attached to that will be a requirement for community work in the sum of 300 hours. I will not specify an intensive period in that matter. I will allow that issue, Mr Howe, to be discussed with the authorities.
67There is a treatment and rehabilitation condition under s.48(3)(e), a treatment, rehabilitation program to reduce re-offending condition under s.48D(3)(f) and a supervision condition under s.48E.
68I am not going to order the SOATS recommendation. That is a matter I will leave to the authorities. I note that Mr Garside is under psychological treatment and assistance himself and is also going to be subject to the reporting scheme. Mr Garside is to report to the Lilydale Community Corrections office by 4.00 pm by 25 September 2015.
69Insofar as the State offence is concerned I impose a Community Corrections Order with the same terms and conditions. Such Community Corrections Order to begin this day, and to be of the same period of four years. In addition for such crime I impose a fine of $5000, as to which, Mr Howe, I will grant a stay of 12 months on the basis that I have already explained.
70MR HOWE: As Your Honour pleases.
71HIS HONOUR: Are there any matters I need to attend to?
72
MS VERDON: Would Your Honour mind then to indicate
a 6AAA ‑ ‑ ‑
73HIS HONOUR: Yes, yes, yes. The Parliament requires the Court to make a statement in regard to the provisions of s.6AAA of the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) to Mr Garside as to what might have happened to him had he not pleaded guilty in this matter. One is uncertain, as a matter of law, whether one is required to do that in regard to Commonwealth offences, however we accept at the moment, unless the High Court tells us otherwise, that we are so required.
74To the best that I can comply with the requirements of Parliament, as to both offences, it is quite clear I would have thought to you, Mr Garside, that had you not pleaded guilty and fought the matter and then been convicted, there would have been no option but that you would be going to gaol. I cannot do any better than that in the circumstances.
75You will be required to sign the two Community Corrections Orders. They will be prepared and they will be explained by Mr Howe to you. You can take a seat. Once you have signed those you can come out of the dock. Can I thank the family for their manner in this case, and understanding the support of your wife and family has been of importance to me in my considerations.
76I thank both counsel for their assistance and the material the Court was given. If you can convey that on my behalf.
‑ ‑ ‑
8
0