Director of Public Prosecutions v Ameri
[2014] VCC 1825
•31 October 2014
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA AT MELBOURNE CRIMINAL DIVISION | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
Case No. CR-13-01660
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| ETTORE AMERI |
---
JUDGE: | HER HONOUR JUDGE HOGAN | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 1-3 September 2014 and 27-28 October 2014 | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 31 October 2014 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Ameri | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2014] VCC 1825 | |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Subject: CRIMINAL LAW
Catchwords: One rolled up charge of theft, one charge of recklessly causing serious injury and one charge of recklessly causing injury – defendant committed unprovoked assaults whilst seriously intoxicated – defendant had lengthy criminal history and associated long term substance abuse issues.
Legislation Cited: Sentencing Act 1991
Cases Cited: R v Verdins (2007) 16 VR 269
Sentence: Total effective sentence two years and two months with non-parole period of one year and one month.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the DPP | Ms C Burnside | Office of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused | Mr T Fitzpatrick | Victorian Legal Aid |
HER HONOUR:
1 Ettore Ameri, you have pleaded guilty to one charge of theft, which carries a maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment; one charge of recklessly causing serious injury, which carries a maximum penalty of 15 years’ imprisonment; and one charge of recklessly causing injury, which carries a maximum penalty of 5 years’ imprisonment.
2 The circumstances of your offending are summarised in the Prosecution Opening (Exhibit “A”). On 27 April 2013 you twice attended a liquor store, “Beer, Wine and Spirits”, in Lygon Street, Carlton. On the first occasion you selected three cans of Smirnoff Ice Double Black, two of which you concealed and for which you did not pay. When you attended for the second time, you selected two bottles of Smirnoff Ice Double Black, one of which you concealed and for which you did not pay. These facts form the basis of Charge 1, theft, which is a rolled-up charge.
3 Subsequent to your first attendance at the liquor store, you went to a car park on the corner of Grattan and Cardigan Streets in Carlton. It was approximately 6.40pm and you yelled expletives and picked up pieces of broken brick from the footpath, which you threw, but, fortunately they caused no damage. You then began to abuse the car park attendant, Mr Jreije, and, then, turned your attention to Mr Prestinenzi, who, in company of two females, was leaving the car park on foot. You approached Mr Prestinenzi challenging him to fight. He ignored you and attempted to walk away. You then approached him and, without any provocation or warning, you used a brick to strike a heavy blow to the right-hand side of Mr Prestinenzi’s face. Mr Prestinenzi staggered away from you, whilst bleeding badly. An ambulance attended to take him to hospital where he was found to have suffered a fractured eye socket, a broken cheekbone, a fractured jaw and chipped teeth. He required surgery and a plate to be inserted into his face to assist in healing his injuries. This is the conduct constituting Charge 2, recklessly causing serious injury.
4 As you were pursuing Mr Prestinenzi, Mr Jreije approached you in an effort to restrain you and you threw two punches at him, striking him to the right eye. This is the conduct constituting Charge 3.
5 You then fled and attended the liquor store for the second time, as previously mentioned in relation to Charge 1. You argued with staff there and, then, proceeded to walk along Lygon Street in an unruly fashion, where you were arrested by police and tackled to the ground. During the arrest you sustained a broken lower left leg and were taken to the Royal Melbourne Hospital by ambulance for treatment.
6 Following your arrest, you were not interviewed by police, as you were hospitalised, and required surgery to your leg. However, whilst in hospital, you were secured and under police guard.
7 At the time of offending, you had five outstanding warrants for failing to appear on bail on charges of intentionally damaging property, thefts, burglaries, possessing a controlled weapon, unlawful assault, making a threat to kill, behaving in an offensive manner, criminal damage, begging alms, possessing cannabis and contravention of a Community-Based Order (which had been given on 10 November 2011). These outstanding matters were dealt with at the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court on 28 October 2013, and you were sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 18 months, with a non-parole period of 9 months. A period of 203 days held in custody was reckoned as time already served under that sentence. Clearly these convictions are subsequent to the offending for which I must sentence you and you have already been punished for them. I take them into account as being relevant only to the issues of totality and your prospects of rehabilitation. However, it is an aggravating feature that the offending for which I must sentence you was committed whilst on bail for those other offences.
8 You are presently aged 50 years, having been born on 26 November 1963. You come before the court with an extensive criminal history going back to 1980. You have a host of prior convictions for dishonesty offences, including burglaries, theft, aggravated burglaries and handling stolen goods, as well as forging prescriptions and other drug and alcohol related offences. You have also been convicted of several assaults, (including a number of charges of recklessly or intentionally causing injury). However, these assaults mainly occurred some time ago, between 1988 and 2002. Over the years you have received in excess of 30 sentences of imprisonment, ranging from one month to 24 months in duration. You breached parole twice (in 1984 and 1985), you three times breached suspended sentences (in 1994, 1995 and 2002). You breached an Intensive Corrections Order (in 2009) and, as previously mentioned, on 28 October 2013 you were found to have breached a Community-Based Order, which had been given on 10 November 2011.
9 In a plea on your behalf, Mr Fitzpatrick told the court that you have a long history of alcohol and drug abuse. In addition, you underwent a neurological assessment in 2005 which showed deficits in executive functioning and it was concluded that you had sustained an acquired brain injury at some stage in the past. You were reassessed by neuropsychologists in 2009, 2010 and, most recently, in 2014. It appears from these reports that the cause of your acquired brain injury is multifactorial, namely, a closed head injury sustained in a traffic accident during childhood, childhood meningitis, and polysubstance abuse and heroin overdoses. Your level of functioning has fluctuated over the years, with the main deficits being in the area of memory and concentration. It has been noted from time-to-time, that these deficits could be exacerbated by your emotional state and, in particular, high levels of anxiety and stress. The neuropsychological reports are respectively authored by Ian Stewart on 6 December 2005 (Exhibit “2”), Lindsay Vowels on 24 January 2009 (Exhibit “3”), Nicholas Bradfield on 13 December 2010 (Exhibit “4”), and Susan Carey on 14 October 2014 (Exhibit “5”).
10 Ms Carey, in her report, considered that, against a background of estimated low average premorbid abilities, your general intellectual abilities now fall in the borderline level, mildly below premorbid estimates. She assessed that, in comparison with the previous assessments in 2005, 2009 and 2010, the vast majority of your cognitive skills have remained stable or have improved, particularly your basic attention span and the majority of your executive functioning skills. I here interpolate that this is most likely associated with your having been abstinent from alcohol and drug abuse during the last 18 months whilst you have been incarcerated. Certainly, Ms Carey noted that there was no evidence of deterioration in any cognitive domain. However, she did assess you as suffering the following weaknesses:
(i)Occasions of mildly reduced psychomotor and information processing speed, particularly for written responses. Ms Carey noted that verbal response time was generally at normal levels.
(ii)Mildly reduced visuospatial skills (including non-verbal logical reasoning skills/problem solving, hand-eye coordination, and identification of visual details).
(iii)Extremely poor learning and remembering of verbal information and extremely poor immediate and delayed recall of visual information. In this regard, Ms Carey noted that your capacity for new learning and memory for recall of both verbal and visual information were generally at or below the first percentile. You demonstrate extremely poor acquisition of information in both structured format (for example, short stories) and with repetition of simpler information (for example, list learning). She noted that your immediate recall of information was characterised by a high number of intrusions and confabulation, in addition to excessive repetition (that is, not monitoring what you had already said). She also noted that recall of information after a 20/30 minute delay was similarly poor and you were not assisted by recognition prompting.
(iv)Poor self-monitoring. Ms Carey stated that, although you demonstrated adequate ability to adhere to stipulated rules, you had poor regulation/monitoring of your performance in order to minimise the presence of errors (that is, intrusions and repetitions).
11 Ms Carey also noted that you reported moderate levels of depressive and stress symptoms and mildly elevated levels of anxiety symptoms. In addition, you suffer ongoing physical issues relating to your left leg, which was broken when the police tackled you to the ground to arrest you in relation to this offending. This has required a number of operations and periods of hospitalisation and outpatient attendances at the Royal Melbourne Hospital and St Vincent’s Hospital. She noted that you are currently on a regime of medication including Tramadol, Pregablin, methadone, Mirtazapine, and fish oil. You had apparently required antibiotics for your leg injury for 18 months, but have ceased to require these recently. You reported that the Mirtazapine helped you with poor sleep, but not with feelings of anxiety. You denied suicidal ideation but told Ms Carey that you sometimes thought you would be better off dead.
12 Your background history is that you were born in Naples, Italy, and came to Australia at the age of six. According to a report some 10 years ago from Mr Bernard Healey, clinical psychologist, dated 28 February 2004 (Exhibit “1”), you had been struck by a motorcycle when you were aged five years, and were in a coma for some time and had fractured both legs. Back in Italy, you also underwent another period of hospitalisation for meningitis. Your family settled in Carlton and, later, Coburg. It would appear that you are the second youngest of six children and your siblings and parents have never been in trouble with the law, but your parents became increasingly exasperated by your maladjustment. From an early age, you began to use drugs and contracted hepatitis C and were given a sentence in a Youth Training Centre.
13 It would appear that you had developed a heroin habit by the age of 14 and, as previously mentioned, have been in and out of prison over many years. In 1991, you claimed that you were attacked by a group of men and suffered fractures to the upper and lower jaws, which were wired together with a pin and required a week in hospital, although you discharged yourself against medical advice. You have been involved in a number of subsequent assaults and altercations with the police and serious and repeated dishonesty offences, presumably to support your substance abuse.
14 Mr Healey reported that you had commenced a methadone program in or about 1997 and later a buprenorphine program, but there have been many lapses back into drug use. Back in 2004, you communicated elements of despair about your wasted life, linked to self-esteem, feelings of inferiority, rejection, failure to live up to the expectations of family, and depression, which you alleviated through drug use. Unhappily, it seems that nothing has changed in the intervening 10 years.
15 Indeed, on the three days over this rather protracted and frustrating plea hearing, there was no one in court to support you and, upon enquiry from me, you stated that you had had no visitors during the 18 months that you have been in custody. It seems that, at the time of offending, you were homeless and seeking shelter at the Housing Commission flat of someone you knew in Carlton.
16 Ms Carey reports a history that, after having being a heroin addict for more than 20 years, you “stopped heroin completely” 12 years ago and had been on a methadone program and also taken four Diazepam daily. It would appear, as reported by Mr Bradfield in 2010, that there had been at least two heroin overdoses requiring Naltrexone intervention. However, your alcohol consumption increased to the point where you would drink 12 bottles of pre-mixed Smirnoff Black (approximately 18 standard drinks) daily over about the last two and a half years. Also, you increased your cannabis consumption to “$20 deals” per day and also sporadically used methylamphetamine and abused benzodiazepines. Since the age of 14, you have also smoked 20 cigarettes per day.
17 Ms Carey noted that, in relation to cognitive concerns, you provided an inconsistent picture. You stated, on the one hand, that, since being incarcerated, you felt that your “memory and head” had been clearer, but, later, claimed that your memory was “going” since you have been in custody. However, you also stated that you had previously “always” been “drunk or stoned”, so you had difficulty knowing whether your memory difficulties were representative of change. I have already referred to the deficits found on testing by Ms Carey and, in particular, the fact that your basic attention span and the majority of your executive function skills have improved compared to previous assessments. She did note that on self-report you endorsed moderate levels of depression and stress symptoms and mildly elevated levels of anxiety symptoms.
18 In the course of the plea on your behalf, Mr Fitzpatrick stated that he was instructed that a short time prior to your offending conduct you had been the subject of an assault by a group of males and your offending conduct was carried out in the belief that they were coming back to attack you. Footage was played of security film from a CCTV camera (number 2) at the carpark looking from the carpark out through the boom gate entrance onto Cardigan Street (Exhibit “14”). I must say that I had enormous difficulty making out anything that is said to have occurred beyond the boom gate. Mr Fitzpatrick submitted that behind a pillar was a scuffle which took place and, with some difficulty, it is possible to see that one person appears to throw a punch albeit that it is not possible to see whether it connects with anyone. Mr Fitzpatrick then pointed out a person carrying a white plastic bag, who, shortly after that incident, emerged walking across the driveway, and stated that that was you. If it was you, as suggested by your counsel, you seemed to be walking quite swiftly and not showing any signs of being disabled.
19 Although there is reference in some of the depositional material to there having been an earlier altercation, any belief on your part that either of your victims, Mr Prestinenzi or Mr Jreije, had been involved in it, has no basis in reality, looking at the totality of the depositional material. To my mind, this view or fear by you indicates the severity of your state of intoxication at the time. Mr Fitzpatrick stated that he did not put this as some sort of provocation or excuse for your behaviour, but simply showed that you were in a heightened emotional state because of an earlier incident.
20 My assessment of your conduct is that it was terrifying and irrational because you were so intoxicated. Your antisocial, abusive and aggressive frame of mind was manifested shortly after your offending conduct when you re-attended the liquor store to steal liquor for the second time that day. Mr Burry, a staff member who directed you to another till because he was just setting up, stated that you said, “If you don’t sell this to me I’ll just take it”. He said that you had, “an aggressive voice and appeared furious”. Shortly afterwards, Mr Lillo, a musician who was busking on Lygon Street, described, “all of a sudden I heard a commotion and noticed a woman shield her two children as if she was trying to protect them”. He then described seeing a bottle of vodka bounce along the ground towards him, as a policeman was on top of you, and that you appeared to be drunk and screaming and yelling out, “You broke my leg. You broke my leg”.
21 There is no doubt in my mind that police had to arrest you as soon as possible in order to protect the community from further irrational random acts of violence by you on a Saturday night where there was busy pedestrian traffic along Lygon Street. However, I do accept that you, unfortunately, have suffered a severe leg injury as a consequence of the manner in which you were arrested.
22 You were taken by ambulance to the Royal Melbourne Hospital where you were noted to have an obviously deformed distal femur. You were administered morphine, and the following day, 28 April 2013, you underwent surgery which found that you had suffered a ruptured biceps femoris, a posterolateral corner injury, a ruptured common peroneal nerve and deep posterior compartment syndrome. Plastic surgeons attended the theatre to identify the proximal nerve and about 15 centimetres of the damaged nerve was noted for later repair. A lateral fasciotomy was performed to decompress the anterior, lateral and superficial posterior compartment, and a six millimetre femoral shantz pin was inserted in your left femur, and a five millimetre tibial shantz pin was inserted in your tibia.
23 You remained in the Royal Melbourne Hospital and underwent further surgery on 3 May 2013. This surgery involved washing out wounds, removal of the external fixation device, reduction and plating of the proximal tibia and dissection of the biceps femoris and repairing it to the fibular head with an anchor and plate, as well as repair of pes and hamstrings.
24 On 8 May 2013, you were transferred from the Royal Melbourne Hospital to St Vincent’s Hospital. The letter of transfer noted that you had sustained a Shatzker VI closed proximal fracture and left tibial plateau for which you underwent external surgical fixation and fasciotomy, followed by split skin grafting and open reduction and internal fixation. It was noted that you required dressing changes every second day and a hinged knee brace locked for two weeks, and that you would be non-weight bearing for at least six weeks from the date of surgery on 3 May 2013. It also noted that you required review in three weeks at the Royal Melbourne Hospital, as well as review in one week with the plastic surgery complex wounds clinic.
25 It is apparent from the records from St Vincent’s Hospital (Exhibit “8”) that, after being referred there from the Royal Melbourne Hospital, you were admitted to hospital on 23 May 2013 and remained an inpatient for almost three weeks. Your wound had become infected and, whilst in that hospital, you underwent three surgical procedures. On 25 May 2013, under a general anaesthetic, the wound was debrided and the dressing changed. This procedure was repeated again under general anaesthetic on 29 May 2013. Then, two days later, on 31 May 2013, you underwent surgery which involved a gastrocnemius pedicled flap and skin graft and muscle transfer on the left leg. These procedures were necessitated by an obviously difficult and complicated wound breakdown, with exposed metal wear. You were ultimately discharged from St Vincent’s Hospital on 13 June 2013 on oral antibiotics, which you continued to require for a period of 18 months following the original injury. In addition, you still required dressings two to three times per week for quite some time, as well as Panadeine Forte for pain. Records on 10 July 2013 reveal that you were suffering nausea from the medication. It would appear that you continued to wear a surgical boot until staff at the hospital encouraged you to discard it in favour of a custom made ankle foot orthosis. This was necessary as you were suffering footdrop, as well reduced muscle strength and sensation in the left lower leg.
26 The last hospital entry available to the court is on 15 January 2014. It reveals that you will need to always wear the ankle foot orthosis, and, in court, you demonstrated that this fitted inside your left shoe but you also had an external support wrapped around your left lower leg. I accept that you have ongoing pain and limitation of movement, which causes you to limp, and that you require prescription medication by way of Tramadol and Pregabalin for pain, consequential to your leg injury.
27 It was submitted by your counsel that, although there appeared to have been some long term depression and anxiety present in your life, and that your cognitive function, according to the neurologist’s report of 2010, appears to have been at a lesser level then compared to now and, by inference, would have been at a lesser level at the time of offending than it is now. However, he conceded that your levels of depression (described by Ms Carey as moderate) and anxiety (described as mildly elevated), together with your poor learning and memory were not able to be linked to your offending or of a magnitude to attract the principles of R v Verdins (2007) 16 VR 269. This seems to me to be a sensible concession, as your offending on this occasion, as would appear to be the case on many prior occasions, is due to your severe intoxication, which you have done little or nothing to address over a very long period. However, I do take into account, as part of your relevant background, that you have suffered levels of anxiety and depression, for which you are presently prescribed the anti-depressant Mirtzapine in custody. I also accept that you have suffered extracurial punishment by reason of your severe leg injury, which, as I have said, causes ongoing impairment and pain, and that that makes serving a sentence of imprisonment more onerous for you than would otherwise have been the case. I further accept that it affects you psychologically, in that you feel that you are an easy target because you are so obviously limping and, as you stated “not the man you once were” as you are not able to defend yourself against any unwanted aggression from other prisoners. In this regard I note the records of St Vincent’s Hospital at Port Philip Prison show one episode of assault where you were apparently kicked in the back exacerbating your leg pain. I acknowledge, too, that your problems with memory and concentration may be misunderstood by others and attract adverse attention and make your time in custody more onerous.
28 Mr Ameri, your criminal record shows you to be a person of very bad character, with long term substance abuse issues, which have resulted in offences of violence and dishonesty. Your conduct in Carlton, on the evening of 27 April 2013, in viciously attacking Mr Prestinenzi with a brick, and, then, punching Mr Jreiger as he endeavoured to intervene, is the irrational, brutal conduct of a drunk, which impacts upon the capacity of people in the community to go about their business of enjoying a Saturday night out. You have shown yourself to be a menace to society time and time again. Your aggressive, drunken assault has obviously had a grave effect on Mr Prestinenzi as detailed in his Victim Impact Statement (Exhibit “B”), which he read to the court. He suffered severe pain from the injuries which I have mentioned previously in these sentencing remarks. He was off work for two months to recover and, in October 2013, had to undergo surgery to remove the plate which had been inserted in his cheek to help the fractured cheekbone, eye socket and jaw heal. To this day he still has no feeling in his top lip and he has suffered, not only loss of income, but, also, the expense of the ambulance transporting him to hospital, prescription medication and dental work on his chipped teeth. In addition, he has sustained a lasting legacy of a psychological nature, of being very wary when he goes out and always looking behind to see if anyone will approach him as you did. Indeed, he still suffers flashbacks to the incident. All of the matters described by Mr Prestinenzi are understandable and foreseeable consequences of your appalling, unprovoked attack.
29 Although there is no Victim Impact Statement from Mr Jreiger, it is plain from his statement to police that, whilst he was just trying to do his work as a car park attendant, he was worried that you would assault him and, of course, when he endeavoured to intervene after you attacked Mr Prestinenzi, you threw a punch which hit him in the right eye, causing him pain for a number of days.
30 In sentencing you, emphasis must be placed upon denunciation of your conduct, and general deterrence, so that people who get drunk and behave in this outrageous anti-social and damaging manner will know they will be appropriately punished. Emphasis must also be placed upon specific deterrence and protection of the community because of your woeful criminal history.
31 In your favour, I take into account that you have pleaded guilty to the offences, albeit that they were very late pleas. They were in fact only entered a couple of days after your charges were listed for trial, although I acknowledge that you had been presented on charges of intentionally causing serious injury and intentionally causing injury, as distinct from the charges of recklessness to which you ultimately pleaded guilty, along with the charges of theft. I find no evidence of remorse on your part but, nevertheless, you are entitled to a discount for having saved the State the cost of a trial, as well as sparing your victims the trouble of giving evidence.
32 In sentencing you I also take into account the principle of totality. Unhappily, you have been in custody continuously since 27 April 2013, the bulk of the time having been taken into account in the sentence which was imposed by the Magistrates’ Court at Melbourne on 28 October 2013. For a person of your age, 50 years and almost 51 years, who has suffered the pain and limitation of movement and ongoing need for surgical and other treatment and support relating to your leg, I do take into account, as I have already stated, that it has been a difficult time for you.
33 Unfortunately, I cannot express optimism as to your prospects of rehabilitation. Although your mental status is assessed by Ms Carey to be somewhat better in circumstances where you have been abstaining from abusing substances in the last 18 months, your capacity to learn new information and to remember it is poor. Unhappily, your offending has resulted in so much time in prison over many years that I fear that you are institutionalised and, on the several days that your matter was before me in court, there was not a single person in court to support you. You also tell me that you have had no visitors during your time in custody. You were homeless at the time of the offending and appear to be an isolated person who has long turned to drink and drugs for solace and they have become an everyday part of your life.
34 One should never lose hope of rehabilitation and it is to your credit that you have managed to remain free of illicit drugs while in prison and have undertaken an anger management program and participated in an intensive substance use program. In this regard, it is also noteworthy that, whilst in custody, your daily dose of methadone has been reduced from 80 milligrams to 32 milligrams, which is a good sign. It may be that, after further time in custody, if you remain abstinent from alcohol and illicit drugs, you may be better equipped to cope when released into the community, but I am concerned about your lack of support once you are released. You stated that you have a brother and sister with whom you are in some contact and they visited you initially when you were hospitalised in the Royal Melbourne Hospital. Your counsel stated that you are a registered client of Disability Services and your case manager, Yoko Raha Kuoi, has provided a letter to the court, dated 14 February 2014, (Exhibit “10”), to the effect that you have been accepted to reside at Glenville Lodge Supported Residential Service in Glenroy. This is staffed 24 hours a day and, as a resident, you could be linked with recreational programs provided by Moreland City Council, as well as being referred to drug and alcohol counselling and independent living skills programs. Unhappily, I do not see that it is appropriate for you to be available to take up any such residence in the immediate future in the light of the sentence which I must impose. However, I consider that it will be important for you to have a lengthy parole period to ensure as best as is possible, that you readjust to living back in the community.
35 In the circumstances, the only appropriate sentence is one of imprisonment. Your attack upon Mr Prestinenzi, being vicious and unprovoked, is a serious example of recklessly causing serious injury. As previously mentioned, you have breached every style of community-based disposition that a court has given you, you have little insight into your offending and have repeatedly shown yourself to be aggressive when intoxicated. If you do not utilise the rest of your time in custody and engage with your parole officer to remain free of alcohol and drugs, then, Mr Ameri, it is inevitable that you will continue to reoffend and be a menace to society and your life will be a miserable and wasted one as you are returned, again and again, to custody.
36 On Charge 1, the rolled up charge of theft, you are convicted and sentenced to be imprisoned for a period of four months.
37 On Charge 2, recklessly causing serious injury, you are convicted and sentenced to be imprisoned for a period of two years.
38 On Charge 3, recklessly causing injury, you are convicted and sentenced to be imprisoned for a period of six months.
39 The sentence of two years imposed on Charge 2 is the base sentence. I direct that one month of the sentence imposed on Charge 1 and one month of the sentence imposed on Charge 3 be served cumulatively upon the sentence imposed on Charge 2 and upon each other. The total effective sentence is thus two years and two months’ imprisonment. I direct that you serve a period of one year and one month before becoming eligible for parole. I declare a period of 24 days pre-sentence detention to be time reckoned as already served under the sentences imposed this day.
40 Pursuant to s6AAA of the Sentencing Act, I state that, had it not been for your pleas of guilty, the total effective sentence imposed would have been four years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of three years.
0