Director of Public Prosecutions v Bartley
[2023] VCC 1790
•3 October 2023
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA AT MELBOURNE CRIMINAL DIVISION | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
Case No. CR-21-01210
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| PETER BARTLEY |
---
JUDGE: | RIDDELL | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 3 October 2023 | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 3 October 2023 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Bartley | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2023] VCC 1790 | |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Subject:Sentence --- Indecent Act with or in the Presence of a Child Under 16
Catchwords: Teacher --- Students --- Multiple victims --- Young age of victims --- Breach of Trust --- Serious Sexual Offender --- Offending 24 years ago --- Delay --- Plea of Guilty --- Rehabilitation --- Extra Curial Punishment --- Suspended Sentence open
Legislation Cited: Sentencing Act 1991 --- Sex Offender Registration Act 2004.
Cases Cited:DPP v Dalgleish (a pseudonym) [2017] VSCA 360 --- DPP v Toomey [2006] VSCA 90 --- Bromley v The Queen [2018] VSCA 329 --- Brandon Edwards (A Pseudonym) v The King [2023] VSCA 33 --- Fitchner v The Queen [2019] VSCA 297 --- DPP v Couch [2021] VCC 1719 --- DPP v Beavis (a pseudonym) [2023] VCC 399 --- DPP v Woods [2020] VCC 1133 --- Einfeld v The Queen [2010] NSWCCA 87 --- R v Dunne [2003] VSCA 150 --- Ryan v The Queen (2001) 206 CLR 267 --- DPP v Pell [2019] VCC 260 --- R v Merrett (2007) 14 VR 392 --- R v Todd [1982] 2 NSWLR 517 --- Worboyes v The Queen [2021] VSCA 169 --- DPP v Buhagiar and Heathcote [1998] 4 VR 540 --- DPP (Cth) v Carter (1998) 1 VR 601 --- Stalio v The Queen (2012) 46 VR 426.
Sentence: 2 years imprisonment wholly suspended for 3 years
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the DPP | Penny Thorp | Office of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused | Theo Kassimatis Lucinda Thies | Angus Cameron Lawyers |
HER HONOUR:
1Peter Bartley, in 1999 you were a teacher with the care and responsibility for the children in your class at St Scholastica’s Catholic Primary School in Burwood. You sexually offended against three of those children, taking or making opportunities to sexually touch them in your classroom either during or after class. My task now is to sentence you for that offending.
2On 3 October 2023 you indicated your intention to plead guilty to three charges of Indecent act with or in the presence of a child under 16, each charge reflecting your offending against one of those children.
3All offending took place in 1999. The victims were Rebecca Emmanuele[1], Jodie Ritchie[2], and Dianna Palmer[3]. Each of those girls were aged between 8 and 9 years old. You were between 27 and 28 years old and were in your second year of teaching. It was also your second year at St Scholastica’s.
[1] A pseudonym.
[2] A pseudonym.
[3] A pseudonym.
4You now fall to be sentenced 24 years after this offending, and you are now 51 years of age.
Summary of offending
5I turn to briefly summarise your offending.
Charge 1 – Indecent act with or in the presence of a child under 16 against Rebecca Emmanuele (three incidents)
6Charge 1 reflects three separate episodes of offending against Miss Emmanuele. The first two incidents occurred in the classroom at times where you had called her over to your desk.
7During the first incident, you asked her to come around to your side of the desk next to your chair. You began speaking to Miss Emmanuele and whilst doing so moved your right hand to underneath her dress. You placed two fingers on her pubic area and, whilst telling her to look into your eyes, stroked her vagina over the top of her underwear for about 5 to 7 seconds, before drawing your hand away. You then continued talking to her before sending her back to her desk.
8During the second incident, Miss Emmanuele was also standing around your side of the desk. You rubbed her vagina down to the area of her clitoris, this time over the top of her summer dress.
9The third episode of offending occurred at a time when you had told Miss Emmanuele to sit at the back of the classroom, facing the wall, as a punishment for having done something wrong. You sat in front of her, facing the classroom, and told Miss Emmanuele to move closer to you. You then placed your hand on her knee and moved your palm up her thigh to near her underwear and did this several times. You told her that you trusted her and asked her why she had misbehaved.
Charge 2 – Indecent act with or in the presence of a child under 16 against Jodie Ritchie (two incidents)
10In relation to the second victim, Jodie Ritchie, there were around eight to ten times at which you touched her on the vagina. Charge 2 relates to two specific episodes of offending.
11The first, as with Miss Emmanuele, occurred when you called Miss Ritchie to your desk. You had done so to reprimand her for giggling and laughing during class. She told you she had not done anything wrong. You told her that she couldn’t talk back to you. Miss Ritchie was standing at the corner of your desk, and you moved your chair so that you were facing her. You stroked her on the vagina with your hand over the top of her pants for a few seconds, telling her to look into your eyes whilst you did so.
12The second incident relates to the last time that you touched Miss Ritchie on the vagina. Once again, you called her to your desk to reprimand her for laughing and giggling. You were sitting at your desk facing the classroom and Miss Ritchie was standing in front of you. She told you that she had been laughing because somebody pulled a face. You then stroked the inside of her thigh up to her vagina, and then stroked her vagina over her pants for about 6 seconds. You repeatedly told her to look into her eyes, and whilst touching her vagina told her that she should not be giggling and laughing.
Charge 3 – Indecent act with or in the presence of a child under 16 against Dianna Palmer
13The third victim of your offending was Dianna Palmer. You asked her to stay back in your classroom on several occasions to discuss music. You paid particular attention to Miss Palmer, praising her ability to play the piano.
14On one such afternoon when Miss Palmer remained behind in your classroom on your request you instructed her to come closer to you as you sat at your desk, implying that you wanted to show her something. She walked over to you and turned around, facing towards the door with you seated behind her.
15You lifted her dress up from behind, placing your hand between her legs and touching her over her underwear near her groin area.
Complaints, Arrest and Interview
16Miss Emmanuele made a limited complaint to her big sister in the second half of 1999. That complaint included some details of your offending against her, and also some details about the offending against Miss Ritchie, which Miss Ritchie had disclosed to her.
17Miss Emmanuele’s sister relayed that complaint to her parents, Lynn[4] and Costa Emmanuele[5] during a car ride home from their grandparents’ house. Miss Emmanuele became distressed as she told her parents that you had touched her up her leg “lots of times”.
[4] A pseudonym.
[5] A pseudonym.
18Miss Ritchie also made a complaint in 1999 to her mother, Annette Bennett[6], who questioned her after noticing significant behavioural changes. Miss Ritchie was observed wearing her hair in a very tight bun, struggling to sleep and use the toilet, and had become withdrawn. Miss Ritchie told her mother that you would put your hand between her thighs, and that this would happen “quite frequently”. Miss Ritchie was removed from the school before the end of the 1999 school year.
[6] A pseudonym.
19Miss Palmer also left the school in Term 2 of 1999. After she left her mother, Catherine Palmer[7], received a call from Miss Ritchie’s mother, and was told about the complaint made by Miss Emmanuele about your offending.
[7] A pseudonym.
20The school and police were contacted towards the end of 1999. On 26 October 1999 and 13 November 1999 respectively Miss Emmanuele and Miss Ritchie were interviewed by police in video recorded statements where they each outlined your offending. Miss Palmer was spoken to but shut down and was in shock. She did not make any disclosure at that time.
21Mrs Patricia Phillips, former Principal of St Scholastica’s was advised in late 1999 by the Catholic Education Office that allegations had been made against you. Mrs Phillips met with you in the presence of other teachers. You stated that you had brushed down the dress of one of the girls as she stood at your desk but denied any wrongdoing. You were told to leave the school premises.
22You were subsequently interviewed by police on 25 November 1999. Notes from that interview indicate that you again denied any wrongdoing.
23Police informed the Catholic Education Department on 2 December 1999 that no charges would be laid as there was ‘insufficient evidence’. No doubt that attitude was a reflection of a different time.
24In 2020, a fellow pupil of the victims from the 1999 Year 3 and 4 class, upon becoming aware that you were still working as a teacher, made contact with the Catholic Education Office outlining her understanding of the allegations, which then returned to the attention of police.
25Miss Palmer’s father at this time was contacted by police, and raised the allegations again with Miss Palmer, who broke down “hysterically” at the mention of your name, saying you had destroyed her life. She made a statement to police on 19 May 2020.
26You were arrested a second time around two weeks after Miss Palmer made her statement, and again denied the allegations when interviewed. Charges were issued on that day.
Sentencing principles
27Sexual crimes against children are inherently serious offences. They violate the basic norms of civilised behaviour. They strike at the value the community places on the need for care of young children, in particular, by those in positions of power over them. That is especially so where the offending involves a breach by someone in a position of care or trust.[8]
[8] DPP v Dalgleish(a pseudonym) [2017] VSCA 360.
28Courts and the community far better understand the immediate but also the potentially far-reaching consequences of this type of offending. Where, as here, offences are committed against very young children, it is likely to be confronting and confusing, impacting their identity, their self-confidence and their capacity for trust.
29Sentencing courts must send a message of denunciation. Sentences must deter others from offending in this way and must seek to protect the community and in particular, any other child from being abused by a person in a position of trust. The sentence I impose must demonstrate to others the consequences of violating such laws. [9]
[9] DPP v Toomey [2006] VSCA 90 [14]; Bromley v The Queen [2018] VSCA 329 [70]-[71].
30Mr Kassimatis and Ms Thies on your behalf concede the offending is serious given the following aggravating features.
(a) It represents a gross breach of your authority and the trust placed in you as a teacher. You breached the trust of those three children, of their parents and of the school which employed you. That is a significant aggravating factor.
(b) Each of the girls was very young – aged about 8 or 9 years’ old. In that way they were each vulnerable to the behaviour of a trusted adult. There was a considerable age gap between you and them.
(c) Your offending was brazen, at times occurring in the presence of other children in the classroom.
(d) It was repetitive, occurring against three separate victims and over a period of approximately 9 months during 1999. In relation to the offences against Miss Emmanuele and Miss Ritchie the charges reflect multiple incidents.
(e) It was deceptive in that you used or manufactured opportunities to call the particular child to you under the guise of a legitimate reason to speak to them. In that way you manipulated them, using your authority in the knowledge that they could not refuse your requests.
31I agree those features elevate your moral culpability and the gravity of the offending. It is for those reasons that the only appropriate penalty is a term of imprisonment in relation to each of the charges.
32I accept however that there are features here which lower the seriousness of the offending. I must take those matters account when I am assessing the gravity of the offending on a continuum of offences dealt with in this Court.
(a) The touching, while no doubt confronting for those young children, was always outside clothing.
(b) I accept each incident was relatively brief and there are a limited number of incidents.
33In those ways the offences of themselves are at a lower end of seriousness.[10] It is the fact of your position of trust as a teacher and the fact of repetitive offending against multiple victims which leads me to conclude that taken globally the offending is a mid-range level of seriousness.
[10] See also the comments of the Court of Appeal in the interlocutory appeal of this matter Brandon Edwards (A Pseudonym) v The King [2023] VSCA 33.
Victim Impact
34I take into account the impact on the victims. Offending such as this not only has an immediate impact on a child’s sense of security but tends to have a long term impact on various aspects of a victim’s life. It affects self confidence and the fabric of relationships based on trust. Self doubt and anxiety are common themes for victims. Fear about bringing their children into the world and of hypervigilance is common.
35Ms Emmanuele described some of those symptoms and experiences to the informant. She referred to memories and flashbacks and to trauma lasting into adulthood.
36Ms Ritchie prepared a Victim Impact Statement, which I have taken into account. I will not recount its contents here, as she elected for the statement not to be read out in Court.
37I take those matters into account specifically and those general experiences which are likely for all three victims here.
Personal Circumstances
38I turn now to your personal circumstances.
Background
39You were born in Springvale into a working class family and were the youngest of your parents’ four children. You remain close to your sisters and brother. You report that you and your siblings had a difficult relationship with your father, a shopfitter, who had grown up as a Ward of the State. He passed away in 2002. Your mother is currently 83 years’ old. She was a homemaker.
40You and your wife met at Rusden University where you were both studying. You have had a long-lasting marriage since you were 25 and have three teenage children. Your eldest is currently studying at University whilst your younger two children are still in high school.
41You succeeded academically at school and thereafter went on to obtain two degrees in Education from Deakin University, one in Secondary Teaching and the other in Primary Teaching. You completed your studies in 1997 and have been continuously employed since that time.
42Your first role was as a classroom teacher at St Scholastica’s. After being stood down in 1999 as a result of the complaints made against you, you were then free to move to work as a classroom teacher at St Bernard’s Primary School between 2000 and 2003. You then moved to Our Lady’s Help of Christians in 2004, and during your time at that school you became Acting Deputy Principal.
43In 2010 you began a 10 year stint at Trinity Catholic School in North Richmond, where you became the Deputy Principal, and later Principal, of that school.
44Over time you have invested both time, money and energy into ongoing study and enhancing your qualifications as an educator.
45When these allegations came to light again in early 2020 you were stood down without pay.
Good Character
46Your Counsel submits that, aside from this offending, you are a man of good character. They further submit that I can take your good character into account as s.5AA Sentencing Act 1991 is not enlivened.[11] The Prosecution concede that that provision is not enlivened here and that I am able to take into account your good character both before and after this offending.
[11] Fitchner v The Queen [2019] VSCA 297; DPP v Couch [2021] VCC 1719; DPP v Beavis (a pseudonym) [2023] VCC 399; DPP v Woods [2020] VCC 1133.
47I have received a raft of written reference material provided on your behalf. Each one of the references is addressed to the Court and therefore written with some knowledge of these charges.
48A number of those references come from colleagues who have worked closely with. They can of course only talk to their experience and knowledge of you in the period of time since this offending. With one voice they talk of you in common themes as a man held in high regard by your peers and the wider education community. They describe you as a person of integrity, professionalism, a person who demonstrated care and kindness towards children, their families and your colleagues. You are described as respectful, patient and dignified in your interactions with children.
49You have held a variety of leadership roles, including Vice Principal and Principal, but also, and significantly, in the area of Student Wellbeing. Only you know whether you sought to redress your offending behaviour through those programs. Whatever the reason, they have involved taking a lead role in ensuring child safety in the schools where you taught. That included implementing comprehensive wellbeing and child safety policies and procedures. You were instrumental in conducting professional learning sessions for staff members to ensure an understanding of child safety policies and also engaged students in giving feedback to their teachers and the leadership team. You led wellbeing programs for children affected by trauma, as well as social and emotional learning and resilience programs. You are said to have created a safe learning environment within your schools.
50I take those matters into account.
51I also take into account the many personal references written on your behalf. Those are people who have known you for up to 31 years, who have been close to you and your wife and children and have observed up close your behaviours in that space. They also include letters from your two adult nieces who have been close to you throughout their childhood and adolescence. Those personal referees describe you as a man of integrity, kindness and generosity. They speak to your devotion to your family, your natural patience with your children, and your support of your wife and her career.
52Unsurprisingly, all references describe this offending as out of character.
53Your character referees also speak of the impact of these proceedings upon you. They attest to the serious deterioration in your mental health and their concerns around suicide.
Extra-curial punishment
54You have experienced the extra curial punishment of the loss of your professional career and have experienced public opprobrium as a result of the offending you have committed. That is a complex consideration given it was your position as a teacher which gave you access to the children you offended against.
55Your Registration with the Victorian Institute of Teaching and your Working with Children Check were immediately suspended in 2020. Your professional life as a teacher and in education is over.
56You have also suffered a significant loss to your reputation in your community as a result of the media attention you have faced. A number of the written references attest to the level of scrutiny and publicity including on social media.
57In addition you been removed from your chosen faith. You, along with your family, are no longer able to attend the church parish where you were members due to reporting on the allegations being circulated to other current and former members. Parishioners were encouraged to contact the police if they had concerns about your behaviour. You have also been banned from attending your son’s football games.
58I accept these proceedings have also had a real financial impact. You are only 51 and no doubt had planned to continue your career path for some years. The financial strain is heightened by the fact that your wife is currently in remission from thyroid cancer and suffers an autoimmune disease, both of which affect her capacity to work.
59Further, your bank accounts were frozen as a result of the media reporting on your offending, with your bank telling you your business was no longer welcome.
60The law is not settled with regard to whether these factors may be taken into account in mitigation of sentence.[12] The better view seems to be that they can given not everyone who commits a crime is subject to the additional public scorn and loss of reputation which you have suffered.
[12] Einfeld v The Queen [2010] NSWCCA 87; (2010) 200 A Crim R 1 [86]; R v Dunne [2003] VSCA 150 [35]; Ryan v The Queen (2001) 206 CLR 267, 303-304, [123], 318-319 [177]; DPP v Pell [2019] VCC 260.
61Whilst the loss of your employment and loss of reputation are all natural and appropriate consequences of your offending, given its nature, I acknowledge, and the Prosecution accept, that the extra-curial punishment you have been subjected to is over and above the experience of many people who commit serious criminal offences. Though a less significant factor in the sentencing consideration, I do take those matters into account in sentencing you.
Delay
62The proceedings have been drawn out for various reasons and as such that strain has continued over a lengthy period of time.
63Delay is often common in matters such as this. Victims of sexual offending are often reluctant to complain particularly where there is a considerable power and age imbalance as there was here. There is no criticism at all of any of the victims here. Indeed, their courage in telling parents and then police as 8 or 9 year olds, and the strength of their parents in supporting those complaints and taking action to report them at a time when society was less understanding of or willing to accept the preponderance of sexual offending against children, was the circuit breaker in your offending. That is, once made aware that these children had spoken up against you in November 1999, you have not reoffended.
64Delay is relevant as a sentencing consideration in a different way. Higher Courts have held that it can be a powerful mitigatory factor, relevant in two ways. First, because the sentencing court is dealing with matters which are stale, a person may have rehabilitated themselves in the interim thereby decreasing the punitive and deterrent aspects of the sentencing process. Second, because a person facing serious criminal allegations tends to live in a state of uncertainty and anxiety pending the outcome.[13]
[13] R v Merrett (2007) 14 VR 392; R v Todd [1982] 2 NSWLR 517.
65In this case there are two periods of delay that I must consider. The first is the period of delay between your interview in 1999 and the laying of charges in 2020. Although you were advised that charges would not be laid in 1999 you must have been aware that these allegations of your offending could resurface. A reference written by a close friend who knew you at that time attests to your concern. That is a lengthy period and I take it into account.
66I must also consider the delay of almost three and a half years between being charged and today’s sentencing hearing. Ms Thorp on behalf of the Prosecution concedes that although the matter was headed for a Trial until recently, this does not mean that the delay is irrelevant or attributable to you.
67There were a number of delays caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. There were legal issues to resolve in relation to the appropriate charges. There were legal issues to resolve in relation to whether a Permanent Stay of proceedings was appropriate.
68Therefore delay in those periods is relevant in the ways I have described.
Current Circumstances
69Rehabilitation is particularly relevant in this case. You were a much younger man at the time of your offending and in an early stage of your career. The reference material has provided a picture about what you have done in the intervening 24 years. You have not re-offended, and you have continuously taught children and held positions of trust professionally and personally without incident.
70Your Counsel described this offending and its subsequent investigation as a “circuit breaker” for you. It is apparent on the material before me that you have since devoted much of your adult working life to protecting children against the very kind of offending that you committed. Although I do not have to form a concluded view, I tend to accept the submission made by Mr Kassimatis and Ms Thies that your efforts to ensure other children are protected was some outward manifestation of your remorse for your conduct.
71You have continued to provide for your family, working as a painter’s assistant. You have more recently commenced employment in the retail sector, and you have successfully applied to undertake a Law Degree to change tack in a career sense.
72I have received an expert report from Mr Patrick Newton who is an experienced Clinical and Forensic Psychologist with expertise in risk assessment for reoffending behaviours. He assesses you as a low risk of reoffending in any sexual way. Although you are unwilling to discuss details of your offending and in that sense I cannot assess your level of insight, I agree with his assessment.
73That conclusion is enhanced by the ongoing support of your strong network of family and friends.
74It is also enhanced by the fact you have sought treatment from a Clinical Psychologist, Dr Kirk Ratcliff. Although not yet engaging in offence specific therapy, he has been treating you since July 2020. You are also engaged with your general practitioner.
75In my view your prospects of full rehabilitation are extremely good. There is little work for specific deterrence to do.
Plea of Guilty
76You have pleaded guilty to this offending and that is a significant matter.
77A plea of guilty has a utilitarian benefit in that it saves the court and the community the cost and time of a jury trial.
78I also take into account that your Plea was indicated at a time where the Court’s Trial listings remain affected by the backlog caused due to the COVID-19 pandemic.[14]
[14] Worboyes v The Queen [2021] VSCA 169.
79All three victims and a fourth complainant were subject to cross-examination at the committal hearing in June 2021, as well as Miss Emmanuele’s parents. Another four witnesses were subject to a section 198B examination hearing in December 2021, including the mother of Miss Ritchie. Ms Palmer’s mother had her Trial evidence pre-recorded in June of this year.
80Nevertheless, I accept that your plea has the significant benefit of saving the victims and various family members from additional uncertainty and from being required to give evidence and be cross examined in front of a jury. It also demonstrates that you have now accepted your responsibility for your offending.
81I cannot however find evidence of any remorse for your offending, or sympathy for your victims. I agree with Ms Thorp that your efforts towards the protection of other children does not equate to an apology to these women, or an expression of direct remorse to them.
Submissions of parties
82Your Counsel conceded that the only appropriate sentence is a term of imprisonment. That is correct. In my view there must be some level of cumulation to reflect the individual victims.
83However, Mr Kassimatis and Ms Thies ultimately submitted that it is open to me to impose a sentence which is wholly suspended.
84The Prosecution conceded that a suspended sentence is within range, though submitted that such a term should be suspended only in part, with a period of time to be served.
Suspended Sentence regime
85A suspended sentence remains available due to the date of commission of this offending. The case law in relation to suspended sentences establishes that they are to be treated, for all purposes, as a term of imprisonment. Sentences of imprisonment even wholly suspended are nevertheless taken to be punitive, and to address general deterrence.[15] They denounce your offending and reflect punishment of you.
[15] DPP v Buhagiar and Heathcote [1998] 4 VR 540; DPP (Cth) v Carter (1998) 1 VR 601.
Maximum Penalty
86The maximum penalty at the time of your offending for Indecent act with or in the presence of a child under 16 was 10 years’ imprisonment.
Serious Sex Offender Provisions
87Further, this offence is defined at law as a serious sexual offence. The impact of the provisions contained in the Sentencing Act 1991[16] is that, after a term of imprisonment is ordered on Charges 1 and 2, you are liable to be sentenced as a serious sexual offender on the subsequent Charge 3.
[16] Part 2A.
88Your status as a serious sexual offender will be noted in the records of the Court.
89Protection of the community becomes the paramount sentencing consideration, and to achieve that goal there is a presumption of cumulation, instead of one of concurrency. The Prosecution did not submit that a disproportionate sentence was appropriate here.
Sentencing Practices
90I must take into account current sentencing practices. The principle of equal justice means that I must also have regard to sentencing practices at the time of your offending.[17]
[17] Stalio v The Queen (2012) 46 VR 426.
91It is difficult to find comparable cases from around the time period in which you committed this offending. Matters involving this charge were typically dealt with in the Magistrates’ Court.
92Many cases of historical sexual offending by people in positions of trust which are factually similar involve offending that occurred several decades prior to your commission of the offences before me, and where the maximum penalty was less. Those cases also tend to involve offenders who are significantly older at the time they fall to be sentenced.
93Nonetheless I have taken into account general principles which arise from a number of cases referred to by Counsel and from current sentencing practices. Ultimately, I am required to impose a just sentence in all the circumstances and that is what I have endeavoured to do.
Sentence
94On Charge 1 of Indecent act with or in the presence of a child under 16 you are convicted and sentenced to 12 months imprisonment.
95On Charge 2 of Indecent act with or in the presence of a child under 16 you are convicted and sentenced to 12 months imprisonment.
96On Charge 3 of Indecent act with or in the presence of a child under 16 you are convicted and sentenced to 12 months imprisonment.
97I direct that the sentence on Charge 1 is the base sentence.
98I direct that 6 months of the sentence on Charge 2 and 6 months of the sentence on Charge 3 be served cumulatively on each other and on the base sentence.
99The total effective sentence is therefore a sentence of 2 years imprisonment.
100I further order that that term is wholly suspended for a period of 3 years.
101I direct that your status as a Serious Sexual Offender in relation to Charge 3 be entered into the records of the Court.
Section 6AAA
102But for your plea of guilty, the sentence that I would have imposed would have been a total effective sentence of 3 years and 8 months imprisonment with a non parole period of 18 months imprisonment.
Sex Offender Registration
103Finally I note that all three charges are Class 2 offences under the Sex Offender Registration Act 2004. Registration is mandatory under s 34 of that Act and you will be subject to reporting conditions for life.
104Have a seat please, Mr Bartley. Paperwork in relation to the Sex Offender Registration Act with be provided to you Mr Bartley by my associate. I will ask if you’re willing and sign an indication that you’ve been provided with that paperwork, thank you.
105Thank you very much. That material will be scanned and sent to all parties at some point today with the orders.
106Are there any other matters to raise counsel?
107MS THORP: No, Your Honour.
108Mr KASSIMATIS: Your Honour has to warn the accused, warn Mr Bartley, about the implications of breaching the suspended sentence.
109HER HONOUR: Alright, thanks very much. Mr Bartley, if you’d just stand again please. I’m sure you’ve been told, but the suspended sentence works in this way; those two years of imprisonment hang over you for the three years starting today. If you were to reoffend in any way that’s punishable by imprisonment, you would be brought back to me and the likely outcome would be that the suspended sentence, that period of two years would be imposed upon you. Do you understand that?
110OFFENDER BARTLEY: Yes, thank you.
111HER HONOUR: Alright, thanks very much, thanks Counsel and your instructors for your assistance in this matter, we will now adjourn.
– – –
0
16
0