Director of Public Prosecutions v Beavis (a pseudonym)
[2023] VCC 399
•21 March 2023
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA AT Melbourne CRIMINAL DIVISION | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
Case No. CR-22-00676
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| MEGAN BEAVIS (A PSEUDONYM) |
---
JUDGE: | HIS HONOUR JUDGE WRAIGHT | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 14 March 2023 | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 21 March 2023 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Beavis (a pseudonym) | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2023] VCC 399 | |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Subject:CRIMINAL LAW – Sentencing
Catchwords: Plea of guilty - Grooming for sexual conduct with a child under the age of 16 – Sexual penetration of a child under the age of 16 – Possession of child abuse material – Contravention of a family violence protection order – Contravention of a bail condition – General deterrence – Serious offending – Major Depressive Disorder – Verdins – Youthful offender – No prior criminal history – Very strong prospects of rehabilitation – Standard sentence – COVID-19 pandemic.
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1958 ss 49M(1), 48B(1), 51G(1), 465; Family Violence Protection Act 2008 s 123(2); Bail Act 1977 s 30A(1); Sentencing Act 1991; Sex Offenders Registration Act 2004.
Cases Cited:Clarkson v The Queen (2011) 32 VR 36; Worboyes v The Queen [2021] VSCA 169; R v Verdins (2007) 16 VR 269; Langton (a pseudonym) v The Queen [2022] VSCA 79.
Sentence: Imprisonment for a period of 3 years and 9 months with a non parole period of 2 years.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the DPP | Mr M Fisher | Office of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused | Ms A Roodenburg | Dribbin & Brown Criminal Lawyers |
HIS HONOUR:
1Megan Beavis,[1] you have pleaded guilty to:
(a) one charge of grooming for sexual conduct with a child under the age of 16 pursuant to s 49M(1) of the Crimes Act 1958 as amended by the Crimes Amendment (Sexual Offences) Act 2016 (‘Crimes Act’), which carries a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment (Charge 1);
(b) one charge of sexual penetration of a child under the age of 16 pursuant to s 49B(1) of the Crimes Act, which carries a maximum penalty of 15 years imprisonment (Charge 2); and
(c) one charge of possession of child abuse material pursuant to s 51G(1) of the Crimes Act, which carries a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment (Charge 3).
[1] A pseudonym.
2You have also pleaded guilty to the related summary charges of:
(a) contravention of a family violence protection order pursuant to s 123(2) of the Family Violence Protection Act 2008, which carries a maximum penalty of 2 years imprisonment or a fine of 240 penalty units (Summary Charge 1), and
(b) contravention of a bail condition contrary to s 30A(1) of the Bail Act 1977, which carries a maximum penalty of 3 months imprisonment or 30 penalty units (Summary Charge 3).
3You have no prior criminal history.
Circumstances of the offending
4A prosecution opening was tendered on the plea and may be summarised as follows:
5You are 25 years old. You were 24 years old at the time of the offending and lived with your mother. You were a qualified teacher, employed at the school where the victim attended when you committed the offences.
6The victim in this matter was born in March 2006 and he was 15 years of age at the time of your offending. He lived with his parents in south east Melbourne.
7At the beginning of 2021, you began teaching the victim digital technology and science. At the commencement of Term 2, in early July 2021, you told the victim that you wanted to become friends with him outside of school.
8During a subsequent Microsoft Teams meeting between you and the victim, you told him that you wished he was older or that you were younger. When the victim asked you why you said that, you responded, ‘No reason’. Later, you told the victim that you wanted to play the video game 'Call of Duty' with him. You gave him your account details.
9In another Microsoft Teams meeting between the both of you in July 2021, you said to the victim that, ‘[you] couldn't believe [you were] catching feelings for a 15 year old’. After that second Microsoft Teams meeting, you gave the victim your personal mobile telephone number. You then began to communicate with the victim using various social media platforms such as Instagram, Snapchat, WhatsApp and iMessage.
10On an unknown date in July 2021, you drove to the victim’s house and collected him. You drove him to a nearby football oval. There, you told him that you loved him and that you wanted to commence a relationship with him.
11At about 5.30am one morning in late July 2021, you collected the victim from his house in your car and drove him to the nearby football oval. When you asked him if he wanted to kiss you, he said he did. You then kissed the victim on the lips.
12A little later, you asked the victim if he wanted to have sex with you. Once again, he said that he did. You then discussed with the victim the consequences of the both of you having sex and what would happen if you were caught having sex with him. You stated, ‘If we get caught I'm gonna go to jail, I'm gonna lose my job’. When the victim said that no one would find out about the two of you, you replied, ‘l know, but just be one hundred percent certain that you want to do this’. You told him that you were ‘willing to risk it’ if he was.
13The two of you then moved to the back seat of the car where you laid together on some pillows and blankets that you had brought with you. You both removed your clothes and you then caused the victim’s penis to penetrate your vagina.
14A subsequent analysis of the victim’s mobile telephone revealed a video depicting a male and female having sex in a bed in front of a television that was on a black cabinet. Upon further analysis, it was discovered that the footage was created at your address on 23 September 2021. The female and male in the video are you and the victim. The footage depicts you causing the victim’s penis to penetrate your vagina (Charge 2 (part) – Sexual Penetration of a Child Under 16).
15An analysis of the victim’s mobile telephone also revealed a second video created on 1 October 2021 depicting a male and female having sex on a bed. Upon further analysis, it was discovered that the footage was created at your address on 1 October 2021. The female and the male in the video are you and the victim. The footage depicts you causing the victim’s penis to penetrate your vagina (Charge 2 (part) – Sexual Penetration of a Child Under 16).
16On 6 November 2021, you and the victim met pursuant to a previous arrangement. He left his house very early that morning and you collected him in your car at about 1.00am in the morning. You drove him to your house where you both got into your bed and cuddled.
17You and the victim discussed having sex. You both agreed to have sex and you then caused the victim’s penis to penetrate your vagina (Charge 2 (part) – Sexual Penetration of a Child Under 16).
18On 24 November 2021 at approximately 5.00am, you collected the victim from his home and drove him to the nearby football oval. After parking your car, you moved to the back seat with the victim. There, you once again caused the victim’s penis to penetrate your vagina (Charge 2 (part) – Sexual Penetration of a Child Under 16).
19On 29 November 2021, the victim made a statement to the police by way of a Video and Audio Recorded Evidence (‘VARE’) statement. Amongst other things, he stated that you had sexual intercourse with him on approximately 15 occasions between 1 July 2021 and 24 November 2021 (a period of almost 5 months). He stated that the sexual intercourse occurred on three occasions at the football oval near his house and that the remaining occasions were at your home, in your bedroom. The victim also told police that you had conducted a pregnancy test to ensure that you were not pregnant (Charge 2 – Sexual Penetration of a Child Under 16).
20During the course of your offending, you sent thousands of text messages to the victim. Those messages included both still images and videos of yourself. In some of those images and videos, you were masturbating while others depict you in various naked poses showing your breasts or vagina. The majority of the text messages you sent to the victim are of a sexualised and grooming nature.
21On 27 November 2021, the victim’s parents, became aware of your offending after they discovered some messages on the victim’s mobile telephone. The victim’s mother called you and demanded that you attend their home. You arrived at the house a short time later and had a conversation with the victim and his parents. During that conversation, you admitted that you had been in a relationship with the victim and that you were in love with him.
22On 28 November 2021 at approximately 1.00 pm, the victim’s mother contacted the police and reported the matter to Constable Emily Brook. Constable Brook took notes of the conversation and then contacted the Dandenong Sexual Offences and Child Abuse Investigation Team to further report the matter.
23At approximately 5.40pm on the same day, you were arrested at your home by police. You were cautioned and then taken to the Dandenong Police Station where you participated in a formal Record of Interview. Other than confirming your mobile telephone carrier and number, you gave ‘no comment’ answers during the interview.
24Police seized your mobile telephone and a subsequent analysis of it revealed a secure vault that required a pin code for it to be accessed. On 1 December 2021, you provided the pin code. Upon accessing the vault, police discovered numerous photographs of a penis. The same photographs were also located on the victim’s mobile telephone. The penis depicted is his. These photographs are classed as Category 2 Child Abuse Material (‘CAM’) based on the Interpol Baseline categorisation (Charge 3 – Possession of Child Abuse Material).
25At about 11.40am on 29 November 2021, police executed a Search Warrant pursuant to s 465 of the Crimes Act at your home address.
26Upon searching the house, the police located and seized various items of bedding from your bed. Your white Holden Barina was also searched. Police located and seized a number of items as listed in the prosecution opening.
27Parts of the interior of the car were swabbed for DNA. Subsequent forensic analysis revealed that DNA located in various areas of the rear of the car matched the DNA of the victim.
28On 29 November 2021, you were granted bail. At the same time, a Family Violence Intervention Order (‘FVIO’) was also granted against you where the victim was the respondent. Amongst the conditions of bail and the FVIO, you were prohibited from contacting the victim.
29Despite the imposition of bail and the FVIO, you contacted the victim a number of times between 6 February 2022 and 13 February 2022. Consequently, you contravened a condition of your bail and a condition of the intervention order (Summary Offence 3 – Offence to Contravene Certain Conduct Conditions and Summary Offence 1 – Contravention of Family Violence Intervention Order).
30Your bail was revoked on 15 February 2022.
Nature and gravity of the offending
31Charge 2 on the indictment, sexual penetration of a child under 16, is an inherently serious offence reflected in the maximum penalty imposed by Parliament of 15 years imprisonment and also by the fact that Parliament has deemed this offence to be a Standard Sentence Offence, the standard sentence being 6 years imprisonment. I also note that the charge to which you have pleaded guilty to is a course of conduct charge incorporating approximately fifteen instances of penetration over a five month period.
32While in this case it is clear on the evidence that the victim was a willing participant in the sexual activity, and in that sense consenting, as was made clear in Clarkson v The Queen,[2] the necessary implication of the legislation is that consent does not of itself make the offence of sexual penetration of a child under 16 any less serious.
[2] (2011) 32 VR 361, [36].
33Further as the Court noted in Clarkson:[3]
The absolute prohibition on sexual activity with a child is founded on a presumption of harm. The prohibition is intended to protect children from the harm presumed to be caused by premature sexual activity, that is, activity before the age when a child can give meaningful consent. It is for this reason that a child’s consent is more accurately referred to as ‘apparent’ or ‘ostensible’ consent.
[3] Ibid [3].
34In assessing the gravity of the offending in this instance I take into account the position of trust that you were in as a teacher of the victim. By the very nature of the relationship, a power imbalance existed.
35Ms Roodenburg, who appeared on your behalf, while accepting that the offending is serious, pointed out that in the circumstances the evidence reveals that there is an absence of aggravating features such as threats, inducements, degrading conduct or other actions by you to cause the victim to engage in the sexual activity. Further, in the victim’s VARE he stated that a condom was always used. It is also submitted that while the age difference, being nine years, is relevant, more common examples reflect a greater disparity of age.
36Turning to Charge 1, the grooming charge, it is clear that the gravity of the offending must take into account the period of approximately eight months, between April and November 2021, that you communicated with the victim. Within that time hundreds of messages were exchanged between yourself and the victim, which were of a sexual nature. Again, the nature of the relationship, being teacher and student, is relevant to the assessment of the gravity of this charge also. While there is a degree of overlap between this charge and Charge 2, nonetheless it was the messages passed between you and the victim, and the nature of those messages, together with other contact you had with the victim whilst you were his teacher, that ultimately culminated in the sexual contact.
37Once the offending was detected on 29 November 2021, you were then subject to conditions of bail and a FVIO preventing you from contacting the victim. Despite the conditions imposed by each of those orders, you nonetheless contacted the victim a number of times between 6 February and 13 February 2022, giving rise to the two related summary offences.
38In my view in all the circumstances, your conduct represents serious offending. You were in a position of trust and you groomed the victim in order to ultimately engage in sexual activity with him to satisfy your own desires. Your moral culpability is in my view, high.
Victim impact statements
39The victim himself did not prepare a victim impact statement; however, his parents each provided victim impact statements.
40The victim’s parents describe the impact of your crime on their son. They also detail the devastating toll your offending has had on them and their family and how, by introducing their son to an adult world of relationships and subsequently the criminal justice system, you deprived him of his normal teenage years. They were devastated to learn that you, as their son’s teacher, took advantage of your position and his young age for your own benefit. They note that your crimes have tarnished their relationship with their son and how your offending has caused them to second guess how they raise him.
41I have taken the contents of the victim impact statements into account.
Personal circumstances
42You are now 25 years old. You were born in Sydney and moved to Melbourne when you were six or seven years old. You are an only child and have described your childhood as happy but sheltered until the age of 16, when your parents’ relationship broke down. You completed Year 12 and were recognised with various awards including being Vice-School Captain and then School Captain in your final year. Your parents separated in your final year of high school, which adversely affected your end of year results. You initially resided with your father, who suffers from Bipolar Affective Disorder, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, anxiety and depression. You describe this period of your life as extremely stressful and difficult. Your father now resides interstate and cares for his own mother.
43You then resided with your mother who was also living with your aunty at the time. Your mother is Thai and knows limited English. You slept on a massage bed that was used during the day in your aunt’s business. Because of this arrangement, you began residing with your then boyfriend and his family more often. Your family life had an impact on your schooling and your final exam results.
44You attended Victoria University and completed a Diploma of Education and then a Bachelor of Education, majoring in English and Biology. You said that you always wanted to be a teacher but felt ill-prepared for the realities of being a secondary school teacher when undertaking practical placements. You completed your studies in 2019 and in 2020 commenced working at the school where the victim attended. This was your first teaching position. You reported that you struggled to connect with your colleagues and adjusting to life as a teacher. You identified more strongly with the students. You had received training concerning student-teacher professional boundaries and thought that you would not be a person who would cross them.
45Your previous relationships have been complicated. In 2015, when you were in Year 12, you moved in with your then partner and his parents. This relationship was characterised by coercive control, physical assault and sexual violence. You did not have the financial capacity to leave this relationship initially, but left after a year.
46In early 2016, you commenced a new relationship, moving in with your partner and his family soon after. As he was from a traditional Burmese family, you felt pressure to get married and have children. You became engaged and then in 2021, you became pregnant with his child. Unbeknownst to him, you terminated this pregnancy. This relationship was marred by control and unwanted sexual encounters by your partner. While in this relationship, you obtained a Mental Health Care Plan from your general practitioner and began weekly psychological sessions with clinical psychologist Amanda Wallis. You left your five and a half year relationship in August 2021. At this time, you had commenced a non-sexual relationship with the victim and he supported you when you decided to leave your ex-partner. You commenced a sexual relationship him shortly after.
47A psychological report authored by clinical and forensic psychologist Patrick Newton dated 9 February 2023 was tendered on the plea outlining your personal circumstances and mental health profile. You have a history of depressive mood disturbance dating back to when you were 18 years old. You did not receive formal treatment until 2017. You were prescribed medication and cognitive behavioural therapy to address your anxiety, depression and interpersonal assertiveness, which you found effective.
48After your initial arrest and release, you became deeply depressed and experienced suicidal thoughts. You were admitted to the psychiatric ward at Dandenong Hospital for a week and then moved to a private clinic for a further two weeks. You continued to suffer significant depressive symptoms when you breached your bail and the FVIO. You have felt that your emotional health and psychological symptomology has deteriorated in custody as psychiatric treatment is more limited in a custodial setting.
49Mr Newton opines that your symptoms are sufficiently severe to meet the diagnostic criteria for moderate level Major Depressive Disorder (‘MDD’). He reports that MDD can be detrimental to your capacity for clear reasoning and decision making, including increasing poor interpersonal decisions. He also notes that your feelings of powerlessness and dependency, and your fragile self-esteem can result in problematic relationships. Because of your MDD, Mr Newton suggests that you sought the comfort of the victim to curb your loneliness without the risk of control and abuse, which you had suffered in previous relationships. He is of the view that your immaturity and lack of clarity around interpersonal boundaries led to you incorrectly viewing the victim as an equal, not considering the unbalanced dynamics of your relationship with him.
50Mr Newton is of the opinion that you are a low risk of recidivism. He also notes that you will be a vulnerable prisoner whilst in custody.
51Three references were tendered to the court, from your father, your maternal cousin, and a close friend. Your father, cousin and friend describe you as a kind, respectful and caring person who has a strong work ethic. Your friend states that despite the personal obstacles you have had to overcome, you are an empathetic person who cares for others. Your cousin was shocked when you told her of the nature of your offending, that it was out of character and that you are deeply remorseful. She described that your strict family dynamic resulted in you missing out on many years of life and world experiences. Because of your tense family environment and previous romantic relationships, she saw you change from a happy and outgoing person to someone who was depressed and anxious. Despite your offending, she would not hesitate to leave her children with you.
52You prepared a letter to the court where you express that you are deeply sorry for your conduct and the negative impact it has had on the victim and his family. You outline the positive steps you have taken in custody to improve yourself including a number of courses you have completed to assist you on your release.
Sentencing considerations
53Ms Roodenburg, who appeared in your behalf, raised a number of matters in mitigation.
54First is your plea of guilty. Your plea was entered at the committal mention stage and as such, is an early plea carrying significant utilitarian value. Your plea demonstrates your acceptance of responsibility and willingness to facilitate the course of justice by concluding the matter as soon as practicable. It has avoided the need for a trial and most importantly, your plea has spared the victim and his family from having to give evidence.
55The plea carries additional weight which must be reflected in a further amelioration in sentence, as the plea was entered in circumstances where the pandemic has caused a substantial backlog of cases in the criminal justice system.[4]
[4] Worboyes v The Queen [2021] VSCA 169, [39].
56Over and above your plea of guilty it was submitted that you have demonstrated genuine remorse. This is evidenced in the report of Patrick Newton, the references tendered, and in your own letter to the court. I also note that between your first consultations with Mr Newton in July and August 2022 and the follow-up consultation in February 2023, Mr Newton observes that your insight has developed to the point where your focus had changed to encompass a predominate focus on your remorse for your behaviour and your recognition of the damage you had caused to the victim. In the circumstances, in my view, you have demonstrated a degree of genuine remorse.
57As to the use of good character before the commission of the offence, s 5AA of the Sentencing Act 1991 (‘Sentencing Act’) was discussed during the plea as to whether that provision is engaged in this instance. Section 5AA came into effect on 5 April 2018 in order to give effect to recommendation 74 of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse and states:
…. in sentencing an offender for a child sexual offence, a court must not have regard to the offender’s previous good character or lack of previous findings of guilt or convictions if the court is satisfied the offender’s previous good character or lack of previous findings of guilt or convictions was of assistance to the offender in the commission of the offence.
58Mr Fisher who appeared on behalf of the Director of Public Prosecutions, argued that the section has operation in this instance as you were employed as a teacher in a position of trust.
59While the section is clear in its language that good character must be shown to have been ‘of assistance to the offender in the commission of the offence’, the Second Reading Speech suggests that application may be wider. The then Attorney General stated:
This change will ensure that those who take advantage of their good reputation to commit sexual offences against children cannot then rely upon that reputation to argue for leniency in sentencing.
60In my view there is no evidentiary basis that would enable the court to be ‘satisfied’ that your previous good character was of assistance to you in committing these offences. In other words, there would need to be evidence to demonstrate that your lack of prior criminal history or good character was of assistance in the commission of the offences. That evidence has not been led and as such, I am of the view that the section is not engaged.
61That said, as I understand the way in which the point was put by the prosecution in this instance, even if s 5AA is not directly engaged, the weight that might be given to any previous good character is reduced by the breach of trust inherent in this offending, which was the common law position before the introduction of s 5AA. Nonetheless, the prosecution accepted that your previous good character is of relevance in the assessment of your prospects of rehabilitation, your risk of reoffending and specific deterrence.
62I take into account your relative youth. You were 24 years of age at the time of the offending and are now 25. As such your young age, combined with the fact that you have no prior criminal history, in my view requires rehabilitation to be given greater weight in the sentencing discretion.
63Ms Roodenburg submitted that Verdins principles 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 have application in this case,[5] relying on the fact that your depression at the time impacted your judgement. As discussed at the plea hearing, while the evidence does support the application of Verdins principle 5 in that your psychological profile will make prison more burdensome for you, in my view, the other principles relied on are not established. An analysis of the principles in relation to Verdins 1, 3 and 4 was recently restated in Langton (a pseudonym) v The Queen where the Court reiterated that there must be a causal link or connection between the impairment of mental functioning and the offending, or a realistic connection between the two, without necessarily establishing causation. [6]
[5] (2007) 16 VR 269.
[6] [2022] VSCA 79, [32]-[34].
64In the circumstances, while I do take into account your depressive illness as part of your general circumstances, given the way in which you established the relationship with the victim, the period of your conduct, together with the planning and your appreciation of the consequences before continuing (as expressed to the victim), in my view the requisite connection is not able to be established.
65I turn to your prospects of rehabilitation. You have no prior criminal history, you have been assessed by Mr Newton as being low risk of recidivism, you are developing insight and you have accepted that your career as a teacher is over. Further, you are engaging in courses in custody to assist you in employment when you are released. In all the circumstances, I assess your prospects of rehabilitation as very strong.
66You have served your time on remand under onerous prison conditions as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic and I take this into account. While the conditions have been improving, there is uncertainty as to when the prison environment will revert to normality. As such I accept that the additional burden you have endured over your time on remand as a result of the restrictions, may persist for some time.
67Mr Fisher submitted that general deterrence and denunciation of your conduct are primary sentencing considerations. I agree. Your conduct was motivated by your own sexual desire, knowing that you were breaching your position of trust and influence as a teacher, despite the fact that the victim actively participated. As to specific deterrence, for the reasons articulated above as to your prospects of rehabilitation and lack of prior criminal history, in my view specific deterrence should only be given minimal weight in the sentencing calculus.
68You fall to be sentenced as a serious sexual offender on Charge 3 as you will be receiving a sentence of imprisonment on Charges 1 and 2. However, as Charge 2 is a course of conduct charge, that alone attracts the legislative provision. In those circumstances, pursuant to s 6D(a) of the Sentencing Act, the Court must regard protection of the community as the principle sentencing purpose and may order a disproportionate sentence pursuant to s 6D(b). Further, that the presumption of concurrency is reversed by s 6E. In all the circumstances, while I take these matters into account, having regard to the principles of totality and proportionality, I do not propose to impose a disproportionate sentence, nor does the prosecution seek such a sentence.
69In addition to the matters that I am required to take into account under s 5(2) of the Sentencing Act, I must also take into account that Charge 2 is a standard sentence offence. The standard sentence on Charge 2 is 6 years imprisonment.
70Having identified and considered the relevant factors in assessing the appropriate sentence as part of the instinctive synthesis, including the maximum penalty and the standard sentence, in this case I form the view that the sentence I will impose on Charge 2 falls below the proscribed standard sentence.
71Finally, I take into account that Charge 2 is a course of conduct charge reflecting approximately 15 occasions of sexual penetration with the victim. Section 5(2F)(a) requires that the sentence reflects the totality of the offending.
Sentence
72Ms Beavis, will you please stand.
73Megan Beavis, on Charge 1, grooming for sexual conduct with a child under the age of 16, you are convicted and sentenced to 18 months imprisonment. On Charge 2, sexual penetration of a child under the age of 16, you are convicted and sentenced to 3 years and 6 months imprisonment. On Charge 3, possession of child abuse material, you are convicted and sentenced to 12 months imprisonment.
74On the Related Summary Charge 1, contravene family violence intervention order and Related Summary Charge 3, contravention of a bail condition, you are convicted and sentenced to 1 month imprisonment on each charge.
75I direct that 3 months of the sentence on Charge 1 be cumulative on the sentence imposed on Charge 2 making for a total effective sentence of 3 years and 9 months imprisonment. I direct that you serve 2 years before becoming eligible for parole. The non-parole period is less than 60 percent of the head sentence however pursuant to s 11A(4) of the Sentencing Act, despite the fact that Charge 2 is a standard sentence offence, in all the circumstances, in my view it is not in the interest of justice to set a non-parole period that is a least 60 percent of the relevant term.
76Pursuant to s 18 of the Sentencing Act, I declare that 401 days be reckoned as the period of imprisonment already served under the sentence I have imposed. That does not include today.
77Pursuant to s 6AAA of the Sentencing Act, I indicate that had you not pleaded guilty, I would have sentence you to a period of 5 years and 9 months with a non-parole period of 4 years and 6 months
78Pursuant to the Sex Offenders Registration Act 2004, given the charges to which you have pleaded guilty, you will be required to comply with reporting obligations for life.
2
7
0